Traffic stops and gender

Not so surprising findings:

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas State University researcher's analysis has found that racial profiling is intertwined with gender.

It already was known that white women are less likely to be ticketed, searched or arrested than men. But The Topeka Capital-Journal ( ) reported that sociology doctoral candidate Jeremy Briggs found black and Hispanic women are ticketed, arrested or searched during traffic stops more often than white women and at a level comparable to white men.

Briggs said black drivers overall were more than twice as likely as white drivers to be arrested. The rate was even higher among black men, with them 2 1/2 times as likely as white men to be arrested.

Ticketing....

Stolen straight from reddit (and science daily):

When compared with men, women were 23 percent less likely to be ticketed, 55 percent less likely to be arrested and 76 percent less likely to be searched when stopped by police. Women were more likely to only receive a warning or have no outcome when stopped by police during a traffic stop.

Black and Hispanic drivers were significantly more likely to be searched, ticketed and arrested than white drivers when stopped by police. For example, black drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched or arrested when compared with white drivers. Hispanic drivers were almost three times as likely to be searched when compared with white drivers.

By combining data dealing with race and gender, Briggs found the differences between men and women do not hold up for all races. Out of all racial and ethnic categories of male and female drivers, white women were most likely to receive a perceived benefit in a traffic stop, such as receiving only a warning or no outcome at all. But the same is not true for black and Hispanic women, who were just as likely as white men to be ticketed, arrested or searched instead of receiving a warning or no outcome.

Black and Hispanic men were the most likely to be ticketed, arrested or searched during a traffic stop. Black men were 2.5 times as likely as white men to be arrested and twice as likely to be searched. Hispanic men were 1.5 times as likely as white men to receive a ticket and more than three times as likely to be searched.

"We can't make sense of racial differences without also considering sex and gender," Briggs said. "We have to look at sex and gender at the same time as race and ethnicity because they're connected in important ways. What I found in the case of traffic stops was that racial differences are deeply gendered as well. This connection should be a part of the larger racial profiling discussion."

Sentencing: Sex Offenders edition

Interesting study:

Female sex offenders receive lighter sentences for the same crimes than males says a study recently published in Feminist Criminology, a SAGE journal and the official journal of the Division on Women and Crime of the American Society of Criminology.

Embry and Lyons looked at the sentences that male and female sex offenders received for specific sex offenses and found that even after the implementation of sentencing guidelines to ensure equality in sentencing, on average male sentences were between 6% and 31% longer than female sentences for the same or similar crimes.

"It appears as if the criminal justice system actually treats women more leniently than men," wrote Randa Embry and Phillip M. Lyons, Jr., authors of the study. [...] "This leads to the supposition that women, regardless of the departure from social and gender norms committed in concurrence with the offense for which they are being sentenced, continue to be viewed as individuals who should be protected by the justice system," wrote the researchers. "Obviously, as a social institution, the criminal justice system is reluctant to break those social norms and gender roles in response to atypical gendered behavior."

As I skimmed through the Original, which is

Sex-Based Sentencing: Sentencing Discrepancies Between Male and Female Sex Offenders - Randa Embry and Phillip M. Lyons, Jr. - Feminist Criminology - 2012 7: 146


As previously stated, the prevailing number of studies that address gender differences in sentencing overwhelmingly find women receive more lenient sentences (Blackwell, Holleran, & Finn, 1998; Curry et al., 2004; Daly & Bordt, 1995; Daly & Tonry, 1997; Farnsworth & Teske, 1995; Jeffries et al., 2003; Koons-Witt, 2002; Spohn & Beichner, 2000). Although research has shown that gender does impact sentencing decisions, further exploration has found these differences can be mediated by extralegal factors such as having children and family responsibilities (Koons-Witt, 2002). Koons-Witt found that after accounting for personal characteristics of offenders based on gender roles, such as responsibility for child care (having children), the impact of gender on sentencing decisions of whether or not to incarcerate is diminished. These findings suggest that the chivalry hypothesis does not apply to all women but to those who most closely follow stereotypical gender roles as a parent. This then indirectly may provide support for the selective chivalry hypothesis by way of harsher sentences for those women who do not take on typical gender roles. In an effort to replicate the findings of Koons-Witt’s study in Minnesota, sentencing decisions were evaluated in Ohio to identify possible changes in sentence disparity after implementation of determinate sentencing structures (Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006). Unlike the findings of Koons-Witt, this study found reductions in sentencing disparities after the guidelines were implemented. More important, Griffin and Wooldredge found no support for the chivalry hypothesis and focal concerns model when it comes to extralegal factors such as having a dependent child. No significant differences were found for those women being sentenced who had children versus those who did not have children.[...]

Even after the implementation of determinate sentencing, it appears judges are more apt to consider extralegal factors for women when making sentencing decisions (Williams, 1999). By examining adult felony case files in Florida, Williams observed that judges were more likely to consider only legally relevant factors such as criminal history or offense and case-based factors for men, whereas extralegal determinations were taken into consideration to determine penalties of female offenders, allowing a downward departure from sentencing guidelines put in place in the state of Florida.[...]

However, it can be argued that the most compelling case for the selective chivalry hypothesis or evil woman theory stems from the examination of more specific behaviors as they apply to traditional gender roles. Unfortunately, those studies that examine sentencing differences between male and female offenders have typically found little to no support for the theory (Farnsworth & Teske, 1995; Mustard, 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993).

[...]

When all variables, sex, sentence length, and offense category, were considered, a significant difference was recognized in sentence length, and mean sentence length for men was longer, indicating a harsher penalty for the same or similar offense. Standardized scores for length of sentence with regard to sex offenses in general showed a mean of 8.42 for men as opposed to 7.92 for women. In addition, those specific offenses, which found a significant difference in sentence length, rape, child sexual assault, and forcible sodomy, showed a mean standardized sentence length of 9.38, 7.88, and 9.04 for men, as opposed to 8.83, 7.41, and most notably, 6.23, respectively (Table 2). In no instance were women sentenced to longer or more severe sentences with regard to any sex offense.

Some studies about sentencing disparities....

The usual stuff I post about:

RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND GENDER DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING: EVIDENCE FROM THE U.S. FEDERAL COURTS - DAVID B. MUSTARD - 2001

This paper examines 77,236 federal offenders sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and concludes the following. First, after controlling for extensive criminological, demographic, and socioeconomic variables, I found that blacks, males, and offenders with low levels of education and income receive substantially longer sentences. Second, disparities are primarily generated by departures from the guidelines, rather than differential sentencing within the guidelines. Departures produce about 55 percent of the
black-white difference and 70 percent of the male-female difference. Third, although black-white disparities occur across offenses, the largest differences are for drug trafficking. The Hispanic-white disparity is generated primarily by those convicted of drug
trafficking and firearm possession/trafficking. Last, blacks and males are also less likely to get no prison term when that option is available; less likely to receive downward departures; and more likely to receive upward adjustments and, conditioned on having a
downward departure, receive smaller reductions than whites and females.[...]

Its primary conclusion is that after including more exhaustive controls than any previous study, large differences in the length of
sentence exist on the basis of race, gender, education, income, and citizenship. These disparities occur in spite of explicit statements in the guidelines that these characteristics should not affect the sentence length.

Second, over half of the unaccounted-for differences are generated by departures from the guidelines, rather than from differential sentencing within the guidelines. This is the first study to decompose the differences in this manner. Third, the differences by race, gender, income, and citizenship exist across offense types. The racial and gender disparities are largest for bank robbery and
drug trafficking. Most of the difference between Hispanics and whites is from two crimes—drug trafficking and firearm possession and trafficking. The educational differences are generated primarily by drug trafficking and are not statistically significant for other offenses.

