Sex Differences in Criminal Sentencing Chivalry or Patriarchy

Justice Quarterly
ISSN: 0741-8825 (Print) 1745-9109 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20
Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or

patriarchy?
B. Keith Crew
To cite this article: B. Keith Crew (1991) Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or
patriarchy?, Justice Quarterly, 8:1, 59-83, DOI: 10.1080/07418829100090911
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100090911
Published online: 15 Aug 2006.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 623
View related articles
Citing articles: 65 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjqy20
Download by: [University of Calgary] Date: 22 November 2017, At: 22:58

SEX DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL
SENTENCING: CHIVALRY OR
PATRIARCHY?*
B. K E I T H C R E W
University of Northern Iowa
The effects of legal and extralegal variables on sentences are compared for
separate samples of male and female felony imprisonment cases from a
Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 22:58 22 November 2017
state justice system. Although no gross sex differences in sentence sever-

ity were found, the variables that predict sentence severity were found to
differ by sex. Race affected sentence length for men but not for women;
employment status affected the sentences of women but not of men. The
effect of offense seriousness on sentence length varied by sex. Family sta-
tus variables were found to have weak and inconsistent effects on the
sentences of female offenders. Qualitative analysis of the official narra-
tives of the cases studied revealed some evidence that sex differences in
legal processing reflect the influence of patriarchal values.
F o r some years, criminologists have b e e n s t u d y i n g t h e effects

of d e f e n d a n t s ' social c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n t h e s e v e r i t y of c r i m i n a l
s a n c t i o n s . M o s t of t h e a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n g i v e n t o r a c e a n d socio-
economic status because labeling and conflict theories predicted
that poor and minority defendants would receive more severe pun-
ishments (Chambliss and Seidman 1971; Q u i n n e y 1970; S c h u r
1971). S e x r e c e i v e d l e s s a t t e n t i o n as a n " e x t r a l e g a l " f a c t o r a f f e c t -
ing sentencing, probably for two reasons. First and more impor-
tant, scholars generally assumed that women received more
lenient treatment than men. T h e t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s
assumed relationship between sex and criminal sanctions are un-
clear because conflict and labeling theories usually are understood
t o i m p l y t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e less p o w e r f u l s o c i a l g r o u p s w i l l r e -
c e i v e t h e m o s t s e v e r e p u n i s h m e n t s ( C h a m b l i s s a n d S e i d m a n 1971):
,% s e c o n d r e a s o n is t h a t t h e l e g i t i m a c y of s e x as a f a c t o r i n s e n t e n c -
ing has been questioned only fairly recently, unlike the legitimacy
of r a c e a n d class. W e l l i n t o t h e 1970s, f o r e x a m p l e , m a n y s t a t e s
* This research was conducted under a cooperative research agreement with

the Corrections Cabinet of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Interpretations and
opinions expressed are solely those of the author. The author would like to thank
Francis Cullen and three anonymous Justice Quarterly reviewers for their in-
sightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 8 No. 1, March 1991

© 1991 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
60 SEX DIFFERENCES IN SENTENCING
had different sentencing laws for m e n and for women: sex was a
legal, not an extralegal, factor (Clements 1972; Temin 1973).
The tendency for women to receive more lenient treatment,
w h e t h e r observed empirically or merely assumed, traditionally has
been interpreted as an expression of either chivalry or paternal-
ism. Moulds (1978:280) distinguishes the two terms as follows:
chivalry refers to men's unwillingness to inflict h a r m on a woman,
combined with a certain amount of disbelief that a woman could
be really criminal; paternalism, on the other hand, refers to the at-
titude that women are childlike and therefore 1) in need of protec-
tion and 2) are not fully responsible for their actions, criminal or
otherwise. Although Moulds insists that the distinction is impor-

tant and implies that paternalism is the more insidious pattern,
the two are difficult to distinguish empirically because they tend to
result in similar outcomes. Hence some authors refer to the two
phenomena jointly as the "chivalry/paternalism" factor (Krohn,
Curry, and Nelson-Kilger 1983; Moulds 1978; Nagel and Hagan
1982).
Other authors assert that women do not uniformly receive
more lenient sanctions because the attitudes of chivalry and pater-
nalism are not applied to all women. When a woman's criminal
behavior is sufficiently outside the bounds of traditional sex role
expectations, she may lose the advantages normally provided by
chivalry and paternalism; she may even be perceived as a worse
criminal t h a n would a m a n convicted of a similar crime. This "evil
w o m a n " hypothesis implies that when women are charged and
convicted of some offenses, they will actually be treated more
harshly t h a n males (Bernstein 1977; Bowker 1978; Rasche 1975).
Nagel and Hagan (1982) argue t h a t the "chivalry/paternalism"
and the "evil w o m a n " hypotheses are complementary rather t h a n
competing explanations for the sanctioning of female offenders.
Chivalry/paternalism accounts for the more lenient sanctioning of
w o m e n whose offenses can be interpreted as understandable, if il-
legitimate, extensions of the normal female sex role. Women
whose crimes are "unfeminine," however, may receive equal or
even more severe sanctions t h a n men convicted of similar crimes.
No analogous sex role criteria have been hypothesized as affecting
the sentencing of male offenders. It would seem, then, that the
legal system is characterized less by chivalry or paternalism t h a n
by "judicial enforcement of sex-role expectations" (Bowker
1978:217). Furthermore, the female sex role is associated with
other statuses, such as economic dependency and familial responsi-
bilities, t h a t can shape both the criminal activities of women and
B. KEITH CREW 61
the responses of the legal system (Kruttschnitt 1984). The com-

mon t h e m e in each of these authors' positions is that gender af-
fects sentencing, but not in a consistent manner. The crucial
assertion of each is not that women receive less (or more) severe
sanctions t h a n men, but t h a t different criteria influence the legal
processing of male and female offenders.
The various possible relationships between sex and criminal
sanctions are summarized in Table 1. These are the hypotheses
tested in the present study. At least some of the propositions
listed in this table, however, are not necessarily contradictory to
each other. It is conceivable, for example, that female offenders
benefit both from legal officials' reluctance to inflict h a r m on a

woman (chivalry) and from a perception of diminished culpability
due to their family and economic statuses (dependency). Further,
the link between some of these propositions and theory is not
clear. A combined model is needed to describe women and in what
direction sex affects sentencing, but such a model must be incorpo-
rated into a coherent theoretical statement that can account for
the apparent contradictions in the relationships postulated.
The combined model is consistent with a view of the legal sys-
tem as dominated by "patriarchy" because it describes the sanc-
tioning of women as a function of their placement in traditional
economic and familial roles (Daly 1989). A patriarchal model sub-
sumes both the "evil woman" and the "chivalry" viewpoints in or-
der to predict when each of these effects may operate. The
patriarchal model implies three general propositions regarding
gender and criminal sanctions: 1) perceived conformity to tradi-
tional sex roles will result in more lenient sentences for female of-
fenders; 2) the sanctioning of female offenders will be affected by
sex-related status attributes that are not relevant in the sanction-
ing of male offenders; 3) because the type of crime can be an indi-
cator of conformity to traditional sex roles, the "nature and
seriousness of the offense" will have a stronger relative effect on
sentencing for women t h a n for men. In the present study, these
propositions are tested on a sample of felony convictions resulting
in imprisonment in a state criminal justice system. I compare the
patriarchal model with the "chivalry/paternalism" and the "evil
woman" models, which predict uniform disparities (although in
different .directions) in the sentences of m e n and of women. I also
make an implicit comparison with the "legal" model, which states
that sex and other extralegal variables have no effect on sentenc-
ing when legally relevant factors are controlled (Hagan 1974).
Table 1. Summary of Hypotheses Regarding Gender and Criminal

