Evidence of similar gender bias in the USA

USA Evidence (1)
Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature by Kathleen Daly & Rebecca L. Bordt,  University of Michigan,  University of Notre Dame, Justice Quarterly, Vol.12, Issue 1, 1995

  • Half of the cases examined showed sex effects favoring women; one-quarter each showed mixed effects or no effects.
  • Sex effects favoring women are far more frequent than race effects favoring whites.

USA Evidence (2)
The Independent and Joint Effects of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts, Jill Doerner & Stephen Demuth, Justice Quarterly, Vol.27, 2010

Conclusion: “We find that Hispanics and blacks, males, and younger defendants receive harsher sentences than whites, females, and older defendants after controlling for important legal and contextual factors.”

USA Evidence (3)
Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the US Federal Courts by David B. Mustard, University of Georgia, in Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLIV (April 2001).

Key findings,

  • Males are more likely to be imprisoned
  • Men’s sentences are significantly longer than women’s after controlling for offence severity and criminal history
  • 70% of the male-female disparity in sentencing is caused by departures from the sentencing guidelines

USA Evidence (4)
Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases Sonja B. Starr, University of Michigan Law School, 2012

Main findings,

  • Gender disparities are strikingly large
  • Female arrestees are significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely
  • Treatment as male is associated with a 63% average increase in sentence length
  • Females are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted

Starr’s work is the most recent, and the most thorough. The last two bullet points are strikingly similar to the sentence disparity and imprisonment disparity for England & Wales based on indictable offenses as estimated  in Analysis of gender bias in sentencing data. The second bullet suggests that the overall disparity of 3.5 derived there may be a substantial under-estimate if disparities in arrest, prosecution and conviction were also included.

Related links (open in this tab)