The Offense-Specific Nature of Gender and Familial Responsibility in United States Federal Sentencing, 2010–2016

Prior sentencing research has identified leniency afforded to females (compared with males) and those with familial responsibility (compared with those without). Studies have also found that the effect of defendant gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections depend on the type of offense examined. What remains unclear is the situations in which these factors matter more or less. The purpose of this study is to disaggregate extralegal effects by understanding how gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections influence federal sentencing outcomes across various offense types. Findings from this study suggest that gender, familial responsibility, and their combinations exert different influences depending on the (a) dependent variable and (b) offense type examined.

Gender Disparity in Pennsylvania Child Abuse and Neglect Sentencing Outcomes

Sentencing studies consistently show that male offenders receive more severe sentences than females. However, theory-based explanations for gender disparities in sentencing, which posit lenience is partially based on caregiver status, may be less relevant for crimes against children. This study leverages Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission data to assess sentence type and length among adults convicted of child neglect or physical abuse between 2006 and 2016. Employing bivariate and multivariate statistics, we found that, although female perpetrators make up the majority of child neglect and physical abuse perpetrators in the Child Protective Services system, they are a minority of those convicted. If convicted, women received less harsh sentences than men, consistent with the disparate gender patterns found in general criminal sentencing research.

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

Very little research on courts and sentencing outcomes focuses on misdemeanor courts despite the fact that most crime processed through the criminal justice system is misdemeanor in nature. In fact, the overwhelming empiricism in this area is on felony court outcomes at either the federal or state levels. This research utilized a mixed methodology approach, a combination of observation, survey, and secondary data, to explore misdemeanor court outcomes across the State of Florida. In particular, this research focused on the extent of due process afforded misdemeanor defendants and how this impacted case outcomes. Findings indicate an overall lack of due process and awareness of due process rights across the vast majority of cases. This study also explored sentencing outcomes via traditional metrics associated with contemporary sentencing research. Findings suggest that misdemeanor courts processing operate much differently than felony courts. The implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Locating the Judge within Sentencing Research

Research into sentencing is undertaken from a range of theoretical, disciplinary and methodological perspectives. Each approach offers valuable insights, including a conception of the judge, sometimes explicit, often implicit. Little scholarly attention has been paid to directly interrogating the ways in which different research traditions construct the judge in the sentencing process. By investigating how different research approaches locate the judge as an actor in sentencing, theoretically and empirically, this article addresses that gap. It considers key examples of socio-legal scholarship which emphasise the judge as operating within experiential, emotional and social, as well as legal dimensions. This growing body of research offers a more social, relational and interactive understanding of the judge in sentencing, extending and complementing the valuable, but necessarily limited, insights of other research approaches about the place of the judge in sentencing.