Sanctions
Predicted Sentencing
of Female Offenders Intervening or Condi-
Hypothesis Compared to Males tional Factors
Chivalry/ Less severe (Male) legal officials la-

paternalism bel women as less dan-
gerous and culpable
than men.
Evil woman More severe (Male) legal officials la-
bel women as more

dangerous t h a n men.
Combined (Nagel Varies with crime Women receive lenien-
and Hagan) cy unless their crimes
violate sex role expec-
tations.
Legal model Similar (after of- Women commit less se-
fense type is con- rious crimes and have
trolled) less serious criminal
records than men.
Dependency Varies by status Women who are eco-
(Kruttschnitt) nomically dependent on
a man are treated more
leniently, especially if
they have dependent
children.
Prior Research
Studies of the effects of extralegal factors on sentencing gen-
erally have deployed some version of a basic discrimination or dis-
parity model. In these analyses, zero-order or total associations
between defendants' attributes and criminal sanctions are re-
ported; t h e n controls are introduced for legally relevant variables.
A n y residual or "direct" effects of association between the extrale-
gal variables and the dependent variables are taken as evidence of
discriminatory treatment. The dependent variable is often a di-
chotomy representing the "in~out" decision (imprisonment or pro-
bation). Nagel and Hagan (1982) reviewed five studies of this type
(Hagan and Bernstein 1979; Hagan, Nagel, and Albonetti 1980; My-
ers 1979; Nagel, Cardascia, and Ross 1982; Rhodes 1977). They con-
cluded that there is a small but statistically significant gender
B. KEITH CREW 63
effect favoring females. Similar findings are reported in more re-

cent studies (Frazier and Bock 1982; Ghali and Chesney-Lind 1986;
Rich et al. 1982; Z i m m e r m a n and Frederick 1984).
The findings are less consistent in those studies in which
length of incarceration is the dependent variable. Uhlman and
Walker (1979) reported no significant effects for sex on their "sen-
tence severity scale," which included nonincarcerative as well as
incarcerative sanctions. Rich et al. (1982) reported that men re-
ceived longer sentences before guidelines were imposed, but wo-
m e n tended to receive longer sentences after guidelines were
imposed. The authors attributed this change to the more uniform
impact of offense seriousness after guidelines were in effect, and to

a disproportionate n u m b e r of women convicted of homicide. Zatz
(1984) reported no significant sex differences in a California sam-
ple. Zingraff and Thomson (1984) found that women were treated
more leniently t h a n m e n for each of four felony categories, but
were treated more severely for certain misdemeanors (child aban-
d o n m e n t and simple assault).
Kruttschnitt (1984) found that women received less severe
sentences. In a f u r t h e r analysis, she calculated separate regression
models for males and for females. Certain variables, such as prior
arrests and offense seriousness, had different effects on sentence
severity for m e n and for women; other variables (housewife status~
multiple offenses) were associated with decreased sentence sever-
ity for women but not for men. These findings give some support
to the hypothesis that different criteria are applied to male and to
female defendants in the criminal justice system. Drawing on the
theoretical perspectives of Black (1976) and T u r k (1969),
K r u t t s c h n i t t argues in two other studies that the sentencing of wo-
m e n is influenced by economic dependency and motherhood, at-
tributes associated with the traditional female role (Kruttschnitt
1981, 1982). Daly (1989) interviewed judges about their criteria for
sentencing m e n and women. She states t h a t judges indeed apply
sex-based reasoning in their decisions; further, they are more con-
cerned with protecting children and families t h a n with protecting
women.
The Research Problem

The literature on sex differences in sentencing suggests that
women tend to receive more lenient sanctions t h a n men. This
trend, however, is neither universal nor uniform. The gender gap
in sanctioning varies across time and place. It also varies across
types of offenses and with offenders' legal and extralegal attrib-
utes. These latter two observations imply that the decision-making
processes of judges and prosecutors differ for male and for female
offenders. In other words, the relationship between sex, sanction
severity, and intervening legally relevant factors is interactive
r a t h e r than additive. Thus it may be more appropriate to con-
struct a separate multivariate model for each sex than to "partial
out" a zero-order correlation between sex and sentencing. For the
present study, I conducted cross-sex analyses on a sample of males
and females sentenced to prison in a state system.
An essential part of any study of sentencing discrepancies is
the inclusion of controls for legally relevant factors. The most im-
portant of these factors are assumed to be prior criminal record
and offense seriousness (Hagan 1974). Ironically, m a n y studies of

"legal versus extralegal factors in sentencing" rely on common-
sense or normative definitions of "legal" factors without address-
ing the actual content of legal categories (McBarnet 1981; Nagel
1983). For example, m a n y studies operationalize "offense serious-
ness" as the most serious final charge of conviction (e.g., Bernstein
et al. 1977; K r u t t s c h n i t t 1982) even though the practice of plea bar-
gaining means t h a t final charges may bear little resemblance to
the facts of the case (Blumberg 1967; Sudnow 1965). At minimum,
it is apparent that broadly defined legal categories such as "as-
sault" may include events which differ greatly in their normative
seriousness. Moreover, the most accurate evidence suggests that
despite recent increases in female crime, the crimes committed by
women differ in quantity and quality from those committed by
men, even within the same legal category (Bowker 1978; Richey
Mann 1984: Steffensmeier 1980a, 1980b).
An accurate assessment of sex differences in sentencing must
take into account that two elements of criminal cases may differ
by sex: the actual acts understood to have been committed, and
the formation of those acts into legal categories (charges). It is dif-
ficult to quantify these elements. The present study represents an
attempt to include t h e m in an analysis of sex differences in sen-
tencing by operationally separating the concept of offense serious-
ness into two components, the normative and the legal. A n
empirical observation t h a t the relationship between these two
components and their impact on sentence length differs for men
and for women would suggest that different criteria are used in
the legal processing of men and of women. I then conduct f u r t h e r
analysis of status and offense characteristics in an effort to specify
what those sex-based criteria might be.
B. KEITH CREW {}5
DATA AND METHODS
Sample
I collected data on all women (N--108) convicted of felonies
and sentenced to a t e r m of imprisonment in K e n t u c k y in 1980.
For comparison, I selected a 10 percent random sample of male fel-
ony offenders sentenced in the same year. The final sample size
was 228 men. Although the small sample sizes presented some dif-
ficulty for the statistical analyses, t h e y allowed for the inclusion of
more detailed information t h a n is typical in sentencing studies.
The nature of the sample places some important limitations
on the study. Foremost is the possibility of sample selection bias