Fourth, these racial, gender, income, and education disparities occur along many other margins. Blacks and males not only receive longer sentences but also are less likely to receive no prison term when that option is available, more likely to receive upward departures, and less likely to receive downward departures. When downward departures are given, blacks and males receive smaller
adjustments than whites and females. Furthermore, low-income offenders are less likely to receive downward departures and more likely to receive upward departures. When downward departures are given, the poorest offenders receive especially small reductions in their sentences. Similarly, highly educated offenders are more likely to receive downward departures, less likely to receive upward departures, and receive relatively large downward departures. Being a U.S. citizen consistently helps in all sentencing scenarios. Offenders who are citizens receive shorter sentences for most crimes, are less likely to be incarcerated, are more likely to receive downward departures, and typically receive larger downward departures than noncitizens. Previous studies have tested whether individuals of some groups receive longer sentences than those in other groups, but no other study has examined differential sentencing on these other margins.

Pretty good pretty huge study. The most important part seems to be "disparities are primarily generated by departures from the guidelines". What does that mean? Well as for discrimination against men, this means that women would receive sentencing according to the guidelines, while men receive longer sentences. This would suggest that this is sexism against men than the benevolent sexism argument brought forward by some feminists (that women receive lighter sentences due to chivalry). Next one:

Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses? - S. Fernando Rodriguez, Theodore R. Curry, Gang Lee - 2006

In the early 1980s, Candace Kruttschnitt and Donald E. Green (1984:541) wondered whether, compared to males, the leniency typically
accorded females at sentencing might become ‘‘history.’’ However, the potential demise of gender-based preferential treatment has not come to fruition. To the contrary, findings that women receive milder sentences than men continue, with few exceptions, to be robust. For example, extensive literature reviews by Daly and Bordt (1995) and by Steffensmeier, Kramer, and Streifel (1993) stress the strength and consistency of the association between gender and sentencing and its relevance for scholars seeking to understand sentencing outcomes. Furthermore, when compared to other extra-legal factors, such as offender age or race/ethnicity, the influence of offender gender is touted as the most powerful by both Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer (1998) and Spohn and Holleran (2000; see also Daly and Bordt, 1995).[...]

The prediction that females will receive milder sentencing outcomes receives such consistent support from a wide range of studies done since the 1980s, and encompassing many different jurisdictions in the United States, that it may be one of the best established facts regarding criminal justice outcomes. This research shows that the greatest disparity among the sexes occurs at the ‘‘in/out decision’’—whether criminal sentences entail incarceration or some nonincarcerative sanction, such as probation. Research findings typically show that females are between 12 percent and 23 percent less likely than males to receive prison or jail time (see Farnworth and Teske, 1995; Ghali and Chesney-Lind, 1986; Gruhl, Welch, and Spohn, 1984; Johnson, Kennedy, and Shuman, 1987; Mustard, 2001; Nobiling, Spohn, and DeLone, 1998; Spohn, 1999; Spohn and Beichner, 2000; Spohn and Holleran, 2000; Steffensmeier, Kramer, and Streifel, 1993; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer, 1998; Ulmer, 2000; Wooldredge, 1998; but see Kruttschnitt and Green, 1984). Yet, for those men and women who do receive prison sentences, gender effects, while strong, are not as consistent. Females receive shorter or less severe sentences according to the findings of Bushway and Piehl (2001), Curran (1983), Engen and Gainey (2000), Farnworth and Teske (1995), Mustard (2001), Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer (1998), and Ulmer (2000), but no gender differences in sentence length were observed by Albonetti (1991), Crew (1991), Nobiling, Spohn, and DeLone (1998), Steffensmeier, Kramer, and Streifel (1993), or Wooldredge (1998).

Our analyses employed a large, representative sample of convicted felony offenders in Texas in 1991 in what were then the seven largest metropolitan counties. Overall, the results provide a number of interesting, though somewhat complex, findings. On one
hand, when crimes are analyzed collectively, and consistent with most prior research, we find that men are more likely to receive a prison sentence than women (odds ratios 42.00), and for individuals sentenced to prison, men receive sentences that average 3.22 years longer than do women. [...] For the in/out decisions we analyzed, the odds of incarceration are more than two times higher for men compared to women for property and drug crimes, but no gender differences in incarceration likelihood are observed for violent offenses. [...] Moving to the analyses of sentence length, we again find that the effect of gender on sentencing severity shows considerable variation across crime type; however, this variation is at odds with that found for the in/out decision. Specifically, whereas gender differences at the in/out decision were nonexistent for violent crime, for the sentence-length decision, gender dif-
ferences are greatest for violent offenders. More specifically, male violent offenders receive, on average, an additional 4.49 years on their sentences compared to women, while gender differences for property and drug crime (3.14 and 2.35 years, respectively) are considerably lower. Because the more serious and more masculine crime of violence yields the largest benefit for women, these results are in opposition to the predictions of the selective chivalry and liberation theses, and more in line with previous findings re-
garding the effect of gender on sentencing for different crime types (Farnworth and Teske, 1995; Koons-Witt, 2002; Mustard, 2001; Steffensmeier, Kramer, and Streifel, 1993).

The data surrounding the differences here seem so solid, I might have to retire blogging about it as it seems most thinks worthwhile have been said. And finally, a whole book chapter:

How Do Judges Decide? - SENTENCING DISPARITY AND DISCRIMINATION - A focus on gender - Cassia C. Spohn - 2002

• Of all offenders convicted in U.S. district courts in 2003, 82.8 percent of the males were sentenced to prison but only 57.5 percent of the females. Among offenders convicted of violent crimes, 95.0 percent of the males and 76.4 percent of the females were incarcerated. For these offenses, the average sentence was 90.7 months for men and 42.5 months for women (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online 2003 N.d., tables 5.20.2003 and 5.21.2000).

• Forty-two percent of the male offenders sentenced by state court judges in 2004 were sentenced to prison, compared with 27 percent of the female offenders. The average maximum prison sentence was 61 months for males and 42 months for females (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2007g, tables 2.4 and 2.6).

• There were 3,228 prisoners under sentence of death on December 31, 2006; of these, only 51 were women (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2007a, tables 4 and 12).

• Among offenders convicted of felonies in 1994 in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, 28.3 percent of the females and 63.9 percent of the males were sentenced to prison. The corresponding proportions of
offenders who were incarcerated in Jackson County (Kansas City), Missouri, were 16 percent (females) and 45 percent (males). The figures for Dade County (Miami), Florida, were 60.2 percent (females)
and 69.2 percent (males) (Spohn and Beichner 2000).

[...]

We tested these underlying assumptions using data on offenders convicted of felonies in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, in 1993. To test the assumption that gender differences will disappear when crime seriousness and prior record are held constant, we compared the sentences imposed on male and female
offenders who were convicted of the same offense (possession of drugs with intent to deliver) and who had no prior felony convictions. As shown in Part A of Exhibit 4.5, males were still twice as likely as females to be sentenced to prison; 33.6 percent of the males were incarcerated but only 17.4 percent of the females. The mean prison sentence for men (48.6 months) was also slightly longer than the mean sentence for women (45.0 months). [...]

