Gender Equality and Sentencing Outcomes: An Examination of State Courts

• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419840804
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Author: Jeffrey S. Nowacki
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419840804

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(5) 673 –695

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419840804

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Gender Equality and

Sentencing Outcomes: An

Examination of State Courts

Jeffrey S. Nowacki1

Abstract

The current study examined whether measures of structural gender equality

conditioned the effects of defendant gender on incarceration decisions. Using

data from the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) database, multilevel logistic

regression was used to examine the relationship between both case- and county-

level variables on incarceration decisions on a sample of defendants sentenced in

state courts. Results indicated that women were less likely to be sentenced to prison

than men, but there was no gender difference for jail and noncustodial sentences;

however, the structural gender equality measures exerted only slight influences over

sentencing outcomes.

Keywords

sentencing, gender equality, social context

Sentencing scholars have produced a large body of empirical research that examines

gender disparity in sentencing (Daly & Bordt, 1995; Spohn, 1999). Broadly, this area

of scholarship finds that women, on average, are less likely to receive custodial sen-

tences (Freiburger & Hilinski, 2013; Gruhl, Welch, & Spohn, 1984; Harrington &

Spohn, 2007; Spohn & Beichner, 2000; Spohn & Spears, 1997), less likely to serve

long prison terms (Koons-Witt, Sevigny, Burrow, & Hester, 2014; Steffensmeier,

Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998) and more likely to benefit from downward departure sentenc-

ing (Bontrager, Barrick, & Stupi, 2013; Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993).

Explanations for these gender-based disparities have been linked to both the

possibility that members of the courtroom work group aim to treat women offenders

1Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jeffrey S. Nowacki, Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, B264 Clark Building, Fort

Collins, CO 80523-1784, USA.

Email: Jeffrey.Nowacki@colostate.edu

840804CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419840804Criminal Justice Policy ReviewNowacki

research-article2019

674 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(5)

in a chivalrous fashion (Crew, 1991; Moulds, 1978), and that these workgroup mem-

bers attempt to protect the women and their families (Daly, 1987a, 1987b; Daly, 1989a;

1989b; Freiburger, 2011).

Some research that attempts to explain gender disparity in sentencing decisions has

approached the question from a social control/social costs framework (see Daly,

1987a; Freiburger, 2011). This framework suggests an inverse relationship between

the levels of formal and informal social controls required to punish offenders. That is,

the more informal social control available to offenders, the less likely that formal mea-

sures of social control are necessary to deter future criminal behavior. In this context,

family and childcare responsibilities provide informal social control. Moreover, it is

more difficult to replace care-taking behavior than financial resources, which helps

explain why women with dependent children are often less likely to receive custodial

sanctions than are men with dependent children (Daly, 1987b).

Several studies have also begun to explain disparities in sentencing outcomes

by examining social contextual characteristics of both the courtrooms (Dixon,

1995; Johnson, 2005; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004), and the communities where they

are located (Britt, 2000; Fearn, 2005; Kramer & Ulmer, 2009; Myers & Talarico,

1987; Nowacki, 2018; Wang & Mears, 2010). Much of this research has focused

on explaining racial and ethnic, rather than gender disparities. While criminologi-

cal examinations of other outcomes (e.g., victimization) have used aggregate mea-

sures of gender equality, few studies in the sentencing literature have done so (see

Nowacki & Windsong, 2019; Ryon, 2013, for exceptions). Virtually no studies

have used measures of structural gender equality to explain incarceration deci-

sions at the state court level.

This article contributes to the sentencing literature by examining how gender equal-

ity might condition the effect of gender in sentencing in state courts. Using a variety

of measures of gender equality, I argue that in counties where men and women are

more equal in terms of income, labor force participation, and educational attainment,

women receive particularly lenient sentences.

This type of study is important because it helps understand how sentencing is a

process that goes far beyond individual defendants receiving charges and sentences

from individual prosecutors and judges. Defendants and the courtroom workgroup

members are all embedded within social environments, and it is necessary to under-

stand those environments to understand courtroom decision-making. It is not necessar-

ily that judges are acutely aware of absolute levels of gender equality and apply them

to sentencing decisions. Instead, gender equality may say something broader about

social and courtroom communities and help understand where and how extra-legal

characteristics, such as gender, matter (see Spohn, 2009).

Gender Disparity in State Courts

The sentencing literature has identified gender as one of the most robust predictors

of sentencing outcomes, net of legally relevant variables such as offense severity

and criminal history (Bontrager et al., 2013; Daly & Bordt, 1995; Spohn, Gruhl, &