In this study, we argue that the traditional paradigm used to explain the leniency accorded to women offenders in US criminal courts ignores advances in feminist research which suggest how normative patterns that reinforce gender identities can and do change. Using data from Finland, a society generally characterized by more gender equality than is found in the USA, we examine whether an offender's sex has a significant impact on the decision to imprison. Controlling for relevant legal and social characteristics, and considering the conditional effects of labour force participation and parental responsibilities, the findings show that the often-noted preferential treatment given to female offenders, relative to their male counterparts in the USA, is not present in Finland.
Bailey, W.C. and Peterson, R.D. (1995). Gender inequality and violence against women: The case of murder. In J. Hagan and R. D. Peterson (eds) Crime and inequality, 174-205. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
Bickle, G. and Peterson, R.D. (1991). The impact of gender based family roles on criminal sentencing. Social Problems38, 372-94.
3.
Boritch, H. (1992). Gender and criminal court outcomes - an historical analysis. Criminology30, 293-326.
4.
Boritch, H. and Hagan, J. (1990). A century of crime in Toronto: Gender, class and patterns of social control. Criminology28, 567-95.
5.
Bridges, G.S. and Beretta, G. (1994). Gender, race and social control: Toward an understanding of sex disparities in imprisonment. In G. S. Bridges and M. A. Myers (eds) Inequality, crime and social control, 158-75. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6.
Center for Women in Government & Civil Society (2006). Women in state policy leadership, 1998-2005: An analysis of slow and uneven progress. URL (accessed 31 December 2008): http://www.cwig.albany.edu/APMSG2006.htm.
7.
Cherlin, A. (2004). The deinstitutionalization ofAmerican marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family66, 848-61.
8.
Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power. Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Crew, B.K. (1991). Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or patriarchy? Justice Quarterly8, 59-83.
11.
Daly, K. (1987). Discrimination in the criminal courts: Family, gender and the problem of equal treatment. Social Forces66, 152-75.
12.
Daly, K. (1989a). Rethinking judicial paternalism: Gender, work-family relations and sentencing. Gender and Society3, 9-36.
13.
Daly, K. (1989b). Neither conflict nor labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime and Delinquency35, 136-68.
14.
Daly, K. and Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology . Justice Quarterly5, 497-538.
15.
Daly, K. and Bordt, R.L. (1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly12, 141-75.
16.
Daly, K. and Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, race and sentencing. In M. Tonry (ed.) Crime and justice. Volume 22, 210-52. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Dugan, L. (2003). Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology and Public Policy2, 283-312.
18.
Dugan, L., Nagin, D. and Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide. Law & Society Review27, 169-98.
19.
Gartner, R. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review55, 92-106.
20.
Gartner, R., Baker K. and Pampel, F.C. (1990). Gender stratification and the gender gap in homicide victimization. Social Problems37, 593-612.
21.
Gornick, J.C. and Meyers, M.K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
Griffin, T. and Wooldredge, J. (2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology44, 893-923.
23.
Haavio-Mannila, E. and Kauppinen, K. (1992). Women and the welfare state in the Nordic countries . In H. Kahne and J. Z. Giele (eds) Women's work and women's lives: The continuing struggle worldwide. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
24.
Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-135. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
25.
Jacobs, J.A. and Gerson, K. (2004) The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law & Policy26, 33-55.
27.
Koons-Witt, B. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology40, 297-328.
28.
Kruttschnitt, C. (1982). Women, crime and dependency: An application of the theory of law. Criminology19, 495-513.
29.
Kruttschnitt, C. (1996).Contributions of quantitative methods to the study of gender and crime, or bootstrapping our way into the theoretical thicket . Journal of Quantitative Criminology12, 135-61.
30.
Kruttschnitt, C. and Carbone-Lopez, K. (2006). Moving beyond the stereotypes: Women's subjective accounts of their violent crime. Criminology44, 321-51.
31.
Kruttschnitt, C. and Green, D.E. (1984). The sex-sanctioning issue: Is it history? American Sociological Review49, 541-51.
32.
Lappi-Seppälä, T. (1998). Regulating the prison population: Experiences from a long-term policy in Finland. Helsinki: National Research Institute of Legal Policy Research Communications, 38.
33.
Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2000). Rikosten seuraamukset [Criminal sentencing]. Porvoo, Finland: WSLT.
34.
Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2004). Penal policy and prison rates. Long term experiences from Finland. Unpublished manuscript, October.
35.
Liljeroos, H. (2008). Unpublished data/personal communication. Ministry of Justice, Finland.
36.
Maher, L. (1997). Sexed work: Gender, race and resistance in a Brooklyn drug market. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
37.
Mandel, H. and Semyonov, M. (2005). Family policies, wage structures, and gender gaps: Sources of earnings inequality in 20 countries. American Sociological Review70, 949-67.
38.
Manninen, Merja (1999). Women's status in Finland. Virtual Finland. URL (accessed 31 December 2008): http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25736.
39.
Messner, S.F. and Savolainen, J. (2001). Gender and the victim-offender relationship in homicide: A comparison of Finland and the United States. International Criminal Justice Review11, 34-57.
40.
Miller, J. (1998). Up it up: Gender and the accomplishment of street robbery. Criminology36, 37-66.
41.
Miller, J. and Mullins, C.W. (2006). The status of feminist theories in criminology . In F. T. Cullen, J. Wright and K. Blevin (eds) Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. Advances in criminology theory (Freda Adler and William Laufer, series eds), 217-50. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
42.
Miller, J. and White, N.A. (2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: A contextual examination. Criminology41, 1501-41.
43.
Misra, J., Moller, S. and Budig, M.J. (2007). Work-family policies and poverty for partnered and single women in Europe and North America. Gender and Society21, 804-27.
44.
Moulds, E.F. (1980). Chivalry and paternalism: Disparities of treatment in the criminal justice system. In S. K. Datesman and F. R. Scarpitti (eds) Women, crime and justice, 277-99. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
Mullins, C.W. and Wright, R. (2003). Gender, social networks, and residential burglary . Criminology41, 813-40.
46.
Nagel, I. and Hagan, J. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. In N. Morris and M. Tonry (eds) Crime and justice. Volume IV, 91-144. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Niemi, I. (1995). Time use of women in Europe and North America. United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women to theUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe. New York: United Nations .
48.
Pridemore, W.A. and Frellich, J.D. (2005). Gender equity, traditional masculine culture, and female homicide victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice33, 213-23.
49.
Social Insurance Institution of Finland (2007 ). 2006 Statistical yearbook of pensioners in Finland. Helsinki: Hakapaino.
50.
Steffensmeier, D. (1983). Organizational properties and sex-segregation in the underworld: Building a sociological theory of sex differences in crime . Social Forces61, 1010-32.
51.
Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J. and Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology31, 411-46.
52.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
53.
Vieraitis, L.M., Britto, S. and Kovandzic, T.V. (2007). The impact of women's status and gender inequality on female homicide victimization rates. Evidence from U.S. counties. Feminist Criminology2, 57-73.
54.
Vieraitis, L.M. and Williams, M.R. (2002). Assessing the impact of gender inequality on female homicide victimization across U.S. cities: A racially disaggregated analysis . Violence Against Women8, 35-63.
55.
Whaley, R.B. and Messner, S.F. (2002). Gender equality and gendered homicides. Homicide Studies6, 188-210.
56.
West, C. and Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society9, 8-37.
57.
Wooldredge, J.D. (1998). Analytic rigor in studies of disparities in criminal case processing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology14, 155-79.