because persons sentenced to prison are not a random subset of
those arrested, charged, or convicted of felonies. Unfortunately, at
the time of data collection, the records of offenders receiving
nonincarcerative sentences were not kept in a central location.
Sample selection bias would be most likely to occur in the "in/out"
decision because prior research suggests that women are more
likely t h a n m e n to receive probation. If that is the case in the cur-
rent population, an analysis of incarcerated offenders may show no
sex differences. It may even show harsher t r e a t m e n t of women
t h a n of men, if only the "most serious" females are selected for
prison. It is likely, then, that the estimates of sex differences in
sentencing reported in the present study are suppressed or "down-
wardly biased" (Klepper, Nagin, and Tierney 1983).
Variables
The variables included in this study are summarized in Table
2. The data were collected from inmates' official "jackets," on file
at the state correctional department's central office. All variables
except sentence length were coded from the pre-sentence investi-
gation (PSI) report. I coded sentence length from the commitment
order, the legal document remanding the offender to the custody
of the corrections department. In addition to the quantitative vari-
ables listed in Table 2, I kept narrative descriptions of other infor-
mation relevant to the processing of the cases in the form of field
notes. These notes included, among other things, unusual features
of some cases that did not fit into the a priori coding scheme, com-
ments by prosecutors and other officials, and instances where the
defendant's version of events differed from the official story.
Status attributes. Four "extralegal" statuses were coded for each

case: race, marital status, employment, and n u m b e r of dependent
children. Race was coded as a dichotomy: w h i t e = 0 and black--1.
Table 2. Description of the Variables
Means*(Standard
Deviations) for Each
_ Variable Coding Description Variable, by Sex
Males Females
Sex 0 = female 1----male (N=228) (N----108)
Race 0=white 1=black .21 .23
(.41) (.43)
Priors Prior felony convictions .42"* .30"*
(interval) (.50) (.46)
Offense Sellin-Wolfgang offense 11.52 9.79
seriousness score (11.60) (12.74)
(interval: r a n g e = 0 to 71)
Charges Charge severity 14.50 10.37
interval: m a x i m u m (11.36) (7.85)
statutory
penalty in years
Codefendant Codefendant named? .37 .52
0 = n o 1---yes (.48) (.50)
Children Number of dependent .26** .68**
children (.44) (.47)
Married Marital status .53 .22
1 = married 0 = n o t (.50) (.42)
married
Employed Employed full time at 46 .22
arrest?
1 = y e s 0--no (.50) (.42)
Sentence Sentence length in years 6.81 5.42
(10.73) (10.68)
* F o r d i c h o t o m o u s variables, t h e m e a n e q u a l s t h e p e r c e n t a g e f a l l i n g into t h e
c a t e g o r y coded 1.
** P r o p o r t i o n w i t h o n e child or m o r e .
No members of other racial or ethnic groups appeared in the sam-

ple. In view of the demographic composition of the state, this com-
position was not unexpected. Previous analysis of the data showed
that race significantly affected men's but not women's sentences
(Crew 1987). The zero-order correlations (see appendix) follow
this pattern.
Employment status originally was coded as a nine-point occu-
pational status scale. Because the subjects belonged overwhelm-
ingly to the three lowest categories, and because legal officials
apparently focus on w h e t h e r a defendant is gainfully employed, I
also dichotomized this variable, comparing those who were em-
ployed full time with those who were not.
Subjects originally were coded into one of six categories indi-
cating marital status. Because the hypothesis being tested is that
the traditional wife/mother role affords leniency, I dichotomized
B. KEITH CREW 67
this variable into "currently married" and all other categories. In

preliminary analyses, I used d u m m y variables representing each of
the original categories, and observed no significant effects for
other marital statuses (e.g., divorced, widowed, cohabiting). I cal-
culated an interaction term by combining marital and employment
status. This interaction term approximates the operationalization
of "dependency" used by Kruttschnitt (1982). The last family sta-
tus variable coded is the n u m b e r of dependent children: only chil-
dren under age 16 were counted. Although the ages of dependent
children may be important, they were not reported consistently
enough to be included in the study.
Legally relevant variables. The legal model specifies the subject's

prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offense of convic-
tion as the two most important predictors of sentence severity (Ha-
gan and Bumiller 1983). In the present study, prior record is
operationalized as the n u m b e r of prior felony convictions. I chose
this measure because it was correlated highly with alternative
measures, such a s number of arrests. It also has specific legal rele-
vance in K e n t u c k y because of the state's "persistent felony of-
fender" statute, which allows, b u t does not require, increases in
sentences for recidivists.
Offense seriousness is represented by the Sellin-Wolfgang of-
fense seriousness scale (Sellin and Wolfgang 1964). I coded this
composite measure from the "official crime stories" contained in
each PSI. It represents the normative seriousness of the facts of
each case, the "raw material" that is transformed into legal catego-
ries through plea negotiations and trials. The legal seriousness of
the charges is represented by the variable "charge severity." I
operationalized charge severity as the maximum possible sentence
(in years) given the final charges filed. Charges of Class A felo-
nies, with m a x i m u m possible sentences of life imprisonment or
capital punishment, were truncated at 40 years.
Finally, it has been hypothesized that the presence of code-
fendants reduces the severity of sanctions because of "diffusion of
responsibility" (Hagan and Bernstein 1979). Furthermore, it is
common for defendants, and for some criminal justice officials, to
attribute the criminal behavior of female offenders to the influ-
ence of a husband or boyfriend. The variable C O D E F E N D A N T
indicates w h e t h e r the subject acted alone or with one or more
accomplices.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable in this analysis is

sentence length, measured in years. I permitted two exceptions to
this operationalization. First, a n u m b e r of subjects received shock
probation after being sentenced initially to prison. The PSIs

showed that in virtually every case, the prosecutor and the defend-
ant knew that the judge intended to "shock" the defendant. Be-
cause, as a result, the actual time served was always less than a
year, I coded all shock-probated cases as having a sentence length
of 0.5. The other exception took place at the opposite end of the
scale. I coded life sentences as 40 years because persons sentenced
to life terms typically served about the same actual time as offend-
ers sentenced to 40-year terms. None of the subjects in the study
were sentenced to capital punishment.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
I performed the first stage of the analysis on the pooled sam-
ple, with sex entered as one of the independent variables. Sex was
coded so that O--female and l = m a l e ; therefore positive coeffi-
cients indicate longer sentences for men, whereas negative coeffi-
cients indicate longer sentences for women. I regressed sentence
length on all legal and extralegal variables, including two-way and
three-way interactions between sex and the other independent
variables. The results, including significant interaction effects, are
displayed in Table 3.
As expected, the most important determinant of sentence
length is charge severity (variable CHARGES): the zero-order
correlation between charging and sentencing is .610 for the pooled
sample. Charge severity is also the variable closest to sentencing
in the causal order; i.e., all other independent variables are tempo-
rally prior to charge severity. It is possible, then, that some of the
other independent variables affect sentence length indirectly via
charge severity. To illustrate the role of charge severity as an in-
tervening variable, Table 3 reports two sets of regression coeffi-
cients. In the first set, charge severity is excluded from the model;
t h e n the equation is recalculated with charge severity included.
Indirect effects via charge severity can be calculated as the differ-
ence between the coefficients in the first equation and those in the
second equation (Alwin and Hauser 1975). Thus, for example, the
first equation in Table 3 shows a standardized coefficient (beta) of
.124 for the variable PRIORS. In the second equation, the beta for
PRIORS is only .077, showing that charge severity accounts for
part of the effect of prior convictions on sentence length.
On the average, male offenders received longer sentences
(mean=6.8) than female offenders (mean=4.5). Although the lin-
ear relationship between sex and sentencing is significant and is in
the expected direction, it is not very strong (r---.101) and is ex-
plained largely by offense seriousness and charge severity. When
Table 3. Regression Coefficients (b), Beta Weights (B), and Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients (r) for Sentence Length with Sex
and Other Variables
Charge Seriousness Not Controlled Charge Seriousness C o n t r o l l e d

