Gender in the Courtroom Workgroup: Understanding the Relationship Between the Composition of Workgroups and the Gender Gap in Punishment

• Author: Rachel Bowman,Daniela Oramas Mora,Ojmarrh Mitchell,Cassia Spohn
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221140362
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 3, March 2023, 410 –428.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221140362

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

410

GENDER IN THE COURTROOM WORKGROUP

Understanding the Relationship Between the

Composition of Workgroups and the Gender

Gap in Punishment

RACHEL BOWMAN

DANIELA ORAMAS MORA

OJMARRH MITCHELL

CASSIA SPOHN

Arizona State University

For decades, research has revealed a gender disparity in criminal case outcomes. This phenomenon was traditionally

explained as a product of male court actors’ protectiveness of women and the minimization of female threat. In the current

study, we capitalize on the increasing gender diversity of courts to examine if the gender gap in punishment is explained by

the gender composition of the decision-making body in criminal courts: the courtroom workgroup. Using a sample of felony

cases from Florida’s circuit courts in 2017 (N = 10,605), we measure workgroups as judges, prosecutors, and defense attor-

neys assigned to the same division. We find that the gender diversity of the workgroup does not explain variations in court

outcomes, nor does it explain the presence of gender disparities we observed in all but one of our case outcomes. As such,

male protectionism is insufficient to explain the more lenient treatment of women in Florida’s criminal courts.

Keywords: gender; sentencing; decision-making; criminal justice; female offenders

Women comprise roughly 50% of the U.S. population but only about 7% of the prison

population (Carson, 2021). This gender disparity is primarily explained by differ-

ences in offending rates between men and women (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2016), but even

among those who commit crimes, women tend to receive more favorable outcomes from

the court than men with similar case characteristics (i.e., offense severity, offense type,

and prior criminal histories) (Bontrager et al., 2013). Over time, the gender gaps in

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This project was supported by Award No. 2018-R2-CX-0021, awarded by the National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclu-

sions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

those of the Department of Justice. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel

Bowman, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004; e-mail: bowman.rachel@asu.edu.

1140362CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221140362Criminal Justice and BehaviorBowman et al. / Gender in the Courtroom Workgroup

research-article2022

Bowman et al. / GENDER IN THE COURTROOM WORKGROUP 411

offending rates and punishment are narrowing, with the proportion of women sentenced

to prison and the average sentence length served by women nearly doubling in the past 40

years (Bontrager et al., 2013; Bronson & Carson, 2019; Campaniello, 2019; Fraga, 2020;

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1981). At the same time, more and more women are

entering the legal profession. In 2020, nearly 55% of first-year law students were women

(American Bar Association [ABA], 2021), and while some areas of law remain male-

dominated, women are increasingly represented in the criminal justice profession (U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2021). In the current study, we investigate whether the

narrowing gender gap in punishment and the increasing representation of women in the

courtroom are related.1

Much of the research on courts and sentencing uses the court communities' perspective,

which emphasizes how courts are complex social institutions (Eisenstein et al., 1988). From

this perspective, courts do not mechanistically apply “the law”; they interpret the law and

apply it in ways that fit with the values of the court community and allow for efficient case

processing (Ulmer, 1997). Within court communities, judges, prosecutors, and defense

attorneys make up individual courtroom workgroups. These workgroups develop shared

norms through their interaction on cases over time (Eisenstein & Jacob, 1977). Using the

court communities' perspective, we examine the role of gender in courtroom workgroups.

Specifically, we investigate whether gender diversity in the workgroup leads to more or less

punitive outcomes and whether workgroups with a larger proportion of female court actors

produce smaller gender disparities in case outcomes than more male-dominated work-

groups. Below, we review the empirical evidence of a gender gap in punishment and its

proposed theoretical explanations. Then, we discuss the relationship between gender and

decision-making in the court. Finally, we conclude by highlighting the importance of exam-

ining gender in the context of the courtroom workgroup.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COURT OUTCOMES

Gender is a fundamental correlate of crime in which women are less likely to be involved

in crime than men, and this gender gap in offending is particularly pronounced among vio-

lent and, to a lesser extent, property and drug crimes (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2016; Mallicot,

2019). When women do commit crimes, they generally receive less punitive outcomes than

their male counterparts (Butcher et al., 2017; Doerner & Demuth, 2014). This suggests that

there are gendered pathways through the criminal justice system. Below, we address two of

the primary theoretical frameworks used to understand how women are perceived and

treated by criminal justice actors.

CHIVALRY AND THE EVIL WOMAN

Gender disparities in criminal court outcomes are often understood in terms of the chiv-

alry and evil woman hypotheses (Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Nagel & Hagan, 1983). The

chivalry (or paternalism) hypothesis suggests that women receive more lenient treatment

from court actors because they are seen as biologically weaker and more in need of protec-

tion (Anderson, 1976; Bishop & Frazier, 1984). The notion of chivalry in criminal courts is

predicated on decision-makers being men (Farnworth & Teske, 1995). According to this

hypothesis, male court actors will be more likely to offer diversion, make more favorable