The current research examines the utility of the evil woman hypothesis by examining sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. National Corrections Reporting Program data are used to identify sex offenders for the years 1994 to 2004 and the sentences they received for specific sex offenses. Statistical analyses reveal a significant difference in sentence length between men and women, but not in the expected direction. The evil woman hypothesis would assume women are sentenced more harshly, but data show men receive longer sentences for sex offenses than women. Support is provided for the chivalry hypothesis to explain immediate sentencing disparity.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 247-266.
2.
ArmstrongG. (1977). Females under the law—“Protected” but unequal. Crime & Delinquency, 23(2), 109-120.
3.
BelknapJ. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
4.
BlackwellB. S.HolleranD.FinnM. A. (2008). The impact of the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines on sex differences in sentencing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(4), 399-418.
5.
Chesney-LindM. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 6-26.
6.
CrowM.BalesW. (2006). Sentencing guidelines and focal concerns: The effect of sentencing policy as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 285-304.
7.
CurranD. (1983). Judicial discretion and defendant’s sex. Criminology, 21(1), 41-58.
8.
CurryT. R.LeeG.RodriguezS. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319-343.
9.
DalyK.BordtR. L. (1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 141-175.
10.
DalyK.TonryM. (1997). Gender, race and sentencing. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 22). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
11.
FarnsworthM.TeskeR. H. C.Jr. (1995). Gender differences in filling court processing: Testing three hypotheses of disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 6(23), 23-44.
12.
GriffinT.WooldridgeJ. (2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology, 44(4), 893-923.
13.
GrubinD. (1998). Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk (Police Research Series Paper 99). London: Home Office.
14.
GuevaraL.HerzD.SphonC. (2006). Gender and juvenile justice decision making: What role does race play?Feminist Criminology, 1(4), 258-282.
15.
JeffriesS.FletcherG. J. O.NewboldG. (2003). Pathways to sex-based differentiation in criminal court sentencing. Criminology, 41(2), 329-353.
16.
KendallW. D. B.CheungM. (2004). Sexually violent predators and civil commitment laws. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(2), 41-57.
17.
Koons-WittB. A. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(2), 297-327.
18.
LewisC. F.StanleyC. R. (2000). Women accused of sexual offenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(1), 73-81.
19.
MathisJ. L. (1972). Clear thinking about sexual deviations: A new look at an old problem. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
20.
McAlindenA. (2006). Managing risk: From regulation to the reintegration of sexual offenders. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(2), 197-218.
21.
MustardD. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
22.
NagelI.HaganJ. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. In TonryM.MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
PollockJ. M.DavisS. M. (2005). The continuing myth of the violent female offender. Criminal Justice Review, 30(1), 5-29.
24.
RodriguezS. F.CurryT. R.LeeG. (2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do effects vary across violent, property, and drug offenses?Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 318-339.
25.
SpohnC.BeichnerD. (2000). Is preferential treatment of female offenders a thing of the past? A multisite study of gender, race, and imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11(2), 149-184.
26.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.StreifelC. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), 411-446.
27.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763-797.
28.
SteffensmeierD.ZhongH.AckermanJ.SchwartzJ.AghaS. (2006). Gender gap trends for violent crimes, 1980 to 2003: A UCR-NCVS comparison. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 72-98.
29.
UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (1996). Court communities under guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34(3), 383-408.
30.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998a). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1994 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
31.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998b). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1995 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
32.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998c). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1996 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
33.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1997 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
34.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1998 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
35.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1999 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
36.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). National Corrections Reporting Program, 2000 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
37.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). National Corrections Reporting Program, 2001 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
38.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). National Corrections Reporting Program, 2002 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
39.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). National Corrections Reporting Program, 2003 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
40.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). National Corrections Reporting Program, 2004 [Data file]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
41.
VandiverD. M.TeskeR. (2006). Juvenile female and male sex offenders: A comparison of offender, victim, and judicial processing characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(2), 148-165.
42.
WaltersD. R. (1975). Physical and sexual abuse of children: Causes and treatment. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
43.
WilliamsM. R. (1999). Gender and sentencing: An analysis of indicators. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 10(4), 471-490.