I n d e p e n d e n t Variables r b (s.e.) B b (s.e.) B
Sex .101" -10.335 (5.224)* -.448 -6.220 (4.531 -,270
Race .133"* 1.797 (2.202) .068 -.023 (1.911) -.000
Married .022 .774 (1.400) .031 -.164 (1.213) -.006
Children -.125"* -2.553 (1.291) -.115 -1.567 (1.120) -.071
Employed .034 1.450 (.559)** .223 1.243 (.483)** .191
Priors .066 2,738 (1.107)* .124 1.705 (.962) .077
Offense .389*** .462 (.074)*** .516 .331 (.065)*** .368
Codefendent -.126"* -.724 (1.073) -.034 -1.139 (.928) -.071
Charges .610"** .543 (.052)*** .530
I n t e r a c t i o n Terms:
Sex*Employed -1.674 (.687)* -.532 -1,077 (.597) -.343
Sex*Offense -.232 (.094)* -.236 -.332 (.082)*** -.337
Sex*Race -3.253 (3.187) -.105 -2.204 (2.756) -.071
Sex* Race *Offense .575 (.161)*** .276 .334 (.141)* .161
R~ .232 .426
*p ~ .05 * * p ~ .01 p ~ .001
a. s.e. = standard e r r o r
JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 7 No. 3, September 1990

© 1990 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
product terms pairing sex with the other independent variables

are added to the equation, however, significant nonlinear effects of
sex on sentencing are revealed. Specifically, offender's sex inter-
acts with employment, race, and offense seriousness to affect
sentencing.
The two-way interaction between sex and employment has a
negative impact on sentence length (beta=-.532). In other words,
the combination of being male and being employed appears to re-
duce sentence severity. Conversely, the combination of being fe-
male and being unemployed is associated with reduced sentences, a
finding that apparently supports Kruttschnitt's (1982) dependency
hypothesis. The interaction between sex and offense seriousness is

somewhat more difficult to interpret. As expected, offense seri-
ousness has a strong positive effect on sentence length: the more
serious the crime, the longer the sentence. Offense seriousness,
however, interacts with sex to produce a negative effect on sen-
tencing (beta----.236), which is even stronger when charge severity
is controlled (beta---.337). The interpretation is complicated fur-
t h e r by the presence of the three-way interaction between sex,
race, and offense seriousness. The effect of offense seriousness on
sentence length varies according to the offender's race and sex.
This difference is explained partially, but not entirely, by the in-
tervening effect of charge severity. The existence of significant in-
teractions between sex and other independent variables suggests
the appropriateness of estimating separate models for male and/or
female offenders (Cohen and Cohen 1975). The results of these
separate regression equations are presented in Table 4.
The data in Table 4 confirm that the determinants of sentence
length differ for m e n and for women. Three sex-lined status vari-
ables (MARRIED, CHILDREN, and EMPLOYED) are correlated
significantly with sentence length for women but not for men.
Having children is associated with lenient sentences for women
but not for men. The effect of children remains significant when
prior record and offense seriousness are controlled, but is reduced
to a nonsignificant level (beta = -.069 in Table 4) when charge seri-
ousness is controlled. In other words, prosecutors appear to be
more lenient towards women with dependent children. This effect
is small, however; a test for difference of slope (Cohen and Cohen
1975) found no significant difference between m e n and women.
The direction of the effect of marital status is opposite that ex-
pected, showing that married women tend to receive longer
sentences t h a n unmarried women. The association is weak, how-
ever, and is explained largely by the intervention of the legal vari-
able of offense seriousness: the married women in the sample
Table 4. Regression Coefficients (b), Beta Weights (B), and Zero-Order Correlations (r) for Sentence Length, by Offender's Sex
Women Men
Independent Variables r b (s.e.) ........B r b (s.e.) B
Race .042 .214 (1.917) .008 .184"* -7.486 (2.831)** -.283
Married .223** 1.255 (1.933) .050 -.073 -1.034 (1.620) -.041
Children -.158" -1.593 (1.690) -.069 -.061 -1.173 (1.537) -.048
Employed .155" 1.133 (.474)* .175 -.062 .183 (.366) .027
Codefendant -.216" -.979 (1.615) -.045 -.075 -.965 (1.130) -.022
Priors -.011 .261 (1.752) .011 .083 .888 (1.256) .041
Offense .526*** .301 (.070)*** .358 .312"** .015 (.059) .016
Charges .608*** .603 (.113)*** .438 .614"** .519 (.059)*** .550
Interaction Terms:
Race*Priors 7.758 (2.996)** .210
Race*Offense .501 (.155)** .288
R2 .475 .405
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < . 0 0 0 1
Note: S t a n d a r d e r r o r s a r e in p a r e n t h e s e s f o l l o w i n g r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s .
tended to have committed more serious offenses. As with chil-

dren, the test for difference of slope (Cohen and Cohen 1975)
showed that the effect of marital status was not significantly dif-
ferent for m e n and for women.
The effect of employment status is significantly different for
women and for men. For women, employment is associated with
longer sentences. For men, employment is associated with shorter
sentences, although not significantly. This finding is consistent
with Kruttschnitt's dependency hypothesis because it implies that
women who are economically dependent (unemployed) will re-
ceive leniency. The combination of economic dependency (lack of
employment) and marital status, however, did not affect sentenc-

ing as predicted by her model.
Having a codefendant was correlated significantly with sen-
tence length for women but not for men. In the regression model,
however, presence of a codefendant was not found to be signifi-
cant. The original correlation is apparently an artifact caused by
the association of codefendants with offense seriousness. More
specifically, those women who committed the most violent crimes
(murders and assaults) usually acted alone. When the analysis is
restricted to the less serious crimes (analysis not shown), there is
no effect for codefendants. Coding this variable made no differ-
ence in the results. Hence the data do not support the chivalry hy-
pothesis, which predicts t h a t women are held less responsible for
their actions than men.
The legal model predicts that offense seriousness and prior
record will be the most accurate predictors of legal sanctions.
Thus the lack of a significant effect for prior record for either sex
is somewhat puzzling. Sample selection bias m a y play a role here:
prior record may be more important at the in/out decision than in
determining sentence length. It is likely that first offenders (ex-
cept for those convicted of the most serious crimes) tend to receive
sentences of probation. The expected leniency toward first and
second offenders also may be partially "canceled out" by the supe-
rior plea-bargaining skills of defendants with multiple prior con-
victions. Some evidence that this is the case in the current sample
is presented elsewhere (Crew 1987). There is also some evidence
t h a t the effect of prior convictions varies by race, at least for
males. The significant coefficient for the interaction t e r m
RACE*PRIORS in Table 4 shows that black men with prior
records received longer sentences than the other race/gender
combinations.
In keeping with the legal model, offense seriousness is the
best predictor of sentence length (except for charge severity). The
B. KEITH CREW 73
effect is significantly stronger for women than for men, however;

