Structural Gender Equality and Federal Sentencing Outcomes: A Test of the Ameliorative and Backlash Hypotheses

Abstract

While previous research has examined gender disparities in sentencing, most explanations focus on individual-level differences. We argue that structural gender equality has an important influence on gender disparities as well. Drawing from previous research on victimization, we provide a test of the ameliorative and backlash hypotheses. Using federal sentencing data from 1999-2003, we demonstrate how measures of structural gender equality contextualize the relationship between gender and sentencing. Our analyses suggest that structural gender equality is important for understanding the relationship between gender and sentencing, but different measures of gender equality lead to distinct patterns.

Gender Equality and Sentencing Outcomes: An Examination of State Courts

“…1 Overall, this body of research suggests that women receive more lenient treatment on a variety of outcomes including the incarceration decision, sentence length decisions, and downward departures (Spohn, 1999; Steffensmeier et al, 1993; Steffensmeier et al, 1998). This research draws primarily on three theoretical perspectives to explain this gender disparity in sentencing: the chivalry hypothesis, the judicial paternalism perspective (Belknap, 2014; Nowacki & Windsong, 2019), and the focal concerns perspective (Steffensmeier et al, 1993; Steffensmeier et al, 1998).…”

“…The studies that have been conducted find that women have higher odds of adjudication withheld where aggregate women’s earnings are greater (Ryon, 2013). Moreover, measures of labor force participation and educational attainment produce distinct patterns with respect to sentence length, such that the ratio of female-to-male labor force participation produced an ameliorative effect, while female-to-male educational attainment produced a backlash effect (Nowacki & Windsong, 2019).…”

“…In the context of the current research, this suggests that women sentenced in counties where women, at the aggregate, occupy larger shares of the labor force and educated population, sentencing outcomes should be more lenient. As is the case for the backlash hypothesis, the ameliorative hypothesis has been tested and supported in the victimization literature (see Vieraitis et al, 2008; Xie, Heimer, & Lauritsen, 2012), but has rarely been examined elsewhere (see Nowacki and Windsong, 2019, for an exception in the sentencing literature). To date, measures of structural gender equality have not been used to explain custodial decision making at the state court level.…”

“…This article seeks to advance scholarship on gender disparity in sentencing by examining how aggregate-level measures of structural gender equality condition the effect that defendant gender has at the individual level. While other studies have examined the relationship between defendant gender and structural gender equality at the federal level (Nowacki & Windsong, 2019), and whether adjudication was withheld at the state court level (Ryon, 2013), this study is among the first to examine confinement decision-making in state courts while also incorporating defendant gender and structural gender equality. Broadly, I expect to find that women are less likely to receive custodial sanctions than men, and this will be particularly true in courts nested in more gender-equal counties.…”

“…Much of this research has focused on explaining racial and ethnic, rather than gender disparities. While criminological examinations of other outcomes (e.g., victimization) have used aggregate measures of gender equality, few studies in the sentencing literature have done so (see Nowacki & Windsong, 2019; Ryon, 2013, for exceptions). Virtually no studies have used measures of structural gender equality to explain incarceration decisions at the state court level.…”