Findings support theoretical arguments that contend that court decision-making is influenced by legally-irrelevant characteristics and raise questions about the source of gendered views of sex offenders and their effects on punishment approaches. These findings suggest that female sex offenders are treated more leniently than their matched male counterparts, even in instances of more serious sex offenses and those involving minor victims. Findings are similar across sex offense severity and whether the offense involved a minor victim. Specifically, male sex offenders are more likely to be sentenced to prison, and given longer terms, than female sex offenders. Results indicate that gender disparities in sex offender sentencing exist and are pervasive across sex offense types. We test this argument with precision matching analyses using 15 years of data on all felony sex offenders sentenced in a single state. This paper tests theoretical arguments that suggest court actors hold gendered views of sex offenders that result in a gender gap in sex offender punishment, where women who commit sexual offenses are treated more leniently than their male counterparts. Overall, while punitivity toward ICSOs was generally high, the most punitivity was reserved for male perpetrators and child victim crimes. Despite some similarities between sentencing and post-release policy decisions, male victims elicited longer prison sentences as punishment, while perpetrators with stranger victims yielded more support for post-release policies meant to protect society. A child victim rendered other characteristics less relevant. We found that the respondents consistently recommended more lenient punishments for female perpetrators and harsher punishments for child victim crimes. We also explored whether these influences differed between adult and child victim crimes, and whether they differed between sentencing and post-release supervision policy preferences. Using a nationally representative vignette survey experiment, we examined whether this punitivity toward ICSOs was influenced by deviations from the stereotypical sex crime case. The public holds stereotypical beliefs about sex crimes, its perpetrators, and its victims, which may influence punitive attitudes toward individuals convicted of sex offenses (ICSOs). The implications of these findings are discussed in regard to their application of the chivalry and evil woman hypotheses. The odds for women to be arrested increased, however, when specific offender demographics, offense characteristics, and victim characteristics were taken into account.
Overall, women were 42% significantly less likely than men to be arrested when controlling for other known offense, offender, and victim characteristics.
#Are women given preferential treatment archive
Seven years of National Incident-based Reporting System data were relied upon (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, 2010-2016, National Incident-based Reporting System: Extract Files) all of the reported sexual-offense incidents committed by women were included, along with a matched sample of reported sexual-offense incidents committed by men, culminating in a sample of 22,744. The evil woman hypothesis, however, suggests the opposite: Women are treated more harshly than men and, therefore, more likely to be arrested. The chivalry hypothesis suggests women are treated more leniently than men and, therefore, less likely to be arrested. Two hypotheses, chivalry and evil woman, are relied upon and suggest that the probability of arrest differs for women and men, yet in differing directions. This study examined the effect of an offender's sex (male/female) on whether sexual-offense incidents reported to law enforcement culminated in an arrest.
0 kommentar(er)
