Previous empirical research has indicated that women receive less punitive sentencing outcomes, compared to their male counterparts, while controlling for legally relevant case characteristics. This advantage persists at the federal level, despite the implementation of sentencing guidelines. However, drawing from the “intersectionalities” literature, it does not appear as though all women are equal beneficiaries of this courtroom leniency. Specifically, women of color are less inclined to receive sentencing benefits in response to the differential stereotyping of this demographic. Furthermore, due to differing sociohistorical contexts and gender ideologies, the influence of gender on sentencing outcomes will likely vary across place. This study contributes to the existing sentencing literature by examining whether, and to what extent, gender leniency is moderated by race/ethnicity and geographic region. Using data from the 2015 Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences, this study finds that women receive shorter sentence lengths than men. However, contrary to expectation, women of color receive shorter sentences than White women. Additionally, women who are adjudicated in the southern and border districts receive significantly longer sentences. These findings demonstrate the importance of contextualizing and disaggregating female criminal justice outcomes as well as the need to limit research and discourse that imply a singular shared experience among all women.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247–266.
2.
AlbonettiC. A. (2002). The joint conditioning effect of defendant’s gender and ethnicity on length of imprisonment under the federal sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking/manufacturing offenders. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 6, 39.
3.
AlbonettiC. A. (2017). Theoretical perspectives and empirical assessments of race/ethnicity disparities in federal sentencing. Sociology of Crime, Law & Deviance, 22, 95–114.
4.
AlbonettiC. A.BallerR. D. (2010). Sentencing in federal drug trafficking/manufacturing cases: A multilevel analysis of extra-legal defendant characteristics, guidelines departures, and continuity of culture. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 14, 41–71.
5.
AlexanderM. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
6.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62.
7.
BeckettK.SassonT. (2003). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BontragerS.BarrickK.StupiE. (2013). Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 16, 349–372.
9.
Burgess-ProctorA. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime. Feminist Criminology, 1, 27–47.
10.
CarpenterT. R. (2012). Construction of the crack mother icon. Western Journal of Black Studies, 36, 264–275.
11.
CarsonE.AndersonE. (2016). Prisoners in 2015. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from the U.S. Department of Justice website: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf
12.
CarterS.BorchC. (2005). Assessing the effects of urbanism and regionalism on gender-role attitudes, 1974-1998. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 548–563.
13.
Chesney-LindM.PaskoL. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
ChiaoV. (2017). Mass incarceration and the theory of punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11, 431–452.
15.
CurryT. R.Corral-CamachoG. (2008). Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses testing for conditional effects between race/ethnicity, gender and age during the US war on drugs. Punishment and Society, 10, 253–276.
16.
DavisA.ShaylorC. (2001). Race, gender, and the prison industrial complex: California and beyond. In JamesS.Guy-SheftallB.FosterF. (Eds.), Still brave: The evolution of Black women’s studies (pp. 192–215). New York, NY: Feminist Press.
17.
DoernerJ. K. (2012). Gender disparities in sentencing departures: An examination of US federal courts. Women & Criminal Justice, 22, 176–205.
18.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27, 1–27.
19.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 242–269.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38, 1207–1230.
22.
FarnworthM.TeskeR. H.Jr (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing: Three hypotheses of disparity. Women & Criminal Justice, 6, 23–44.
23.
FarrellA.WardG.RousseauD. (2010). Intersections of gender and race in federal sentencing: Examining court contexts and the effects of representative court authorities. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 14, 85–125.
FormanJ.Jr (2012). Racial critiques of mass incarceration: Beyond the new Jim Crow. NYUL Review, 87, 21.
26.
FranklinC.FearneN. (2008). Gender, race, and formal court decision-making outcomes: Chivalry, paternalism, conflict theory, or gender conflict?Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 279–290.
27.
FranklinT. W. (2015). Race and ethnicity effects in federal sentencing: A propensity score analysis. Justice Quarterly, 32, 653–679.
28.