this result was not predicted by the legal model. For women,
there is a significant direct effect of offense seriousness (beta =
.358). For male offenders, the main effect of offense seriousness is
mediated entirely through its effect on charge severity; w h e n
charge severity is present in the equation, the effect of offense se-
riousness is virtually zero (beta -- .016).
One last extra-legal variable, race, has significantly different
effects on sentencing for men and for women. Race is correlated
with sentencing for men but not for women. For men, the zero-
order correlation between race and sentence length is .184, mean-
ing that black offenders receive longer sentences. In the full re-
gression model shown in Table 4, the effect is negative (beta = -
.283), showing that blacks receive shorter sentences. This reversal
occurs because of the significant interactions between race and
prior convictions (RACE*PRIORS) and between race and offense
seriousness (RACE*OFFENSE). Neither of these interaction
terms is significant for female offenders. A test for difference of
slope shows that the RACE*OFFENSE effect is significantly dif-
ferent across the subsamples. This finding is consistent with the
finding of the significant three-way interaction
(SEX*RACE*OFFENSE) in Table 3. It appears that being a black
male increases the effects of offense seriousness (and, to a lesser
degree, the effects of prior convictions) on sentence length.
Table 5 illustrates the clustering of the most severe sanctions
on black males. The mean offense seriousness scores are not sig-
nificantly different for the four race/gender classifications. Never-
theless, on the average, black m e n are convicted of more serious
charges and sentenced to longer prison terms than the other three
groups. The average sentence for black men is almost twice that
of any of the other categories.
Table 5. Means for Sentence Length, Charge Severity, and Offense

Seriousness, by Sex and Race of Offender
Sentence Charges O f f e n s e
White/Female 4.24 9.76 10.05
Black/Female 5.30 12.40 9.72
White/Male 5.80 13.23 11.70
Black/Male 10.68 19.36 10.85
Offense seriousness is clearly the most important variable in

affecting sentence length, as predicted by the legal model. None of
the other models, however, implies that legally relevant variables
are n o t associated with sentencing; the crucial test is w h e t h e r the
effects of extralegal variables are explained by the intervention of
legally relevant variables. This is not the case for two of the extra-
legal variables in the present analysis, namely employment status
of female offenders and race of male offenders. Furthermore, the
legal model cannot account for the sex-linked differences observed
in the effects of offense seriousness on sentence severity.
We find sex-linked differences in sentencing and charging that
are not predicted by the legal model. The overall pattern of re-
sults illustrates the necessity for a combined model of gender and
sanctioning because neither a general pattern favoring women
over m e n (chivalry/paternalism) nor one of special punitiveness
toward w o m e n (evil woman) is apparent. Also, the data provide
only weak support for the dependency hypothesis as stated by

Kruttschnitt (1982, 1984). It is somewhat suggestive of the "evil
woman" notion that the factual elements of the offense, as mea-
sured by the Sellin-Wolfgang scales, directly affect women's
sentences but not men's. The more serious offenses, partieulary
those involving the use of violence, may be perceived as consistent
with expectations of masculine behavior; therefore w o m e n who
commit such offenses may receive an additional penalty for violat-
ing sex-role standards. Although such an interpretation is consis-
tent with the statistical results, it requires further analysis. I t is
likely that the quantitative operationalizations of legal and extra-
legal variables missed certain features of the offenses, offenders,
and legal reactions that affect differentially the processing of male
and female offenders.
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
In order to explore further some of the relationships reported
in the statistical analysis, I analyzed qualitatively the narrative ac-
counts of the offenses and the social histories of the offenders con-
tained in the pre,sentence investigation reports. Of particular
concern was the likelihood that men's and women's crimes dif-
fered in ways not captured by the operationalization of the key va-
riable of offense seriousness. For example, it is commonly held
that female robbers and burglars typically act in an accessory or
subordinate role with male partners (Bowker 1978:277). Before
conducting the qualitative analysis, I sorted all cases by computer
according to the general legal category of the most serious offense
(e.g., nonviolent property crimes, burglary, assault, robbery, homi-
cide). Then I was able to compare the actions of men and of wo-
m e n convicted of legally similar crimes.
The tendency of w o m e n to play a subordinate role is particu-
larly evident in sexual assaults. In the present sample, 14 men and
B. KEITH CREW 75
t h r e e w o m e n w e r e convicted of this type of offense. All t h r e e wo-

m e n acted as accessories to sexual assaults committed against their
children by their husbands or boyfriends; none took part directly
in t h e assaults. T h u s t h e i r subordinate role in the criminal acts
was b o u n d up intimately with t h e i r family status. Each of these
w o m e n received a sentence of five years or less, whereas t h e males
involved in these t h r e e cases received sentences o f at least 10 years
(the average sentence for all males convicted of sexual assaults
was just over 12 years).
T h e comparative severity of t h e sentences given to male and
to female codefendants in t h e sexual assault cases is consistent
with the overall finding t h a t w o m e n with d e p e n d e n t children re-

ceive lighter sentences. Yet one would not expect this finding to
apply to w o m e n who victhnized t h e i r own children. In each case
t h e women's relatively light sentences were not t h e result of sym-
p a t h y for these w o m e n as mothers. Instead these sentences re-
flected unusually swift plea bargains that accomplished two goals
of interest to t h e prosecutors h a n d l i n g t h e case. First, the plea
bargains e n s u r e d t h a t t h e w o m e n would testify against t h e males,
who w e r e defined as t h e m o r e dangerous participants. Second,
t h e y ensured t h a t the w o m e n would serve some prison time, as a
result of which t h e y were separated f r o m their children. There-
fore t h e apparently lenient sentences in fact reflected a harsh
j u d g m e n t placed on these w o m e n as unfit mothers.
"He Made Me Do I t "
I also e x a m i n e d t h e records for evidence of official assess-

ments of the offenders' culpability and responsibility. A central el-
e m e n t of chivalry and paternalism is postulated to be the t e n d e n c y
to t r e a t w o m e n as "childlike" and t h e r e f o r e as not responsible for
their own behavior. One manifestation of this attitude toward fe-
male defendants occurs w h e n a woman's criminal involvement is
attributed to t h e influence of a male partner. If such an interpre-
tation of an offender's behavior is accepted by t h e authorities, it
should result in m o r e lenient treatment. T h e assessment of re-
sponsibility, of course, is likely to be confounded with t h e different
(and usually subordinate) roles played by w o m e n in t h e m o r e seri-
ous crimes, such as t h e sexual assaults discussed above. T h e r e f o r e
this portion of the analysis is limited to nonviolent p r o p e r t y
crimes, in which t h e actions of male and female defendants are
most similar. Seventy-five male and 69 female offenders fell into
this category. I e x a m i n e d t h e records for these cases for any indi-
cation t h a t t h e defendant's actions were attributed to the influence
of another person, w h e t h e r or not the other person appeared in