We used logistic regression to analyze the likelihood of incarceration, controlling for the offender’s gender, the seriousness of the conviction charge (11 different types of offenses), the statutory classification of the conviction charge (Class X, Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 felony), and the offender’s prior criminal record (the number of prior felony convictions and the number of prior prison terms of more than 1 year). We found that gender was a statistically significant predictor of the decision to incarcerate or not. In fact, judges were 2.5 times more likely to sentence male offenders to prison than to sentence female offenders to prison, even when we held these legally relevant factors constant.

We used the results of this analysis to calculate the predicted probability of incarceration for “typical” male and female offenders: offenders who had been convicted of Class 2 offenses, had been convicted of either possession of drugs or possession of drugs with intent to deliver, and had one prior felony conviction but had not previously been imprisoned for more than 1 year. As shown in Part B of Exhibit 4.5, there were large differences in the predicted probabilities of incarceration for males and females convicted of these two types of drug offenses. Nearly two thirds (61.9 percent) of the males convicted of possession with intent were sentenced to prison but only 38.1 percent of the
females. There were similar differences for simple possession: 52.7 percent of the men and 29.5 percent of the women were incarcerated.

These results suggest that gender disparities in sentence severity cannot be attributed to differences between men and women in crime seriousness, prior criminal record, dangerousness, and child care responsibilities. Holding these characteristics constant did not cause the sentence differences to disappear.

There simply was too much data to summarize, so before I come to the conclusion, the part about capitl punishment was interesting:

Williams, Demuth, and Holcomb (2007) used the data collected by David Baldus and his colleagues (i.e., the data used in the “Baldus study” that was at issue in the Supreme Court case of McCleskey v. Kemp) to examine the effect of the victim’s gender on death penalty decisions in Georgia. [...] The authors of this study found that the gender of the victim was a statistically significant predictor of death penalty decisions in Georgia, net of controls for crime seriousness, the offender’s prior record, and other legally relevant factors. Offenders convicted of crimes against females were more than two and a half times more likely to be sentenced to death than offenders convicted of crimes against males (Williams et al. 2007:877). Further analysis revealed an interaction between the gender of the victim and the race of the victim. Although offenders who killed black males faced lower odds of a death sentence than did offenders who killed black females, white males, and white females, the differences were particularly pronounced for those who killed white females. Offenders convicted of murdering white females were more than 14 times more likely to be sentenced to death than were offenders con- victed of murdering black males (Williams et al. 2007:878, table 2).

Similar results were found in Holcomb, Williams, and Demuth’s (2004) study of Ohio death penalty decisions. As shown in Exhibit 4.8, cases with white female victims made up 15.3 percent of all homicides but 35.5 percent of the cases that resulted in a death sentence; conversely, cases with black male victims made up 42.9 percent of all homicides but only 18.8 percent of all death sentences. These differences did not disappear when the authors tested a multivariate model that controlled for the race and age of the offender, the age of the victim, the number of victims, whether a gun was used in the commis- sion of the crime, whether the victim and offender were strangers, and whether the offense involved the commission of another felony. In fact, compared with cases involving white female victims, the odds of receiving a death sentence were 78 percent lower in cases involving a black male victim, 68 percent lower in cases with a white male victim, and 66 percent lower in cases with a black
female victim (Holcomb et al. 2004:892–893). These findings led the authors to conclude that “a central factor in understanding existing racial disparity in death sentences may be the severity with which those who kill white females are treated relative to other gender–race victim combinations” (p. 898).

And finally the conclusion:

There is compelling evidence of gender disparity in sentencing. Women are substantially less likely than men to be sentenced to prison, women who are incarcerated receive significantly shorter prison terms than men, and women make up less than 2 percent of the death row population. There is also evidence that these differences, which do not disappear when crime seriousness, prior criminal record, and other legally relevant factors are taken into consideration, reflect discrimination in favor of women. The fact that studies of sentencing in federal and state courts found a consistent pattern of preferential treatment of female offenders—coupled with the fact that the gender differences uncovered were large—suggests that contemporary judges evaluate female offenders differently than male offenders. There also is evidence that jurors evaluate cases involving female victims, especially white female victims, differently from cases involving male victims: They are more likely to sentence those who kill females to death. Although some judges and researchers claim there are legitimate reasons for treating women differently from men and for treating those who victimize females differently from those who victimize males, these results suggest that gender discrimination in sentencing is not a thing of the past.

Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence Because You Are a Woman?

New study. Let us dive into it:

Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence Because You Are a Woman? An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines - 2007

The Federal criminal sentencing guidelines struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 required that males and females who commit the same crime and have the same prior criminal record be sentenced equally. Using data obtained from the United States Sentencing Commission’s records, we examine whether there exists any gender-based bias in criminal sentencing decisions. We treat months in prison as a censored variable in order to account for the frequent outcome of no prison time. Additionally, we control for the self-selection of the defendant into guilty pleas through use of an endogenous switching regression model. A new decomposition methodology is employed. Our results indicate that women receive more lenient sentences even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history.

[...] We …find that women receive prison sentences that average a little over 2 years less than those awarded to men. Even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history, women receive more lenient sentences. Approximately 9.5 months of the female advantage cannot be explained by gender differences in individual circumstances. In other words if women faced the same sentencing structure as men, women would on average receive 15.4 months less prison time than men rather than 24.9 months less prison time. Most of the gender gap arises from convictions via guilty pleas, which account for the vast majority of the convictions observed in our data. Besides gender, we …nd evidence that judges took into account factors such as family circumstances which are expressly prohibited from consideration when awarding sentences.

And finally some good ol' fashioned sexism from Ireland...

The law...oh it is biased sometimes:

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgement upholding the constitutionality of a law that allows teenage boys - but not teenage girls - to be prosecuted for having underage sex. [...] Under the 2006 Act "teenage boys can be held criminally liable for having sexual intercourse with an underage girl" while teenage girls are immune from prosecution.

The reason?

His lawyers argued the so called "romeo and juliet" law discriminates against him on gender grounds, as it assumes the male is the guilty predator and the female is the "innocent comely maiden".

In 2010 the High Court rejected his challenge because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences.

There is so much wrong with this....

Crazy child support case

I don't usually blog cases, but that is just too crazy. Via F&F:

She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. [...] In 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care and both children were taken from her and given to their dads.

So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10,000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don’t pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that’s usually the case, but not here. Here, Jon must continue paying Sarah $8,000 a month even though she only sees the child 4% of the time.

[...]Sarah answered Jon’s request for a reduction of child support by saying it’s her only income, which apparently it is. That’s because she hasn’t had a job of any kind since 2005. Into the bargain, she’s not looking for one. In her last filing, she listed her monthly income (outside of child support) as zero and her monthly expenses as over $13,000.

So, according to both the trial and the appellate courts, because Sarah is too much of a deadbeat to even attempt to support herself, Jon must continue to support her with the child providing the weakest of pretexts for doing so.

I don't even....what? Read the original...it is a good article.

Sentencing disparities in child-sex-assault cases point to double standard - The Denver Post

No surprise here:

A Denver Post analysis of sentencing data provided by the Colorado Judicial Branch shows that of the 2,128 men convicted of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust from 2006 through 2010, more than 50 percent were sent to prison.
Of the 79 women convicted of the same felony offense, 38 percent went to prison. A little more than 39 percent of female defendants in that same period — 31 — were put on intensive supervised probation. Less than 35 percent of men were given the same sentence.

[...]Several studies show that males molested by female caregivers run a huge risk of becoming sex offenders in adulthood. Also, 80 percent of male victims of female sexual abuse have been divorced, according to a study done by Stephanie Reidlinger, a law student at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Va.
Her study says that women who molest boys are most likely victims of abuse themselves. Reidlinger also says that many cases of woman-on- boy crimes are not reported at all, due in part to the media.