FreiburgerT. L.HilinskiC. M. (2013). An examination of the interactions of race and gender on sentencing decisions using a trichotomous dependent variable. Crime and Delinquency, 59, 59–86.
29.
HarmN.PhillipsS. (2001). You can’t go home again: Women and criminal recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 3–21.
30.
HarmonM. G.O’brienR. M. (2011). Gendered arrests or gendered sentencing: Explaining the narrowing of the gender gap in imprisonment over time: 1970–2008. Sociological Perspectives, 54, 641–664.
31.
HartleyR. D. (2008). Sentencing reforms and the war on drugs: An analysis of sentence outcomes for narcotics offenders adjudicated in US district courts on the southwest border. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 437–461.
32.
HartleyR. D.MaddanS.SpohnC. C. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion: An examination of substantial assistance departures in federal crack-cocaine and powder-cocaine cases. Justice Quarterly, 24, 382–407.
33.
HayesT.LeeM. (2005). The Southern culture of honor and violent attitudes. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 593–617.
34.
HerzogS.OregS. (2008). Chivalry and the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism: Individual differences in crime seriousness judgments. Law and Society Review, 42, 45–74.
35.
HessickC. B. (2010). Race and gender as explicit sentencing factors. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 14, 127–142.
36.
HolmquistK. L. (1997). Cultural defense or false stereotype-what happens when Latina defendants collide with the federal sentencing guidelines. Berkeley Women’s LJ, 12, 45.
KauttP. (2009). Heuristic influences over offense seriousness calculations: A multilevel investigation of racial disparity under sentencing guidelines. Punishment and Society, 11, 191–218.
39.
Koons-WittB. A. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 297–328.
MooreL.VannemanR. (2003). Context matters: Effects of the proportion of fundamentalists on gender attitudes. Social Forces, 82, 115–139.
42.
MustardD. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285–314.
43.
NowackiJ. S. (2017). An intersectional approach to race/ethnicity, sex, and age disparity in federal sentencing outcomes: An examination of policy across time periods. Criminology & Criminal Justice: An International Journal, 17, 97–116.
44.
PaskoL. (2002). Villain or victim: Regional variation and ethnic disparity in federal drug offense sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 307–328.
45.
PaternosterR. (2011). Racial disparity under the federal sentencing guidelines pre- and post-booker. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 1063–1072.
RiceT.CoatesD. (1995). Gender role attitudes in the Southern United States. Gender and Society, 9, 744–756.
48.
RodriguezF.CurryT.LeeG. (2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do effects vary across violent, property, and drug offenses?Social Science Quarterly, 87, 318–339.
49.
SchanzenbachM. (2005). Racial and sex disparities in prison sentences: The effect of district-level judicial demographics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 57–92.
50.
SharkeyL. (2010). Does overcrowding in prisons exacerbate the risk of suicide among women prisoners?Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 111–124.
51.
SpohnC. (2013). The effects of the offender’s race, ethnicity, and sex on federal sentencing outcomes in the guidelines era. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76, 75–104.
52.
SpohnC.BrennanP. K. (2011). The joint effects of offender race/ethnicity and gender on substantial assistance departures in federal courts. Race and Justice, 1, 49–78.
53.
StarrS. B. (2014). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17, 127–159.
54.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.StreifelC. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411–446.
55.
SteffensmeierD.Painter-DavisN.UlmerJ. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60, 810–833.
56.
SudburyJ. (2005). Celling Black bodies: Black women in the global prison industrial complex. Feminist Review, 70, 57–74.
TillyerR.HartleyR. D.WardJ. T. (2015). Differential treatment of female defendants: Does criminal history moderate the effect of gender on sentence length in federal narcotics cases?Criminal Justice & Behavior, 42, 703–721.
59.
UmamaheswarJ. (2013). Gendered representations of parents behind bars: An analysis of newspaper reports. Punishment and Society, 15, 274–303.
60.
UnseemB.PiehlA. M. (2008). Prison State: The challenge of mass incarceration. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
