Gender Effects Across Place: A Multilevel Investigation of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Region in Sentencing
| Author | Melanie M. Holland,Ariane Prohaska |
| DOI | 10.1177/2153368718767495 |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
| Date | 01 January 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Race and Justice
2021, Vol. 11(1) 91-112
Gender Effects Across
ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Place: A Multilevel
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2153368718767495
Investigation of Gender,
journals.sagepub.com/home/raj
Race/Ethnicity, and Region
in Sentencing
Melanie M. Holland1 and Ariane Prohaska2
Abstract
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 imple-
mentation 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 sen-
tencing 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 expecta-
tion, 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.
1 Department of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University Altoona, Altoona, PA, USA
2 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Melanie M. Holland, Department of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University, Altoona, 3000 Ivyside
Park, Altoona, PA 16601, USA.
Email: mzh68@psu.edu
92
Race and Justice 11(1)
Keywords
feminist theory, criminological theories, race and sentencing, race and courts,
sentencing guidelines, stereotypes, presumptive sentencing, Latino/Hispanic
Americans, race/ethnicity, African/Black Americans
The United States is currently experiencing a period of mass incarceration that dis-
proportionately enshrouds young, male, non-White offenders with lower socio-
economic backgrounds within the prison industry (see Alexander, 2010; Chiao, 2017;
Forman, 2012; Unseem & Piehl, 2008), leaving many critics to challenge the legiti-
macy of the system. A system that applies law and punishment capriciously or dis-
criminatorily violates perceptions of justice. Although men of color have historically
been the leading recipients of punitive sentencing outcomes, it may be women who
have experienced the greatest of consequences resulting from the heightened prison
population. Women continue to represent a minority of the offending population,
consisting of less than 27% of total arrests (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015) and
roughly 7% of the prison population (Carson & Anderson, 2016) in 2015; however,
their rates of arrest and incarceration have greatly increased over time (see Chesney-
Lind & Pasko, 2013; Harmon & O’Brien, 2011; Herzog & Oreg, 2008). Within the
past 30 years, the number of incarcerated women has increased by more than 700%, an
increase that is almost 1.5 times that for men (The Sentencing Project, 2015). A great
deal of this increase appears to be either causally linked to, or exacerbated by, the
1980s War on Drugs and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for
various drug violations. This emphasis on strict drug enforcement has been especially
detrimental for women whose offending is viewed as especially severe as it harms the
individual as well as the family in a society marked by a “hegemonic gender nor-
mative view that has tended to see women as mothers and the primary caregivers of
children” (Harmon & O’Brien, 2011, p. 644).
The increasing punitiveness that has cultivated into the expansion of the female
prison population is not equally applied to all women. In fact, current trends in
incarceration appear uniquely different for women than for men. According to the
2015 Bureau of Justice Statistics, of men under state and federal correctional control,
about 63% are non-White; conversely, roughly 50% of incarcerated women are non-
White (Carson & Anderson, 2016). Theoretical and methodological approaches to
sentencing disadvantage often acknowledge race and ethnic variations (see Albonetti,
2017; T. W. Franklin, 2015; Paternoster, 2011; Spohn, 2013) as well as gender var-
iations (see Doerner & Demuth, 2014; Starr, 2014; Tillyer, Hartley, & Ward, 2015) in
severity but rarely explore how these differential outcomes across race vary according
to the gender of the defendant. Since the 1990s, a growing literature has advocated for
criminologists to advance research on sentencing disparities by introducing an
“intersectionalities” framework (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). The tendency to treat gender
as a sociologically ascribed “master status” under which all women are subsumed
obscures the unique and often nuanced differences in the lived experiences of women.
Holland and Prohaska
93
The relationship between gender and sentencing outcomes is not only made more
complex by the intersection of race and ethnic identities but also by the importance of
context as well. The extent and manifestation of gender sentencing disparities can be
expected to vary across geographic locations as a result of varying interpretations of
normative gender ideologies. According to several attitudinal studies, those in the
South rank higher on valuing traditional gender norms and identify as more conser-
vative, religious, and punitive compared to other regions (Carter & Borch, 2005;
Johnson, 1999; Moore & Vanneman, 2003; Pasko, 2002; Rice & Coates, 1995). As
such, gender disparities are likely to be different in the South than in other regions.
Furthermore, the relationship between gender and sentencing outcomes is likely to
vary across jurisdictions as a product of differential caseloads. According to Albo-
netti’s (1991) uncertainty avoidance principle, decision makers are more apt to rely on
stereotypes and personal experiences when complete knowledge of relevant circum-
stances is absent. Jurisdictions with greater caseloads may be more likely to rely on
uncertainty avoidance techniques in an effort to push cases through a backlogged
system. Despite theoretical implications for the differential treatment of women
across place, research examining gender disparities and their causes have included
states/districts as mere control variables or omitted regional variation altogether. This
omission trivializes the importance of context in understanding gender dis-
proportionality. This study addresses these limitations by exploring gender disparities
in sentence severity from both an intersectionalities and contextual approach.
Literature Review
Considering growing concerns regarding disadvantage within the criminal justice
system, the general response to ensuring equality has been to reduce judicial discretion
in keeping with the “get-tough on crime” ideology that began in the 1970s and gained
momentum in the 1980s (Beckett & Sasson, 2003). The introduction of mandatory
drug minimums and sentencing guidelines is demonstrative of these efforts to alleviate
inequality via reduced discretion while contemporaneously upholding the values set
forth in the declared “War on Drugs.” The enforcement strategy of these vice crimes
has been particularly detrimental for women as politicians and the media, at the time,
promoted imagery of “crack mothers” and their “crack babies” as an extension of the
drug-addicted female narrative (Carpenter, 2012). Because the war on drugs has been
connected to the rise in the female prison population (Harmon & O’Brien, 2011), this
study expressly examines those accused of drug-related violations.
Efforts to reduce judicial discretion have not been limited to states but further
extends to federal law. The controversial Controlled Substance and Controlled Sub-
stance Import and Export Acts set limits on the minimum length of time to be served
by those convicted of a federal drug violation. However, certain “safety valve”
mechanisms may be implemented as a “partial escape hatch” for certain low-level
offenders (Doyle, 2013). Additionally, sentencing guidelines were established at the
federal level via the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This policy established the U.S.
Sentencing Commission (USSC) which was tasked with formulating acceptable
94
Race and Justice 11(1)
guideline ranges for various violations (Albonetti & Baller, 2010). These ranges are to
be determined by offense specific characteristics including offense severity and
criminal history. Gender, race, age, education, and family circumstances, among
numerous other demographic characteristics, should not be ordinarily considered
when determining an acceptable sentence. However, even with the implementation of
federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing, extralegal varia-
tions in sentencing outcomes persist (see Albonetti & Baller, 2010; Doerner &
Demuth, 2010, 2014; Kautt, 2009; Starr, 2014; Tillyer et al., 2015). While federal
guidelines establish a range, the judge maintains...
To continue reading
Request your trial