In 2011 really?

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a gender-based discrimination law that treats men and women differently when it comes to citizenship [...] Currently, children born overseas who have one U.S.-citizen parent can obtain U.S. citizenship if the citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. for a certain period of time before the child’s birth, according to the Supreme Court's blog.

If the citizen parent is the father, the period is five years; if it is the mother, the period is one year. - from here

And Justice for all...

Shamelessly stolen from Glenn's blog. 2 studies (although it is more of the same):

Blacks and males not only receive longer sentences but also are less likely to receive no prison term when that option is available, more likely to receive upward departures, and less likely to receive downward departures. When downward departures are given, blacks and males receive smaller adjustments than whites and females. - from here 

And the other one:

A study of 300 simulated court cases shows that experienced judges, lay assessors, prosecutors, police officers, and lawyers make decisions and convict defendants differently depending on whether they are men or women and what the defendant looks like. Eyewitnesses to crimes are also affected by these factors. This is especially pronounced if there is an extended period of time separating the crime and the testimony.
[...]

Among other things, it was shown that judges and lay assessors both assessed and judged accused individuals of the same gender as themselves more severely than the opposite gender. On the other hand, prosecutors, lawyers, police officers, and law students, regardless of their own gender, evaluated male defendants more harshly than women defendants.

[...]

A study of eyewitnesses to a fictive crime shows that male perpetrators are judged more severely than equally violent female perpetrators. If two weeks goes by after the witnessing of the crime, gender plays an even greater role. A man will be judged even more sternly than a woman, which means that when our memory does not serve, we tend to remember more in accordance with the image, or stereotype, we have in our minds. - from here

Three woman caned for having extramaterial sex

An article I found via feministing, which highlights whom we care about. The news here is that women got caned, the article just dropped the men that were caned as well (and probably more harshly). Some quotes from other articles:

Malaysian authorities said Wednesday that officials caned four Muslim men and, for the first time, three Muslim women this month after being found guilty of having sex out of wedlock. [...] All seven were found guilty of illicit sex and sentenced by a Shariah court in the Kuala Lumpur area between December 2009 and January 2010. [...] Two of the women and the four men were struck six times, while the other woman was struck four times. Mr. Hishammuddin said that a doctor was present at the canings, which took place in male and female prisons, and that the offenders weren't tied. The women were seated while they were struck, and no injuries were reported. The idea, the officials previously have said, is to humiliate rather than injure—unlike the canings administered to drug pushers and other violators of civil laws, which can sometimes leave deep scars.

“It was carried out perfectly.” Hishammuddin said in a statement. “Even though the caning did not injure them (the women), they said it caused pain within them.” [...] Under these laws, the women have to be whipped in a seated position by a female prison guard and be fully clothed. Sex out of marriage is considered illegal under Islamic law and punishments can range from a fine to six strokes of the cane or both.

So to summarize, although caning affects more men than women, once women get punished as well there is an uproar. I am not surprised here. Hopefully that uproar leads to abolishing that kind of punishment (and not just for women).

I am speechless (almost)

Found via Reddit - Thanks guys!

It is not a secret that the judical system is stacked against men, compared to women. That however, published by the US Department of Justice seems to be a new low.

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges

Published June 2009

Although some sociological research [202] based on self-reporting finds equal rates of male and female partner conflict (including mostly minor physical assaults), behavior that is likely to violate most state and federal criminal and civil (protective order) statutes is typically perpetrated by males. [153]

Part by part.

Although some sociological research [202] based on self-reporting finds equal rates of male and female partner conflict (including mostly minor physical assaults)

If we follow that link to "some sociological research" we find their source to be:

Straus, M., R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980

Yes that is correct, 3 DECADES ago there was only some sociological research, now we have

271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.  

Again they talk about CURRENT domestic violence research in the headline and link to a book that is 30 years old even IGNORING the National Violence Against Women Survey, financed by them, which found 40% of DV victims were men. Ignoring research that finds that among injured DV victims about 33-40% are men. The DoJ seems to be so up-to-date, that I am surprised to find no articles about witchcraft there.

behavior that is likely to violate most state and federal criminal and civil (protective order) statutes is typically perpetrated by males.

Not correct, that behaviour by women is typically reported not perpetrated less. The report then cites several crime studies that come to a similar conclusion. The problem remains the same, men don´t tell. And again there are several studies that come to this conclusion. Some examples,

37% of female victims of DV called the police only 15% of men did (Family violence in Canada - 2003)


17% of male victims of DV seeked helped with "formal social agencies" compared to 48% of female victims (Canadian General Social Survey - 1999)


Female victims are 9-time as likely to call the police and 5-time as likely to talk to a relative or friend than male victims (National family Violence Survey - 1985)


8% of male victims called the police compared to 22% of female victims (British Crime Survey - 1996)

47% Of female victims and 16% of male victims called the police. Only 39% of male victims defined their expierience as domestic violence but 77% of women did. (Scottish Crime Survey - 2000)

Often victimised men are not taken serious by the police (Farrell - 1993 | Wilkinson - Children and divorce - 1981) and often that leads to men not reporting their victimisation (Steinmetz - The battered husband syndrome - 1980 | Machietto - Aspects of male victimisation and female aggression - 1992)
 
Women are more likely to report minor cases to officials: Only 25% of all cases reported by women were severe cases compared to 86% of cases reported by men. Men were injured in most of this cases and most of this cases also involved weapons (most often knives) (McLeod - Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data - 1984)

more on that topic here. Of course you don´t know that if you ignore 30 years of ongoing research. It gets much worse.

Implications for Law Enforcement

If the ratio of male to female suspects and victims differs substantially from those found above, departments should be alert to potential gender bias in their response to domestic violence. Ongoing training and supervision can address overrepresentation of female versus male arrests. (Research basis: Multiple studies of abusers and their victims brought to the attention of the criminal justice system [including civil protective orders] confirm the gender ratio as opposed to studies focusing on non-intimate and family conflict.)

Implications for Prosecutors

Prosecutors should be alert to gender bias in the response of local law enforcement agencies and re-screen cases if the percentage of female suspects accused of abusing male victims exceeds that commonly found across the nation. (Research basis: Multiple studies of abusers and their victims brought to the attention of the criminal justice system [including civil protective orders] confirm the gender ratio as opposed to studies focusing on non-intimate and family conflict.)

Implications for Judges

If, upon reviewing domestic violence dockets, judges find much higher rates of female-on-male abuse cases than those typically found across the country as a whole, they should be alert to potential gender bias on the part of police and/or prosecutors and ensure that they are presented with sufficient evidence to confirm the correct designation of victims and their abusers. (Research basis: Multiple studies of abusers and their victims brought to the attention of the criminal justice system [including civil protective orders] confirm the gender ratio as opposed to studies focusing on non-intimate and family conflict.)

From a logical standpoint, it shouldn´t matter if Jane Doe or John Doe beats his/her partner. The one who commits the violent should be punished. Well apparently one has to factchect to make sure a set quota of female perpetrators is met, probably discriminating against male victims and creating a self-fullfilling prophecy. They should know better. Why? Because they know.

Crime statistics are all fine and dandy, but when it comes to DV or rape, this kind of study finds less victims, simply because victims often don´t see themselves as victims of a crime (the usual excuses, "it was my fault", "my partner just has a bad temper, but really loves me", "I probably deserved this" etc.) as stated above, this effect is even worse when it comes to men. But here is the double standard, when it is women, we forget about the crime statistic and look at our own sociological research (which also finds far more male victims), but when it is men, suddenly we are teleported back in the 80s, forget about all the social research (even our own) and only take a look at the crime statistics, doing everything we can to keep our quota. In short, discrimination at its worst.

