Gendered Justice in China: Victim–Offender Mediation as the “Different Voice” of Female Judges

Abstract

<jats:p> Attempts to uncover the “different voice” of female judges through testing the statistical significance of judges’ gender in decision making have offered inconsistent results. Meanwhile, a proliferation of research suggests that such “voice” might be detected through qualitative analysis. Existing findings indicate that when female judges have discretionary power regarding case management, they will typically foster a process of settlement. Based on this information, I conducted eight months of fieldwork in China and observed 68 victim–offender mediations in four district courts. I found that the criminal division is widely perceived as a masculine setting, and female judges are accustomed to employing mediation as a preferred dispute resolution method to facilitate reconciliation between the two parties and seek civil compensation for victims. Such judicial behavior is a result of propaganda from the Supreme People’s Court and a reflection of female judges’ life and work experience. By contrast, a neglect of mediation among male judges can be identified in the same workplace. The belief that mediation is feminine and time-consuming contributes to this neglect. In addition, rape lawsuits are an exception for mediation. This explorative research not only represents one of the first efforts to reveal a “different voice” in the Chinese criminal justice system but points out a direction of research for studying the judicial behaviors of female judges worldwide. </jats:p>

Judicial breakfast as an external factor in judicial decision making in courts

“…The difference between the two theories is the use of prediction, which the realists contend is an integral element in the judicial decision-making process. The realists play an integral role in creating a distinction between decision-making and justification as they established a division between written judgments and judicial opinions and the actual process of making the ruling (Wei, 2021). They contend that judges use the facts and formal judicial rules to justify their choices, which means that formalists avoid the conclusion that judges make decisions based on their personal preference, personality, or hunch.…”

“…Comparing the first and the last ruling, the study found that favorable outcome drops by 60%. According to the research, the likelihood of a good result decreases from 60% in a first option to zero in a last one (Wei, 2021). As such, the theory established that the judges are influenced by extraneous factors, which they speculate was attributable to depletion of mental cognition.…”

The Effect of Extralegal Factors in Decision-Making About Juvenile Offenders in Chile: A Quasi-Experimental Study

“…Gender might also play a role, with some scholars arguing that women’s rationality is more oriented toward an ethic of care than men’s (Gilligan, 1982). Moreover, both women and minorities are more likely to refract their own experiences through the process, and are therefore more sensitive to specific offenses, such as sexual offenses against women (Wei, 2021).…”