Leniency for Lethal Ladies: Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model to Examine Gender-Based Sentencing Disparities

• Published date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767919867420
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Author: Emma E. Fridel
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767919867420

Homicide Studies

2019, Vol. 23(4) 319 –343

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767919867420

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Leniency for Lethal Ladies:

Using the Actor–Partner

Interdependence Model

to Examine Gender-Based

Sentencing Disparities

Emma E. Fridel1

Abstract

Research has shown that female offenders typically receive differential treatment

in the criminal justice system in comparison to their male counterparts, even for

extreme crimes like murder. This study compares the criminal sentences of 300

homicide offenders who killed at least two victims with a single co-offender (150

pairs) within their dyads using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) to

determine if gender has an effect on leniency for even the most extreme crimes.

Women were less likely to receive the harshest possible punishment, regardless of

their partner’s gender. These findings provide support for the female leniency effect,

suggesting that gender bias continues to influence sentencing decisions for homicide.

Keywords

gender, methodology, serial murder, subtypes, dyadic analysis, sentencing, courts

Introduction

Although criminal justice policy makers and scholars have long been interested in the

relationship of defendant gender and differential treatment in the criminal justice sys-

tem, research in this area has been consistent in its inconsistency (Daly & Bordt, 1995;

Daly & Tonry, 1997; Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993). On one hand, some

argue that the gender gap in sentencing is nearly universal: Female defendants typi-

cally receive differential treatment in the criminal justice system in comparison to

1Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Emma E. Fridel, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 204 Churchill Hall,

360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Email: e.fridel@northeastern.edu

867420HSXXXX10.1177/1088767919867420Homicide StudiesFridel

research-article2019

320 Homicide Studies 23(4)

their male counterparts, regardless of time period, location, crime committed, and sen-

tencing reforms (Bontrager, Barrick, & Stupi, 2013; Johnson, Wingerden, &

Nieuwbeerta, 2010; Nagel & Hagan, 1983). Judges openly admit treating women

more leniently, are more inclined to recommend probation, and tend to give lesser

sentences to women (Simon & Landis, 1991). Similarly, women are less likely than

men to be incarcerated before trial and after conviction, are more likely to be acquitted

or have their cases dismissed, and disproportionately receive downward departures for

assistance to authorities and atypical circumstances (Nagel & Johnson, 1994).

Although gender is not the strongest factor on judicial decision making, males are 12%

to 23% more likely to go to prison for the same crime (Farnworth & Teske, 1995;

Steffensmeier et al., 1993; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). On the other hand,

some scholars have challenged this finding, arguing that the female leniency effect

does not apply for all types of crimes. Proponents of the selective chivalry model, for

example, posit that women only receive lenient treatment if they conform to tradi-

tional gender roles (e.g., mother, wife) and commit gender-typical offenses (e.g.,

minor property crimes) (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006). Similarly, the “evil woman”

corollary stipulates that women whose crimes violate gender norms may be treated

more harshly than men, as they are punished for their legal and social deviance (Herzog

& Oreg, 2008; Nagel & Hagan, 1983).

Despite widespread interest in explaining gender-based sentencing disparities, the

extant research remains conflicted on the utility of the leniency and selective chivalry

perspectives. Empirical research on this topic has traditionally suffered from small

sample sizes, a lack of national-level data, and insufficient control measures (Johnson

et al., 2010; Steffensmeier, 1980). Studies typically compare individual male and

female offenders who were charged with the same type of crime, suggesting the effect

of gender may be confounded with a plethora of other mitigating and aggravating fac-

tors related to particular circumstances that differ across crimes. Prior research has

shown, for example, that men and women commit similar crimes in different contexts

for different reasons, a finding that questions whether separate incidents are compa-

rable (Fox & Fridel, 2017; Jurik & Winn, 1990).

Even further, few studies have compared gender-based sentencing disparities across

offense types with mixed results (Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Koons-Witt, 2002;

Mustard, 2001; Steffensmeier et al., 1993). This may be partially due to the emphasis

on broad categories of crime (e.g., violent, property, and drug offenses) and more com-

mon, less severe crimes (Curry, Lee, & Rodriguez, 2004; Rodriguez et al., 2006)

where differences in punishment by gender may be too small to detect. This is espe-

cially problematic considering that effect sizes for gender tend to be modest in magni-

tude in the first place. Only a handful of studies have examined leniency in homicide

sentencing, for example, despite the fact that selective chivalry effects should be large

and easily detected for these rare, extreme crimes.

This study seeks to clarify the role of gender in sentencing decisions by utilizing the

actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) to compare the sentences of male and

female co-offenders who committed a similar crime: multiple homicide, the epitome

of norm violation and the “evil (wo)man.” By controlling for incident circumstances