I wrote an Email, you might want to write one, too.

Judical bias, better be a woman.

A collection of articles.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics 
Executive Summary September 1995, NCJ-156831

Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban Counties

(Note: This file does not contain graphics or tables. The full report may be ordered using the title and NCJ number above by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277.)

Highlights

Number of spouse murder defendants and their demographic characteristics

In 1988 the justice system in the Nation's 75 largest counties disposed of an estimated 540 spouse murder cases. Husbands charged with killing their wife outnumbered wives charged with killing their husband. Of the
540, 318--or 59%--were husband defendants and 222--or 41%--were wife defendants.

Blacks comprised 55% of the 540 defendants, and whites comprised 43%. Among husband defendants 51% were black and 45% were white. Among wife defendants 61% were black and 39% were white. In 97%
of the murders, both spouses were the same race.

Ages of spouse murder defendants ranged from 18 to 87. The average age was 39. The average age of husband defendants was 41; of wife defendants, 37 years.

Arrest charge

First-degree murder was the most frequent charge at arrest, accounting for 70% of defendants. In descending order of seriousness, charges were distributed this way across the 540 spouse murder defendants:

70% first-degree murder
24% second-degree murder
6% nonnegligent manslaughter

How the justice system disposed of spouse murder cases

Cases were disposed of in one of three ways:

(1) the prosecutor declined to prosecute; or
(2) the defendant pleaded not guilty, stood trial, and was either acquitted or convicted; or
(3) the defendant pleaded guilty.

Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 232--or 43%--pleaded guilty to killing their spouse, and 238--44%--pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The remaining 70 persons--or 13%--were not prosecuted.

Outcome for spouse murder defendants who pleaded not guilty and stood trial

Of the 238 who pleaded not guilty, 63% were tried by a jury and the remaining 37% were tried by a judge. Together, judges and juries acquitted 16% of the 238 spouse murder defendants and convicted 84%--or 199 persons--of killing their spouse.

Bench trials (trials before a judge) had a higher acquittal rate than jury trials: 26% of bench trials ended in acquittal, versus 11% of jury trials.

Defendants convicted of killing their spouse

Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 431 (or 80%) were ultimately convicted of killing their spouse. Their conviction was the result of either pleading guilty (232 persons) or being convicted at trial (199 persons).

While most persons arrested (70%) for spouse murder were charged with first-degree murder, most persons convicted (52%) of spouse murder had negligent or nonnegligent manslaughter as their conviction offense.

Sentences for defendants convicted of killing their spouse

Of the 431 defendants convicted of killing their spouse, 89% were sentenced to a State prison, 1% were sentenced to a county jail, and the remaining 10% received a sentence of straight probation (no prison or jail
confinement).

An estimated 12% of the 431 convicted spouse murderers received a sentence to life imprisonment and 1% received the death penalty.

Excluding life and death sentences, the average prison term imposed was 13 years.

Wife defendants less likely to be convicted

Wife defendants had a lower conviction rate than husband defendants--

* Of the 222 wife defendants, 70% were convicted of killing their mate. By contrast, of the 318 husband defendants, 87% were convicted of spouse murder.

* Of the 100 wife defendants tried by either a judge or jury, 31% were acquitted. But of the 138 husband defendants tried, 6% were acquitted.

* Of the 59 wife defendants tried by a jury, 27% were acquitted. But of the estimated 91 husband defendants tried by a jury, none was acquitted.

Convicted wife defendants sentenced less severely

An estimated 156 wives and 275 husbands were convicted of killing their spouse. Convicted wives were less likely than convicted husbands to be sentenced to prison, and convicted wives received shorter prison sentences than their male counterparts--

* 81% of convicted wives but 94% of convicted husbands received a prison sentence.

* On average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands.

* Among wives sentenced to prison, 15% received a sentence of 20 years or more (including life imprisonment and the death penalty); among husbands, it was 43%.

Victim provocation more often  present in wife defendant cases

According to information contained in prosecutor files, more wife defendants (44%) than husband defendants (10%) had been assaulted by their spouse (threatened with a weapon or physically assaulted) at or around the time of the murder.

Self-defense as possible explanation for wives' lower conviction rate

In certain circumstances, extreme victim provocation may justify taking a life in self-defense. Provocation was more often present in wife defendant cases, and wife defendants were less likely than husband
defendants to be convicted, suggesting that the relatively high rate of victim provocation characteristic of wife defendant cases was one of the reasons wife defendants had a lower conviction rate than
husband defendants. Consistent with that, of the provoked wife defendants, 56% were convicted, significantly lower than either the 86% conviction rate for unprovoked wife defendants or the 88% conviction rate
for unprovoked husbands.

No explanation for why State prison sentences were, on average, 10 years shorter for wife defendants than husband defendants

Wives received shorter prison sentences than husbands (a 10-year difference, on average) even when the comparison is restricted to defendants who were alike in terms of whether or not they were
provoked--

* The average prison sentence for unprovoked wife defendants was 7 years, or 10 years shorter than the average 17 years for unprovoked husband defendants.

Victim's race unrelated to outcomes

The victim was black in 55% of cases and white in 43%. The likelihood of a defendant being convicted of spouse murder was about the same whether the murder victim was white or black. Among spouse murder
defendants whose victim was white, 81% were convicted. Among those whose victim was black, 79% were convicted.

Likewise, the sentence was unrelated to the victim's race. The likelihood of a convicted spouse murderer receiving a prison sentence was about the same whether the murder victim was white or black: the convicted spouse murderer was sentenced to prison in 93% of cases where the victim was white, not significantly different from the 87% of cases where the victim was black. The length of the prison sentence imposed on a convicted spouse murderer was generally unrelated to whether the murder victim was white or black--

* For conviction for first-degree murder, the average prison term (excluding life and death sentences) was 29 years in white-victim cases, not significantly different from the 32 years in black-victim cases

* For conviction for second-degree murder, the average prison term (excluding life sentences) was 19 years in white-victim cases, significantly longer than the 13 years in black-victim cases. However, 23% of
convicted second-degree murder defendants in black-victim cases received a sentence of life imprisonment, compared to 8% of defendants in white-victim cases.

* For conviction for nonnegligent manslaughter, the average prison term (excluding life sentences) was 8 years in white-victim cases, not significantly different from the average 6 years in black-victim cases.

Defendant's race unrelated to outcomes

The likelihood of conviction, and of a prison sentence if convicted, and the length of the prison sentence were about the same whether the spouse murder defendant was white or black--

* 78% of white defendants were convicted, not significantly different from the 80% of black defendants.

* Among convicted spouse murderers, 93% of white defendants were sentenced to prison, not significantly different from the 88% of black defendants.

Processing time

Three measures of processing time were taken from the day of the murder--to arrest, to indictment, and to final disposition. Most spouse murder defendants were arrested on the same day the killing occurred. Average time to indictment was 4 months. Average time to final disposition was almost exactly 1 year.

For husbands tried by a jury, 12. months was the average elapsed time from the day of the murder to the conclusion of the jury trial. For wives tried by a jury it was significantly longer, about 18. months.

Methodology

This study is based upon a systematic sample of murder cases disposed of in the 75 most populous counties in 1988. A case was considered disposed if the prosecutor screened it out, if the defendant pleaded guilty,
or if the defendant went to trial and was either convicted or acquitted.  The 75 are where a little over half of all murders in the Nation occur.

Spouse murder defendants in the sample were drawn from State prosecutor files in 33 of the 75 counties. The counties were widely scattered, from Los Angeles and San Diego, Denver and Dallas, to Philadelphia and Dade County (Miami). For each defendant, data collectors filled out a lengthy questionnaire and prepared a brief narrative from file information. Prosecutor files include such items as the police arrest report, investigator
reports, and information on how the case was disposed. Questionnaires and narratives are the sources of data for this report.

The same database used in this report was previously analyzed by John M. Dawson and Barbara Boland (Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988, BJS Special Report, NCJ-140614, May 1993) and by John M. Dawson and Patrick A. Langan (Murder in Families, BJS Special Report, NCJ-143498, July 1994). - from here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexism and the death chamber
Chivalry lives when a woman must die.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Cathy Young



May 4, 2000 | On Tuesday night in Varner, Ark., 28-year-old Christina Marie Riggs was executed for the 1997 murders of her two small children. She was given a lethal injection of potassium chloride, the drug she had originally planned to use to kill her children. (She suffocated them after a botched attempt of the drugging plan.)
Riggs, a former nurse, was put to death despite pleas for her life from anti-death-penalty groups including Amnesty International and the American Civil Libertes Union. In fact, there was little difference between the execution of Riggs and the other 28 executions carried out in the United States so far this year, except that Riggs, who said she wanted to die to be with her "babies," had refused to appeal her sentence or to seek clemency from Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
And yet her death was much bigger news.


The cause for intense public soul-searching and beating of breasts was not the nature of Riggs' crime or her wish to die. It was her gender. It was, for all intents and purposes, a demonstration of garden-variety sexism. And this isn't the first time our hypocrisy has been blatantly displayed.


Riggs was the first woman to be executed in Arkansas in 150 years, and only the fifth executed in the nation since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the ban on capital punishment in 1976. Obviously, the very rarity of women's executions makes them newsworthy. But this is only the statistical manifestation of the stubborn gender discrimination that taints our attitude about capital punishment in this country.
Whether one sees the death penalty as justice or barbarism (and, for the record, I have no moral objection to imposing it for premeditated murder, though the risk of the state taking an innocent life is troubling enough to warrant opposition to the practice), surely the perpretrator's gender should be irrelevant.


But that is not the way it works in the real world. We are consistently more likely to seek mitigating circumstances for women's heinous deeds, to see female criminals as disturbed or victimized rather than evil. The thought of a woman in the death chamber makes people cringe -- even those who have no problem with sending a man to his death for his crimes.


It appears that chivalry still lives when a woman must die.


Two years ago, there were many more headlines and much more debate as Karla Faye Tucker awaited execution in Texas for a brutal double murder. Tucker had become a born-again Christian and her clemency petition was backed by such unusual suspects as Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson, Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell and right-wing hero Oliver North -- all generally pro-capital punishment.


While most of Tucker's champions insisted that redemption and not womanhood was the issue, none had intervened on behalf of male murderers who had experienced similar death-row conversions. And there was ample evidence to suggest that the support for "this sweet woman of God," as Robertson put it, was not entirely gender-neutral.


On CNN's "Crossfire," when asked if the crusade to save Tucker was an instance of "misplaced chivalry," North gallantly replied, "I don't think chivalry can ever be misplaced" -- though he went on to insist that "gender is not a factor." Meanwhile, on the left, the chivalrous Geraldo Rivera dispensed with any pretense of neutrality and issued a bizarre plea to Texas Gov. George W. Bush on his CNBC show: "Please, don't let this happen. This is -- it's very unseemly. Texas, manhood, macho swagger ... What are ya, going to kill a lady? Oh, jeez. Why?"


The lady in question, by the way, had used a pickax to dispatch two sleeping people (one of whom had made her angry by parking his motorbike in her living room) and later bragged that she experienced an orgasm with every swing.



Some criminal justice experts, such as Victor Streib, dean of the law college at Ohio Northern University, argue that the double standard favoring women kicks in long before the final death watch, and that women offenders are "screened out at all levels of the system." Women commit about 10 percent of all murders in the U.S., yet receive only about 2 percent of the death sentences and account for about 1 percent of death-row inmates, since their sentences are more often commuted or reversed.


True, numbers don't tell the whole story. Male killers are more likely to have committed the kinds of crimes that make them eligible for a death sentence, from cop-killing to murder during the commission of another crime such as robbery. When women kill, their victims are more likely to be family members, including their own children -- which, rightly or not, tends to be treated as a lesser crime.


Still, it is worth noting that while women commit nearly 30 percent of spousal murders (excluding homicides ruled to be in self-defense), they account for only 15 percent of prisoners sentenced to death for killing a spouse.


And the disparity between the treatment of male and female defendants can be stunning when you look beyond the numbers. In 1995, Texas executed Jesse Dewayne Jacobs for a murder that, by the prosecutors' admission, was committed by his sister Bobbie Jean Hogan. It was Hogan who had gotten her brother to help her abduct Etta Ann Urdiales -- her boyfriend's ex-wife who was making vexatious demands for child support -- and who had actually pulled the trigger.


When Hogan went on trial, separately from her brother and co-conspirator, her lawyers managed to persuade the jury that the gun went off accidentally and obtained a verdict of involuntary manslaughter. She received a 10-year prison sentence.


Maybe we don't know for certain that gender bias played a role in these different outcomes. Two male accomplices in a crime can receive strikingly disparate sentences, since much depends on the personalities of the jurors and the quality of the defense. But it's hardly a stretch to conclude that gender matters. Jurors may not intentionally go easy on women, but they may be far more inclined to believe that a gun was not fired on purpose if it was in a woman's hands. How many times have we seen that one in the movies?


And then there is the perennial persuader in consideration of a woman's fate before the law: sympathy. When Susan Smith sent her two little sons into the muddy waters of a lake strapped into their car seats, apparently because they were an obstacle to her love life, and made up a story about a black carjacker, she was initially denounced as a cold-blooded monster.


Yet even her image underwent a gradual shift, with revelations that she had been molested by her stepfather as a teen (even though, somewhat less sympathetically, she had continued carrying on an affair with him as an adult and married woman) and suggestions that her no-good husband was really to blame for her anguish (even though there was little reason to believe that he was any more responsible for the breakdown of the marriage than she was). "This is not a case about evil," Smith's attorney, Judy Clarke, told the jury that gave her life in prison. "It is about despair and sadness."


Smith may have cut a pitiable figure. So, apparently, did Guinevere Garcia, who fatally shot her husband for his insurance money 14 years after she had suffocated her 11-month-old daughter -- and whose death sentence was commuted to life in prison by Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar in 1996.


Garcia had been sexually abused as a child and was an alcoholic prostitute by the age of 15. But the same was true of Jesse Timmendequas, the sex offender awaiting execution in New Jersey for strangling five-year-old Megan Kanka, the child who gave her name to "Megan's law." According to trial evidence, Timmendequas had been brutally beaten and sodomized by his father.


In fact, nearly half of male death-row inmates claim to have been physically abused in their childhood, while more than 1 in 4 say that they were sexually molested. Of course, some of these claims of victimization may be self-serving, but then again, not every woman's abuse excuse is the gospel truth.


Of course, not everyone champions gender neutrality when it comes to crime and punishment. Some find the fair sex to be justified in getting unfair treatment. "Women and men do occupy separate places in the collective psyche of society, " Jonathan Last wrote in the conservative Weekly Standard shortly after Tucker's execution. "Because society has a low tolerance for seeing them harmed, women -- even criminals -- have traditionally been treated differently by the justice system. Differently, but still, at least possibly, with justice. The loss of that difference is part of what makes [the] destruction of Karla Faye Tucker so disturbing."


