UTSA criminal justice researchers examine gender’s role in federal narcotics cases

By Jesus Chavez
Public Affairs Specialist

(Feb. 19, 2015) -- Female defendants can receive different sentence lengths compared to male defendants charged with the same offense depending on the significance of their criminal history, according to a new study by criminal justice researchers in the UTSA College of Public Policy.

UTSA Associate Professor Rob Tillyer, Associate Professor and Chair of the Criminal Justice Department Richard Hartley and Assistant Professor Jeffrey T. Ward examined how the criminal histories of women can impact their sentencing in federal narcotics cases. The researchers sought to determine whether the intersection between a defendant’s criminal history and their gender could explain why female defendants were receiving different sentence lengths compared to male defendants.

The researchers compared thousands of federal narcotics cases for men and women of varying ages and racial/ethnic groups using data from the United States Sentencing Commission for cases from Oct. 1, 2007 to Sept. 30, 2008. Criminal history, in this case, reflects a defendant’s previous convictions and is calculated in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines designed to ensure fairness and equity during the sentencing process.

The researchers found that female defendants with little-to-no criminal histories received 17 percent shorter sentence lengths than their male counterparts. Alternatively, female defendants with significant criminal histories had sentence lengths that were nine to 17 percent longer than their male counterparts. The findings were consistent across most age and racial/ethnic groups.

The researchers say that explanations for their findings may rest with the "Chivalry Hypothesis" and the "Evil Woman Hypothesis." The former argues that female defendants will receive more lenient treatment than men charged with the same offenses due solely to whether they are perceived as conforming to gender norms. The latter suggests that female defendants will instead receive harsher sentences because they are perceived as violating gender norms. In both cases, women would receive different sentence lengths than men charged with the same crime.

Given the study’s findings, the researchers argue that criminal history has a profound influence on how female defendants are treated within the federal court system. Although the researchers were not able to definitely conclude that gender norms are underpinning these findings, conditional support was offered for both the “Chivalry Hypothesis” and the “Evil Women Hypothesis” that may lend credence to them.

The researchers concluded that it would be hard to suggest that female defendants are treated the same as male defendants when it comes to sentencing. Their findings show that the federal court system may sentence more harshly or leniently based on a defendant’s criminal background, and that, regardless of motivation for such differences, the long-held belief that leniency is the default treatment for women by the court system is only true under some circumstances.

The article -- “Differential treatment of female defendants: Does criminal history moderate the effect of gender on sentence length in federal narcotics cases?” -- is forthcoming in Criminal Justice & Behavior.

-------------------------------

Learn more about the UTSA Department of Criminal Justice. Visit copp.utsa.edu to learn more about the UTSA College of Public Policy.

Connect online with UTSA on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram.