Gender and Sentencing Outcomes in South Carolina

• Author: John D. Burrow,Barbara A. Koons-Witt,Eric L. Sevigny,Rhys Hester
• Published date: 01 May 2014
• Date: 01 May 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412468884
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2014, Vol. 25(3) 299 –324

© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403412468884

cjp.sagepub.com

468884CJP25310.1177/0887403412468884Cri

minal Justice Policy ReviewKoons-Witt et al.

1University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

2Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Barbara Koons-Witt, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Currell College, University of

South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Email: bakoons@mailbox.sc.edu

Gender and Sentencing

Outcomes in South Carolina:

Examining the Interactions

With Race, Age, and

Offense Type

Barbara A. Koons-Witt1, Eric L. Sevigny1,

John D. Burrow1, and Rhys Hester2

Abstract

Despite sentencing reforms over the last few decades, many states failed to introduce

guidelines, including South Carolina. The present article uses data collected from the

now disbanded South Carolina Sentencing Commission (1982 to 2003) in order to

assess the influence of gender, age, race, and type of crime. We found that females were

consistently sentenced more leniently than were similarly situated males. Interactions

between gender and the other variables, however, failed to gain significance with the

exception of gender and offense type for the sentence length decision. Interestingly,

we found a significant interaction between gender and offense severity level for both

sentencing outcomes and criminal history for the incarceration decision. We discuss

the implications of these findings in the event that South Carolina would have adopted

sentencing guidelines.

Keywords

gender, race, offense type, sentencing outcomes, focal concerns

In part due to the dramatic growth of the female incarcerated population since the

1980s and also sweeping sentencing reforms beginning in the late 1970s, the extant

literature involving studies of gender and sentencing outcomes continues to grow.

Article

300 Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(3)

Sentencing studies generally find evidence that women are treated more leniently

when compared to men (Albonetti, 2012; Daly & Bordt, 1995; Daly & Tonry, 1997;

Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993), particularly for the imprisonment decision

(Daly & Bordt, 1995; Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Spohn & Spears, 1997; Steffensmeier

et al., 1993; Ulmer & Kramer, 1996), even in jurisdictions with sentencing guidelines

(Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Nagel & Johnson, 1994; Steffensmeier et al., 1993;

Kramer & Ulmer, 2009). Prior research also finds that it is not necessarily enough to

be a woman to receive leniency in that other factors may interact with gender to influ-

ence sentencing outcomes, including race (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Spohn, Welch, &

Gruhl, 1985; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006), age (Bushway & Piehl, 2007; Steffens-

meier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998), marital and employment status (Crew, 1991; Krutt-

schnitt, 1980, 1984), motherhood (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Daly, 1987; Koons-Witt,

2002), and offense type (Daly, 1987; Embry & Lyons, 2012; Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee,

2006; Steffensmeier et al., 1993).

Despite the fact that most states have yet to enact sentencing guidelines (Kauder &

Ostrom, 2008), the vast majority of contemporary sentencing research has been con-

ducted in states with determinate or guideline sentencing systems (e.g., Minnesota,

Pennsylvania, Washington, federal system), focusing on whether sentencing reforms

have reduced unwarranted disparity, slowed prison growth, or achieved other pre-

scribed goals (Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Koons-Witt, 2002; Marvell, 1995;

Marvell & Moody, 1996; Mustard, 2001). Research from unstructured sentencing

states are substantially fewer in number, and gender-based sentencing studies in these

jurisdictions are even more limited (see, for example, Rodriguez et al., 2006). The cur-

rent study therefore considers sentencing practices in South Carolina, a state where

judges continue to enjoy wide latitude in making sentencing decisions, constrained

only by statutory limits.

The current study contributes to the sentencing literature in several key respects.

First, as already noted, this study considers practices in an unstructured sentencing

state. Although South Carolina maintained an active sentencing commission that stud-

ied and pursued sentencing guidelines over a period of more than two decades, this

effort ultimately failed to gain the requisite political support and the commission was

disbanded for good in 2004 (South Carolina Sentencing Guidelines Commission, n.d.).

Because of the state’s geographic location, history of race relations, and conservative

views of women, South Carolina provides a particularly suitable modern context for

exploring gender-based sentencing practices and outcomes. Second, while the sen-

tencing literature is vast, few studies have been conducted in South Carolina. Previous

research in the state has considered more narrowly focused sentencing issues includ-

ing drug courts (Barnes, Miller, & Miller, 2009; Miller & Shutt, 2001), domestic vio-

lence courts (Gover, MacDonald, & Alpert, 2003), and death penalty decisions

(Paternoster, 1983, 1984; Paternoster & Kazyaka, 1988; Songer & Unah, 2006) but a

more broad-based examination of sentencing outcomes in South Carolina has not been

done. We believe the current study fills an important gap in the sentencing literature.