This sort of paternalism -- which, as Last explicitly stated, also provides the justification for keeping women out of combat forces -- seems precisely the sort of sugar-and-spice rationalization that feminists ought to oppose. Yet they have remained largely silent on the subject, for several reasons. One is that when feminism becomes a movement for the advantage of women (rather than for equal treatment), complaining about favoritism toward women doesn't make a lot of sense.


Many also find it hard to admit the basic fact that in Western societies in the modern era, patriarchal norms have revolved less around the subjugation of women through violence -- one of the feminists' favorite themes -- than around less protectiveness toward women.


Far from denouncing double standards, many feminists have contributed to the excuse-making. When Betty Lou Beets, 62, was facing execution in Texas in February for the murder of her fifth husband, Jimmy Don Beets, battered women's advocates rallied to her defense, portraying her as a victim of years of domestic abuse. Beets had been convicted of shooting and wounding her second husband, Bill Lane, and had been charged but never tried in the 1981 death of husband No. 4, Doyle Barker. Beets had never claimed to have been battered during her trial, and had tried to blame the slaying on her two children.


Even when the death penalty is not at issue and even when there are no allegations of physical abuse, murderous women can still qualify for lifesaving prizes in the victim sweepstakes.


Some years ago, Betty Broderick, the California housewife who killed her wealthy ex-husband and his young new wife -- and claimed that the divorce and the alimony payments of $16,000 a month amounted to "white-collar domestic violence" -- became the subject of sympathetic profiles in Ladies Home Journal and Mirabella.
An essay in a feminist anthology on women and violence, "No Angels" (1996), lamented that support for battered women who fight back had not extended to "fighting back against an emotionally abusive husband" and denounced a TV movie portraying Broderick in a negative light as "misogynist."


Contrary to all the evidence, feminists also have asserted that it's women who are treated with extra harshness by the system. In her 1996 book "Still Unequal: The Shameful Truth About Women and Justice in America," Lorraine Dusky asserts that women receive "more severe sentences" for stereotypically male crimes, though she cites no evidence to support this. But according to a 1989 Bureau of Justice Statistics study, male violent offenders were more than twice as likely as women charged with similar crimes to be incarcerated for more than a year.


Other research has found that, even when factors such as severity of the offense and prior criminal record are taken into account, women are more likely to have charges dismissed or to receive a light sentence.


Advocates for battered women also have claimed that a woman who kills her mate is sentenced to an average of 15 to 20 years in prison, while a man gets two to six years. This appalling factoid seems to be pure fiction. A Justice Department study of domestic homicides paints a very different picture: Husbands who killed their wives received an average of 16.5 years in prison; wives who killed husbands got six years. While some of the disparity was due to the fact that more women had been "provoked" -- assaulted or threatened -- before the slaying, the study noted that "the average prison sentence for unprovoked wife defendants was seven years, or 10 years shorter than the average 17 years for the unprovoked husband defendants."


If one truly believes in the full equality of the sexes, it's not difficult to see that protectiveness toward women, whether motivated by chivalry or feminism, keeps us from acheiving a legitimate goal. As Patricia Pearson argues in her 1997 book "When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence," making excuses for women's violence ultimately strips them of moral agency and accountability. What does it say about women's ability to function in society, to be workers and leaders, if they are seen as more vulnerable to pressure and more easily forgiven for failing to cope with their emotional problems?

If women are to be treated as adults, we cannot recoil from the execution of a woman the way we do from the execution of a juvenile. The debate about capital punishment should focus on humanity, not womanhood. To demand equality -- yet ask for a special right to clemency -- just won't do.
salon.com | May 4, 2000 - from here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Males Get Longer Sentences than Females for Same Crime
Originally printed in: Los Angeles Daily Journal, August 1, 2001
Author: Marc Angelucci, Angelucci2000@alumni.law.ucla.edu.


When Etta Ann Urdiales was murdered in Colorado, two completely different juries convicted two different people of the crime. Both juries believed there was only one murderer. One convicted Bobbie Hogan, a woman. The other convicted Jess Jacobs, a man. She got 10 years in prison. He was put to death. This case is just one example of the discrimination men face in criminal courts throughout the United States.

According to Pradeep Ramanathan, vice president of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), a volunteer, non-profit organization that has explored and addressed men's issues since 1976, "All the research clearly demonstrates that gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence."

And Ramanathan is right. Department of Justice figures show that being male increases a murderer's chance of receiving a death sentence by more than 20 times. And the data repeatedly confirms that men receive higher sentences than women for the exact same crime. One study, published in Justice Quarterly in 1986, examined 181,197 felonies in California and found that, for the same crime, being male increased the chance of incarceration by 165 percent. Being black, in comparison, increased the chance of incarceration by 19 percent.

Another study, published in Crime & Delinquency in 1989, examined non-accomplice crimes and factored together the number of charges, convicted offenses, prior felony convictions, as well as the race, age, work history and family situation of the accused and found that "gender differences, favoring women, are more often found than race differences, favoring whites."

In yet another study, published in the International Journal of the Sociology of Law, researchers Mathew Zingraff and Randall Thomson found that being male increases sentence lengths more than any other discriminatory variable.

The bias applies to victims as well as the accused. When Edward Glaeser of Harvard University and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they found that killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6 percent. Killing a white instead of a black, in comparison, increased sentences by 26.8 percent.

Even when the exact same type of crime is accounted for, the disparities still persist. For example, a drunk driver who kills a black male receives an average sentence of two years. A drunk driver who kills a white male, four years. A drunk driver who kills a white female, six years.

To those who recognize the problem, gender stereotypes are a major culprit. In a 1991 NCFM report titled "Gender and Injustice," researchers John Ryan and Ian Wilson suggest the problem stems from stereotypes about women being more innocent, more reformable and less dangerous than men. Barbara Swartz, former Director of New York's Women's Prison Project, called it the "chivalry factor" and says, "If there were more women judges, more women would go to jail."

Others attribute the problem to the devaluing of male lives. But addressing the causes does little good when the public does not even recognize the problem. One reason that we don't is that the task forces that we appoint to investigate the problem are just as biased as the legal system that they are supposed to monitor, so a full picture of the bias never gets drawn.

In 1980, the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Women Judges formed the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts (NJEP). In 1986, they wrote "Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Action," which became the manual used by gender bias task forces nationwide. The manual opens by stating that gender bias operates more frequently against women and that it is not a contradiction for task forces to focus primarily on bias against women in courts.

As one might guess, this is exactly what the task forces do. "None of (the commissions) study bias against men," said Ramanathan.

For example, even though men are more likely to get prison and women to get probation for the same crime, a New York task force claimed that it is women who were discriminated against because - get this - they receive longer probation periods. One commission recently justified giving women shorter sentences because women are often custodial parents. But the sentencing disparities persisted in the above studies that took family situations are accounted for. So even if custodial parenthood justifies a shorter sentence, courts are giving men longer sentences than women even when neither (or both) are custodial parents. Needless to say, when a father commits a crime, the courts have no trouble calling him an unfit parent and removing him from his kids.

