Editorial Introduction: Women and Judging

Feenan, Dermot

doi:10.1007/s10691-009-9116-7

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, when these differences were found they were not related with sentencing tendencies but specific features and situations, which are more meaningful to women (Songer et al, 1994). In line with this, Feenan (2009) found some differences in some issues that could be more sensitive to women such as discrimination and the defence of individual rights (Songer et al, 1994), and some moderate gender effects on decisions taken by collectives including women. An interesting hypothesis raised by some scholars to explain the absence of gender differences lays in the socialization and legal education.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Judges’ perception on causes of criminality and justifications for crime

Rodrigues

Sacau

2015

European Journal of Probation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial decision-making has been long studied, particularly sentencing, from a number of perspectives. Many researches have focused on the factors affecting the decision-making process, analysing from judges’ personal characteristics to court context. This article addresses lay theories of crime as viewed by judges. Forty-nine judges participated in this study, answering a questionnaire about causes of criminality and justifications for crime. Results show a large variety of answer with judges positioned in both sides of the scale. Drug abuse is especially relevant when judges assess causes of criminality and justifications for crime. Regarding causes of criminality, the results suggest that judges’ rationale is based on a complex set of social environment characteristics, opposing the dichotomy internal characteristics versus external situational causes, identified in previous studies. Justifications for crime were organized into three major groups: drugs, uncontrolled behaviour and survival. Age and political orientation affected these assessments, but gender was found irrelevant.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Judges’ perception on causes of criminality and justifications for crime

Rodrigues

Sacau

2015

European Journal of Probation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bartolomei, 2013) and if so, the implications of these differences (Rackley, 2008). Thus far, empirical findings are mixed and for Feenan (2009), the data is "equivocal".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women judges who judge women offenders: a Chinese case study on gender and judging

Shen

2020

International Journal of the Legal Profession

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the 'real world' of judging, debates around the value of judicial diversity have questioned whether women judges can, should or do make a substantive -as opposed to a symbolic -difference (see, e.g., Feenan 2009, Kenney 2013, Rackley 2013, Hunter 2015a. Some commentators have focused solely on the symbolic value of having women represented on the formerly male bastion of the bench (see, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feminist Judging in the 'Real World'

Hunter

2018

OSLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The various feminist judgment projects (FJPs) have explored through the imagined rewriting of judgments a range of ways in which a feminist perspective may be applied to the practice of judging. But how do these imagined judgments compare to what actual feminist judges do? This article presents the results of the author’s empirical research to date on ‘real world’ feminist judging. Drawing on case study and interview data it explores the how, when and where of feminist judging, that is, the feminist resources, tools and techniques judges have drawn upon, the stages in the hearing and decision-making process at which these resources, tools and techniques have been deployed, and the areas of law in which they have been applied. The article goes on to consider observed and potential limits on feminist judicial practice, before drawing conclusions about the comparison between ‘real world’ feminist judging and the practices of FJPs. Los proyectos de sentencias feministas, a través de la reelaboración imaginaria de sentencias judiciales, han explorado multitud de vías en las que las perspectivas feministas se podrían aplicar a la práctica judicial. Pero ¿qué resulta de la comparación entre dichas sentencias y la práctica real de las juezas feministas? Este artículo presenta los resultados de la investigación empírica de la autora. Se analiza el cómo, el cuándo y el dónde de la labor judicial feminista, es decir, los recursos, herramientas y técnicas feministas que las juezas han utilizado, las fases de audiencia y toma de decisión en las que se han utilizado y las áreas del derecho en que se han aplicado. Además, se toman en consideración los límites observados y potenciales de la práctica judicial feminista, y se extraen conclusiones sobre la comparación entre la labor judicial feminista en el “mundo real” y la práctica de los proyectos de tribunales feministas.

show abstract

Editorial Introduction: Women and Judging

Cited by 22 publications

References 29 publications

Judges’ perception on causes of criminality and justifications for crime

Judges’ perception on causes of criminality and justifications for crime

Women judges who judge women offenders: a Chinese case study on gender and judging

Feminist Judging in the 'Real World'

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About