the legal record as a eodefendant.
Some attempt was made to attribute blame to a male in about
half (31) of the female cases. In only one case, however, were a
male offender's actions attributed even partially to a woman's in-
fluence: the offender was a 22-year-old m a n whose wife allegedly
pressured him into writing bad checks. Sometimes the defendant
herself referred to her partner as the cause of her criminal behav-
ior; in other cases, the "he made h e r do it" account apparently
originated with the legal officials themselves. An example ap-
peared in the case of a woman convicted of embezzling $2000 from
h e r place of employment. The prosecuting attorney (a man) made

the following statement for official record:
I wouldn't oppose early parole, because I believe this girl's
husband had a lot to do with getting her into this mess
(emphasis added).
It was also noted in the PSI that the offender's husband had quit
his job just before the crimes were committed. The use of the
t e r m "girl" to refer to a college-educated adult who held a position
of some responsibility (she was manager of the business she vic-
timized) is perhaps indicative of the tendency to conceive of wo-
m e n as "childlike," and therefore as characterized by diminished
responsibility. This subject received a two-year sentence, but was
"shock probated": she had to serve only about 60 days.
The willingness of legal officials to displace blame onto the
husband, and the resulting leniency for the offender, provide an
excellent illustration of the chivalry effect. In the cases examined
here, however, the attribution of blame to a husband or boyfriend
was neither uniformly accepted nor uniformly associated with le-
niency. The following two cases, involving virtually identical
crimes, illustrate the varying impacts of the "he made me do it"
account. The first defendant, a 33-year-old white w o m a n convicted
of purchasing $165 worth of merchandise with a forged check, re-
ceived a sentence of two years; the typical sentence for this cate-
gory of offense was one year. The second defendant was a 24-year-
old white woman convicted of purchasing merchandise worth $129
with a phony check; she received a one-year sentence and was
shock probated after three months. The statements of these two
w o m e n in their respective PSIs reveal an attempt to displace re-
sponsibility onto their male partners:
Defendant 1:
He (male companion) made me write it. I wouldn't even
be out here if it weren't for him. He was gonna beat me
up if I didn't write the bad check.
Defendant 2:
B. KEITH CREW 77
I done it because I was forced to.

One can only speculate why Defendant l's claim was ignored
by the legal officials, but several features of her case are probably
relevant. She was described in the PSI as an alcoholic. Both she
and her male companion were labeled as "drifters," and were
strangers in the community where the crime took place. It was
also stated in her PSI t h a t she had a "history of unstable relation-
ships." In short, she could not present herself as a traditional
wife/mother. No charges were filed against her male companion.
In contrast, the claim of Defendant 2 was accepted by the legal
officials, as indicated by the statement of the probation officer who
filed her PSI:

It is the opinion of this officer that (defendant's) main
problem is that she has allowed herself to be bullied by
her husband into committing crimes such as forgeries and
worthless check writing.
Unlike Defendant 1, this subject was in a legal marriage and was
k n o w n to members of the local community, who supported the
contention that her husband had coerced her into committing the
crime. Her husband also was known to the local police, and was
arrested on other charges at about the same time as the subject.
While awaiting sentencing, she filed for divorce, an action that was
noted favorably in her PSI. Even though she had a prior felony
conviction (which also was blamed on her husband's coercion), De-
fendant 2 was given shock probation.
Although the qualitative analysis of these cases is not conclu-
sive, it suggests that the chivalry effect is not a consistent feature
of the processing of female offenders. Rather, it occurs when a
woman's criminal involvement is interpreted as a regrettable con-
sequence of her conformity to gender roles. The likelihood that
such an interpretation will emerge in the course of legal process-
ing is tied to a woman's occupation of traditional family statuses of
wife and mother. As illustrated by the sexual assault cases, how-
ever, leniency toward a female offender with children may be less
an expression of chivalry than an expedient for removing the chil-
dren from a deviant family.
DISCUSSION
Although it is commonly assumed that female offenders re-
ceive more lenient sentences than their male counterparts, the
present study provides little support for this hypothesis. Similarly,
there is no consistent evidence of an "evil woman" effect whereby
w o m e n are penalized more harshly t h a n men, unless one inter-
prets as such the stronger effect of offense seriousness for women.
Only small differences in sentence length by sex were observed;

for the most part these are explained by the different criminal be-
haviors of m e n and of women. For both men and women, the most
important determinant of sentence length is the type and serious-
ness of the offense.
The lack of sex differences observed in the present study may
be due at least partially to sample selection bias. The use of sen-
tence length as the dependent variable means that the analysis is
restricted to a relatively late stage in processing. Sex differences
in earlier stages, particularly the in/out decision (probation versus
incarceration), may bias estimates of sex differences in later
stages. Sample selection bias of this type is more likely to suppress

than to exaggerate sex differences in sentencing (Klepper, Nagin,
and Tierney 1983). Moreover, in their review of the "gender and
crime" literature, Nagel and Hagan (1982) note that preferential
t r e a t m e n t for women tends to occur at the in/out decision rather
t h a n in determining the length of sentence.
Furthermore, the failure of the data to support either the
"chivalry" or the "evil women" prediction should not be under-
stood to mean that there are no sex differences in charging and
sentencing. It appears that different factors affect the sentencing
of men and of women; these factors are tied to the sexual division
of labor in the larger society. Hence, for men, economic roles are
an important consideration in legal processing: presentencing rec-
ommendations often are based at least partially on the offender's
work history or current employment status. Women, on the other
hand, are likely to be judged according to the roles they play
within the family.
Even so, mere occupancy of selected employment or family
statuses by defendants is not highly predictive of legal sanctions.
Instead, sex roles represent different criteria by which defendants
are evaluated. Leniency may be extended to female offenders who
occupy the traditional female rolesmi.e., are subordinate to a male
partner and are oriented toward maintaining a h o m e p a r t i c u l a r l y
if legal officials interpret their crime to be a result of enacting
those roles. On the other hand, women who do not enact tradi-
tional female roles or women whose crimes contradict those roles
(e.g., a woman who victimizes her husband or children) are likely
to be denied such chivalry. The pattern of selective rather than
general leniency toward female offenders is consistent with Nagel
and Hagan's (1982) suggestion t h a t the "chivalry" and the "evil wo-
m a n " effects should be viewed as complementary r a t h e r t h a n com-
peting hypotheses.
B. KEITH CREW 79
This observation is also consistent with Kruttschnitt's (1982)

theory that the "chivalry" effect is limited to women in dependent
statuses, and with Daly's (1989) prediction that the mitigating ef-
fects of having dependent children are greater for women than for
men. The present study, however, also suggests an explanation for
the weak effects of family status variables (marital status, pres-
ence of children) on sentence severity. A woman does not auto-
matically receive leniency because of her status of wife or mother,
but she m a y receive leniency ff those statuses become part of the
official explanation of her criminal behavior (e.g., she was stealing
to feed her children; an abusive husband forced her to commit a
crime), or part of an assessment of her character as someone who

