The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 sought to abolish disparities in criminal sentences by mandating the development of sentencing guidelines that based criminal sentences on the severity of a defendant's criminal conduct and past criminal record. Though the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were designed to reduce disparities in sentencing, research on the application of the Guidelines has consistently shown that women receive more lenient sentences than men. This paper presents data on downward departure decisions for federal sentences in 1996–1997 and suggests that the decisions by both judges and prosecutors to grant departures from the Guidelines result in continued gender disparities in the application of federal sentences. While gender disparities in granting departures are the primary emphasis of the analysis, the paper identifies important interactive effects of race and gender in departure decisions. These findings are discussed in light of recent legislative and judicial efforts to reduce discretion in granting departures from the Guidelines.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbonettiC. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effect of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas and departures on sentencing outcomes for drug offenders 1991–1992. Law and Society Review, 31, 789–823.
2.
AlbonettiC. (1998). The role of gender and departures in the sentencing of defendants convicted of a white collar offense under the federal sentencing guidelines. In UlmerJ. (Ed.), Sociology of crime, law and deviance, Vol. 1, (pp. 3–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
3.
BickleG., & PetersonR. (1991). The impact of gender-based family roles on criminal sentencing. Social Problems, 38, 372–394.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1993). Annual report. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
ButlerA. (1997). Gendered justice in the American west: Women prisoners in men's penitentiaries. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
6.
Chesney-LindM. (1973). Judicial enforcement of the female sex role: The family court and the female delinquent. Issues in Criminology, 8, 51–69.
7.
ChiltonR., & DatesmanK. (1987). Gender, race and crime: An analysis of urban arrest trends. Gender and Society, 1, 78–96.
8.
CurranD. (1983). Judicial discretion and the defendant's sex. Criminology, 21, 41–58.
9.
DalyK. (1987). Structure and practice of familial-based justice in a criminal court. Law and Society Review, 21, 267–289.
10.
DalyK. (1989). Re-thinking judicial paternalism: Gender, work-family relations, and sentencing. Gender and Society, 3, 9–35.
11.
DixonJ. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1157–1198.
12.
EatonM. (1982). Justice for women. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
13.
EverettR., & WojkiewiczR. (2002). Difference, disparity and race/ethnic bias in federal sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(2), 189–211.
14.
FarnworthM., & Raymond-TeskeH.C. (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing: Three hypotheses of disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 6(2), 23–44.
15.
The Feeney Amendment, Title IV of S. 151, Public Law 108–21 (2003).
16.
FeinmanC. (1986). Women in the criminal justice system. New York: Praeger.
17.
Figueira-McDonoughJ. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington D.C.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 101–133.
18.
GomezL. (1997). Misconceiving mothers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
19.
GreenfeldL., & SnellT. (1999). Women offenders (Special Report, NCJ 175688). Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
20.
GruhlJ.WelchS., & SpohnC. (1984). Women as criminal defendants: A test for paternalism. Western Political Quarterly, 37, 456–467.
21.
JohnstonJ.KennedyT., & ShumanI.G. (1987). Gender differences in the sentencing of felony offenders. Federal Probation, 1, 49–55.
22.
KauttP., & SpohnC. (2002). Cracking down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions among offenders' race, drug type and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 1–37.
23.
KramerJ., & UlmerJ. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13(1), 81–105.
24.
KruttschnittC. (1982). Respectable women and the law. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 221–234.
25.
KruttschnittC. (1984). Sex and criminal court dispositions: The unresolved controversy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 212–232.
26.
McDonaldD., & CarlsonK. (1993) Sentencing in the federal courts: Does race matter? The transition to sentencing guidelines 1986–1990 (NCJ-145332). Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
27.
MietheT., & MooreC. (1985). Socioeconomic disparities under determinate sentencing systems: A comparison of pre-guideline and post-guideline practices in Minnesota. Criminology, 23, 337–363.
28.
MoyerI. (1985). The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system: Offenders, victims and professionals. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
29.
NagelI., & HaganJ. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. In TonryM. & MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
NagelI., & SchulhoferS. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66, 501–566.
31.
ParisiN. (1982) Are females treated differently? In RafterN. & StankoE.A. (Eds.), Judge, lawyer, victim, thief (pp. 205–220). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
32.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP., & PiqueroA. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for equality of regression coefficients. Criminology36, 859–865.
33.
Pollock-ByrneJ. (1990). Women, prison and crime. Pacific Grove, Ca: Brooks Publishing.
34.
RaederM. (1993). Gender and sentencing: single moms, battered women and other sex based anomalies in the gender free world of federal sentencing guidelines. Pepperdine Law Review, 20, 905–990.
35.
RafterN. (1982) Hard times: Custodial prisons for women and the example of the New York State Prison for women at Auburn, 1893–1933?. In RafterN. & StankoE.A. (Eds.), Judge, lawyer, victim, thief (pp. 237–260). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
36.
RafterN. (1990). Partial justice: Women, prison and social control. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
37.
RobertsonG.PearsonR., & GibbR. (1999). Police disposal of female detainees: An examination of police practices in seven London stations. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 2(1), 40–49.
38.
SalvelsbergJ. (1992). Law that does not fit society: Sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1346–1381.
39.
SarriR. (1986). Gender and race differences in criminal justice processing. Women's Studies International Forum, 9, 89–99.
40.
SteffensmeierD. (1980). Assessing the impact of the women's movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime and Delinquency, 26, 344–357.
41.
SteffensmeierD., & DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in the U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65, 705–729.
StithK., & CabranesJ. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
TeminC. E. (1980). Discriminatory sentencing of women offenders: The argument for ERA in a nutshell. In DatesmanS. & ScarpittiF. (Eds.), Women, crime, and justice (pp. 255–276). New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
TjadenP., & TjadenC. (1981). Differential treatment of the female felon: Myth or reality. In WarrenM. (Ed.), Comparing the male and female offenders (pp. 73–88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press.
46.
UlmerJ. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
47.
United States Sentencing Commission. (1991, August). Special report to Congress: Mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Washington: DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
48.
United States Sentencing Commission. (1997). Guidelines manual, section 1. (Introduction and comments). Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
49.
VisherC. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5–28.
50.
WilbanksW. (1986). Are female felons treated more leniently by the criminal justice system?Justice Quarterly, 3, 516–530.
51.
WondersN. (1996). Determinate sentencing: a feminist and postmodern story. Justice Quarterly, 13, 611–648.
52.
ZingraffM., & ThomasR. (1984). Differential sentencing of women and men in the United States. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 12, 201–213.