The gender bias in our courts and in our gender bias task forces is not just an injustice to the victims; it is a tragic betrayal of public trust. In fact, as embarrassing as it sounds, we may need to create task forces to investigate the gender bias of the task forces that we created to investigate gender bias in the first place. - from here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Justice Statistics Program: Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act, 2007 [United States] [Computer file]. ICPSR24232-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-02-23. doi:10.3886/ICPSR24232 - Source 


The following list outlines, per the data that you can download and work with yourself, the percentages less (or more) that women are sentenced for the exact same crime as men:

51% 1 Murder
43% 2 Manslaughter
37% 3 Kidnapping/Hostage
68% 4 Sexual Abuse
34% 5 Assault
57% 6 Bank Robbery
24% 9 Arson
47% 10 Drugs: Trafficking
50% 11 Drugs: Communicatn facilities
81% 12 Drugs: Simple possession
54% 13 Firearms: Use & possess
(21%) 15 Burg/Breaking & Entering
14% 16 Auto Theft
57% 17 Larceny
45% 18 Fraud
46% 19 Embezzlement
49% 20 Forgery/Counterfeiting
40% 21 Bribery
14% 22 Tax offenses
40% 23 Money laundering
62% 24 Racktring (includes extortion)
100% 25 Gambling/Lottery
41% 26 Civil rights offenses
51% 27 Immigration
43% 28 Pornography/Prostitution
32% 29 Offenses in prisons
60% 30 Administration of justice
117% 31 Environmental offenses
34% 32 National defense offenses
100% 33 Antitrust violations
(253%) 34 Food and drug offenses
63% 35 Traffic violations

And now it is possible to calculate how much less, on average, by crime, a woman is sentenced to than a man: 40%. Note that there are only two (2) areas in which women's sentences exceed men's.

Now perhaps the sentences being meted out to women are appropriate, and those given to men are out of line. With this nifty database to hand, I can calculate how many excess years are being doled out to men per primary offense, and the number is.... for 2007...

(drum roll please)

142,036.17 years. - from here

Justice is blind....

It should be, it really should be.

Sadly these days the way you are treaded in court has a lot to do with your gender. A good example are these very similar cases. Two 17 year old teenagers in Wisconsin were arrested at almost the same time (1 day difference), were both arrested for having sex with a 14-year old and both cases were filed by the same attorney. A lot of similarities. The only difference the male offender is charged with a felony while the female offender is charged with a misdemeanor. A closer look:

17-year-old Alan J. Jepsen was charged Wednesday with felony sexual assault of a child under 16. Jepson was taken into custody at his home after the girl's mother reported her as a runaway, telling police her daughter was most likely at Jepsen's house.

The girl, who is Jepsen's girlfriend was indeed at the boy's home. He admitted to investigators that he and his girlfriend had sex two or three times over a three month period, according to the arrest report.

The girl had told Jepsen that she was 16. The girl ALSO TOLD POLICE she was 16 initially. The arrest report went on to state that Jepsen was required to be charges as an adult under Wisconsin law. He now faces 25 years in prison for the sexual assault of a child under 16.

[...]

17-year-old Norma J. Guthrie was charged Thursday with misdemeanor sexual assault for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old male. Guthrie admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old boy between 10 and 15 times, according to the arrest report.

Police became aware of the allegations when the boy's mother reported that her son might be staying overnight at the girl's home. Guthrie told investigators that the boy claimed to be 16.

She now faces up to nine months in jail, if convicted. - From theweeklyvice

A difference of more than 24 years simply for being male? But it gets worse. After the attorney is confronted with those two cases he shows us a good portion of hypocrisy:

[..] DA Jim Haasch stated that the charges were different because Guthrie had no prior record. He was seemingly unaware of Guthrie's pending charge of battery, according to court online records.

Haasch then stated that the charges are different because the 14-year-old in the Guthrie case "Is almost 15 years old" and has a birthday coming in February! - From theweeklyvice

Yes that does make sense. Almost 15 is in almost all cases almost close to almost 16. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

And this case wasn´t the exception. Here is another example:

A male teacher who had sex with three teenage female students was sentenced to 26 years in prison while the next day, a female swimming coach who had an “affair” with an 11-year-old boy and sexual “encounters” with two others got 30 days - From AM

Especially when it comes to sexual offences females are rarely receiving more than a pat on the wrist. Those cases aren´t even that rare and the weeklyvice has a nice collection of offending teachers (gender neutral, but count the cases and compare the gender / This is interesting as well). This case is truly outstanding:

A judge caused outrage yesterday after he refused to jail a woman who had sex with a 14-year-old boy and instead told her: ‘He seduced you.’
Sharon Edwards, 40, bombarded the boy with as many as 50 text messages and emails a day, offered to buy him cocaine and regularly lured him into her bed.
Yet she walked free from court yesterday after Judge Peter Fox QC said the married housewife was an unhappy woman who was unable to resist the advances of a child.
- From the dailymail

This double standards do not only apply when it comes to sexual crimes. Remeber the Mary Winkler case? She claimed that he had mistreated her. As proof, she showed the jury a pair of platform shoes and black wig that Matthew had asked her to wear during sex. A reason to murder her husband? Shooting him in the back with a shotgun while he was asleep? She received a seven-month sentence. Or this one:

When Etta Ann Urdiales was murdered in Colorado, two completely different juries convicted two different people of the crime. Both juries believed there was only one murderer. One convicted Bobbie Hogan, a woman. The other convicted Jess Jacobs, a man. She got 10 years in prison. He was put to death. - From AM

There are also studies on that double standards:

In 1988 the justice system in the Nation's 75 largest counties disposed of an estimated 540 spouse murder cases. Husbands charged with killing their wife outnumbered wives charged with killing their husband. Of the 540, 318--or 59%--were husband defendants and 222--or 41%--were wife defendants.

On average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands.

Among wives sentenced to prison, 15% received a sentence of 20 years or more (including life imprisonment and the death penalty); among husbands, it was 43%.

No explanation for why State prison sentences were, on average, 10 years shorter for wife defendants than husband defendants

Wives received shorter prison sentences than husbands (a 10-year difference, on average) even when the comparison is restricted to defendants who were alike in terms of whether or not they were provoked

The average prison sentence for unprovoked wife defendants was 7 years, or 10 years shorter than the average 17 years for unprovoked husband defendants. - From AM

And apparently it applies to other crimes as well:

According to Pradeep Ramanathan, vice president of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), a volunteer, non-profit organization that has explored and addressed men's issues since 1976, "All the research clearly demonstrates that gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence."

And Ramanathan is right. Department of Justice figures show that being male increases a murderer's chance of receiving a death sentence by more than 20 times.

And the data repeatedly confirms that men receive higher sentences than women for the exact same crime. One study, published in Justice Quarterly in 1986, examined 181,197 felonies in California and found that, for the same crime, being male increased the chance of incarceration by 165 percent. Being black, in comparison, increased the chance of incarceration by 19 percent.

Another study, published in Crime & Delinquency in 1989, examined non-accomplice crimes and factored together the number of charges, convicted offenses, prior felony convictions, as well as the race, age, work history and family situation of the accused and found that "gender differences, favoring women, are more often found than race differences, favoring whites."

In yet another study, published in the International Journal of the Sociology of Law, researchers Mathew Zingraff and Randall Thomson found that being male increases sentence lengths more than any other discriminatory variable.

The bias applies to victims as well as the accused. When Edward Glaeser of Harvard University and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they found that killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6 percent. Killing a white instead of a black, in comparison, increased sentences by 26.8 percent.

Even when the exact same type of crime is accounted for, the disparities still persist. For example, a drunk driver who kills a black male receives an average sentence of two years. A drunk driver who kills a white male, four years. A drunk driver who kills a white female, six years. - From AM

And justice for all...