can be rehabilitated. On the o t h e r hand, those statuses may work
to her disadvantage if (for example) her criminal behavior leads
h e r to be labeled as a neglectful wife and mother or as a bad influ-
ence on, or a danger to, her children. These latter events, how-
ever, m a y not necessarily result in more severe sanctions t h a n
m e n would receive for similar crimes. The "evil woman" hypothe-
sis is too simplistic; such women may receive relatively light
sentences not because of chivalry but to accomplish other goals,
such as expediting the removal of the children from the home.
One unexpected finding was that race affected the sentencing
of m e n but not of women. Indeed, the chivalry hypothesis may
lead one to expect the converse result, on the assumption that only
white women would benefit from the "pedestal effect." It may be
that race is not an issue for women because it is overshadowed by
the effects of gender-linked, especially family, statuses. The analy-
sis of interaction effects showed that black males who commit vio-
lent interpersonal crimes are singled out for the most severe
sentences. Such offenders may be perceived to particulary threat-
ening by (usually white) prosecutors and judges. If legal officials
accept the popular idea that crime by blacks is a function of pa-
thology in the black family, the race effect on sentencing also may
be interpreted as an expression of a patriarchal legal system. This
speculation, of course, goes beyond the data of the present study.
This study, however, demonstrates the need to test for interaction
effects and to construct separate models for male and female of-
fenders. Otherwise a race effect m a y be misinterpreted as a gen-
der effect.
Patriarchal values are evident in the sentencing of women, as
seen in the stereotyping of female offenders and in the concern
with protecting the sanctity of the traditional family. The most
parsimonious explanation of the complex relationship between
gender and sentencing is that the legal system is more concerned
with maintaining families and protecting children than with dis-

criminating on the basis of sex. As agents of a patriarchal state,
legal officials must decide when to use the power of the criminal
sanction to maintain a family unit and w h e n to use that power to
disperse it. To do so, they must evaluate the relevance of gender-
specific criteria to the task of deciding what to do in a specific case.
In the present study, I used qualitative data to interpret the pat-
terns observed in the quantitative data; this strategy demonstrated
the importance of taking into account the intentions of legal offi-
cials in applying sanctions. Future research should pursue this
strategy further in order to uncover the extent to which patriar-
chal values and gender stereotypes affect the differential process-
ing of female offenders.
REFERENCF~
Alwin, Duane F, and Robert M. Hauser (1975) "The Decomposition of Effects in

Path Analysis." American Sociological Review 40 (1):37-47.
Bernstein, Ilene Nagel, Edward Kick, Jan T. Leung, and Barbara Schulz (1977)
"Charge Reduction: An Intermediate Stage in the Process of Labelling Crimi-
nal Defendants." Social Forces 56 (2):362-84.
Black, Donald, (1976) The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
Blumberg, Abraham S. (1967) Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle.
Bowker, Lee H. (1978) Women, Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Lexing-
ton, MA: Heath.
Chambliss, M. (1972) "Sex and Sentencing." Southwestern Law Journal 26:897-905.
Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1975) Applied Multiple Regression~Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Wiley.
Crew, B. Keith (1987) "Sentencing of Felony Offenders as a SociooLegal Phenome-
non." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Daly, Kathleen (1989) "Rethinking Judicial Paternalism: Gender, Work-Family
Relations and sentencing." Gender and Society 3 (1):9-36.
Figueira-McDonough, Josefina (1985) "Gender Differences in Informal Processing:
A Look at Charge-Bargaining and Sentence Reduction in Washington, D.C."
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22 (2):101-33.
Frazier, Charles E. and E. Wilbur Bock (1983) "Effects of Court Officials on Sen-
tence Severity: Do Judges Make a Difference?" Criminology 20 (2):257-72.
Ghali, Moheb and Meda Chesney-Lind (1986) "Gender Bias in the Criminal Justice
System: An Empirical Investigation." Sociology and Social Research 70 (2):164-
71.
Hagan, John (1974) "Extra-Legal Attributes and Criminal Sentencing: An Assess-
ment of a Sociological Viewpoint." Law and Society Review 8 (3):357-81.
Hagan, John and Ilene N. Bernstein (1979) "The Sentence Bargaining of Up-
perworld and Underworld Crime in Ten Federal Courts." Law and Society Re-
v/ew 13 (3):633-49.
Hagan, John and K_ristin Bumiller (1983) "Making Sense of Sentencing: A Review
and Critique of Sentencing Research." In Alfred BlumsteLn, Jacqueline Cohen,
Susan Martin, and Michael Tonry (eds.), Research on Sentencing: The Search
for Reform. Volume 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 1-54.
Hagan, John, Ilene Nagel, and Celeste Albonetti (1980) "The Differential Sentenc-
ing of White-Collar Offenders in Ten Federal District Courts." American Soci-
ological Review 45:802-20.
Hagan, John and Nancy O'Donnel (1978) "Sexual Stereotyping and Judicial Sen-
tencing: A Legal Test of the Sociological Wisdom." Canadian Journal of Soci-
ology 3 (3):309-19.
B. KEITH CREW 81
Klepper, Steven, Daniel Nagin, and Luke-John Tierney (1983) "Discrimination in

the Criminal Justice System: A Critical Appraisal of the Literature." In Al-
fred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Susan Martin, and Michael Tonry (eds.), Re-
search on Sentencing: The Search for Reform Volume 2. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, pp. 55-128.
Krohn, Marvin D , James P. Curry, and Shirley Nelson-Kilger (1983) "Is Chivalry
Dead? An Analysis of Changes in Police Dispositions of Males and Females."
Criminology 21 (3):417-38.
Kruttschnitt, Candace (1980) "Social Status and Sentences of Female Offenders."
Law and Society Review 15 (2):247-65.
(1982) "Women, Crime and Dependency." Criminology 19 (4):495-513.
(1984) "Sex and Criminal Court Dispositions." Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 21 (3):213-32.
McBarnet, Doreen F. (1981) "Pretrial Procedures and the Construction of Convic-
tion." In Pat Carlen (ed.), The Sociology o f Law. Keele, Staffordshire, UK:
University of Keele, pp. 172-201.
Moulds, Elizabeth F. (1978) "Chivalry and Paternalism: Disparities of Treatment in

the Criminal Justice System." Western Political Science Quarterly 31 (3):416-
40.
Myers, Martha A. (1979) "Offended Parties and Official Reactions: Victims and the
Sentencing of Criminal Defendants." Sociological Quarterly 20 (4):529-40.
Nagel, Ilene H. (1983) "The Legal/Extralegal Controversy Revisited: A New Look
at Judicial Decisions in Pre-Trial Release." Law and Society Review 17 (3):481-
515.
Nagel, Ilene H., John Cardascia, and Catherine E. Ross (1982) "Sex Differences in
the Processing of Criminal Defendants." In D. Kelly Weisberg (ed.), Women
and the Law: The Social Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman,
pp. 259-96.
Nagel, Ilene H. and John Hagan (1982) "Gender and Crime: Offense Patterns and
Criminal Court Sanctions." In N. Morris and M. Tonry (eds.), Crime and Jus-
tice. Volume 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 91-144.
Quinney, Richard (1970) The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown.
Rasche, Christine E. (1975) "The Female Offender as an Object of Criminological
Research." In A. Brodsky (ed.), The Female Offender. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Rhodes, William M. (1977) "A Study of Sentencing in the Hennepin County and
Ramsey County District Courts." Journal of Legal Studies 6:333-53.
Rich, W.D., L.P. Sutton, T.R. Clear, and M.J. Saks (1982) Sentencing by Mathemat-
ics: An Evaluation of the Early Attempts to Develop and Implement Sentenc-
ing Guidelines. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for the Study of State
Courts.
Richey Mann, Cora Mae (1984) Female Crime and Delinquency. Tuscaloosa: Uni-
versity of Alabama Press.
Schur, Edwin M. (1971) Labeling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper and Row.
Sellin, Thorstein and Marvin Wolfgang (1964) The Measurement of Delinquency.
New York: Wiley.
Simon, Rita J. and Marvin Sharma (1978) "The Female Defendant in Washington,
D.C.: 1974 and 1975." Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Social Research.
Steffensmeier, D. (1980a) "Assessing the Impact of the Women's Movement on Sex-
Based Differences in the Handling of Adult Criminal Defendants." Crime and
Delinquency 26:344-57.
Steffensmeier, D. (1980b) "Sex Differences in Adult Patterns of Crime, 1966-1977:
A Review Assessment." Social Forces 58 (4): 1080-1108.
Sudnow, David (1965) "Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in
a Public Defender Office." Social Problems 12:255-76.
Temin, Caroline (1973) "Discriminatory Sentencing of Women Offenders: The Ar-
gument for ERA in a Nutshell." American Criminal Law Review 11:355-72.
Turk, Austin (1969) Criminality and the Legal Order. New York: Rand-McNally.
Uhlman, T. and N. Walker (1979) "A Plea is No Bargain: The Impact of Case Dis-
position on Sentencing." Social Science Quarterly 60 (3):218-234.
Zatz, Marjorie S. (1984) "Race, Ethnicity and Determinate Sentencing: A New Di-
mension to an Old Controversy." Criminology 22 (2):147-71.
Zimmerman, S. and B. Frederick (1984) "Discrimination and the Decision to Incar-
cerate." In D. Georges-Abeiye (ed.), The Criminal Justice System and Blacks.
New York: Clark Boardman, pp. 315-34.
82 SEX D I F F E R E N C E S IN SENTENCING
Zingraff, M a t t h e w and Randall Thomson (1984) "Differential Sentencing of Wo-

m e n a n d M e n in the U.S.A." International Journal of the Sociology o f Law 12
(4):401-14.
Appendix: Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients For All Variables, By Sex
Race Married Children Employed Codefendant Priors Offense Charges Sentence

Race __ -.206* .099 .083 -.117 .077 -.011 .143 .042
Married -.233* .112 -.122 -.052 .061 .150 .237** .223**
Children -.103 .566*** -.011 -.035 -.071 -.050 -.183" -.158"
Employed .147" -.188"* -.201"** __ .099 .120 .100 -.018 -.155"
Codefendant .016 -.012 .001 m -.060 -.271"* -.124 -.216"
Priors .022 .063 .038 .009 -.016 w -.172" .112 -.011
Offense -.030 .198"** .177 -.098 -.109" -.051 __ .375*** .526***
Charges .219"** .002 .022 .110" .000 .015 .474*** __ .609***
Sentence .184"** -.073 -.061 .062 -.075 .083 .312"** .614"**
* s i g n i f i c a n t at p = . 0 5 ** s i g n i f i c a n t at p = . 0 1 *** s i g n i f i c a n t a t p = . 0 0 1
Coefficients for w o m e n a r e a b o v e a n d to t h e r i g h t of t h e diagonal; coefficients for m e n a r e b e l o w a n d to t h e left of t h e diagonal.
C~
O0

Sex Differences in Criminal Sentencing Chivalry or Patriarchy

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sex Differences in Criminal Sentencing Chivalry or Patriarchy

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Justice Quarterly

ISSN: 0741-8825 (Print) 1745-9109 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjqy20

Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100090911

Published online: 15 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 623

View related articles

Citing articles: 65 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Calgary] Date: 22 November 2017, At: 22:58

state justice system. Although no gross sex differences in sentence sever-

F o r some years, criminologists have b e e n s t u d y i n g t h e effects

* This research was conducted under a cooperative research agreement with

JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 8 No. 1, March 1991

otherwise. Although Moulds insists that the distinction is impor-

the responses of the legal system (Kruttschnitt 1984). The com-

benefit both from legal officials' reluctance to inflict h a r m on a

Table 1. Summary of Hypotheses Regarding Gender and Criminal

Chivalry/ Less severe (Male) legal officials la-

bel women as more

effect favoring females. Similar findings are reported in more re-

impact of offense seriousness after guidelines were in effect, and to

The Research Problem

and offense seriousness (Hagan 1974). Ironically, m a n y studies of

DATA AND METHODS

on the study. Foremost is the possibility of sample selection bias

Status attributes. Four "extralegal" statuses were coded for each

Table 2. Description of the Variables

No members of other racial or ethnic groups appeared in the sam-

this variable into "currently married" and all other categories. In

Legally relevant variables. The legal model specifies the subject's

Dependent variable. The dependent variable in this analysis is

probation after being sentenced initially to prison. The PSIs

Charge Seriousness Not Controlled Charge Seriousness C o n t r o l l e d

JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 7 No. 3, September 1990

product terms pairing sex with the other independent variables

hypothesis. The interaction between sex and offense seriousness is

tended to have committed more serious offenses. As with chil-

employment) and marital status, however, did not affect sentenc-

effect is significantly stronger for women than for men, however;

Table 5. Means for Sentence Length, Charge Severity, and Offense

Offense seriousness is clearly the most important variable in

only weak support for the dependency hypothesis as stated by

t h r e e w o m e n w e r e convicted of this type of offense. All t h r e e wo-

with the overall finding t h a t w o m e n with d e p e n d e n t children re-

"He Made Me Do I t "

I also e x a m i n e d t h e records for evidence of official assess-

of another person, w h e t h e r or not the other person appeared in

h e r place of employment. The prosecuting attorney (a man) made

I done it because I was forced to.

filed her PSI:

Only small differences in sentence length by sex were observed;

stages. Sample selection bias of this type is more likely to suppress

This observation is also consistent with Kruttschnitt's (1982)

crime), or part of an assessment of her character as someone who

with maintaining families and protecting children than with dis-

ing of female offenders.

Alwin, Duane F, and Robert M. Hauser (1975) "The Decomposition of Effects in

Klepper, Steven, Daniel Nagin, and Luke-John Tierney (1983) "Discrimination in

Moulds, Elizabeth F. (1978) "Chivalry and Paternalism: Disparities of Treatment in

Zingraff, M a t t h e w and Randall Thomson (1984) "Differential Sentencing of Wo-

Appendix: Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients For All Variables, By Sex

Race Married Children Employed Codefendant Priors Offense Charges Sentence