NCJ Number
224741
Journal
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Volume: 24 Issue: 4 Dated: November 2008 Pages: 399-418
Date Published
November 2008
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This study examined sex disparity patterns in Pennsylvania across three periods differentiated by the presence and the absence of sentencing guidelines to determine if guideline implementation affected the type and duration of sentences imposed on males and females.
Abstract
The study found that the results did not support assertions that sentencing guidelines reduced sex disparity. Women were less likely than men to be incarcerated in prison or jail, regardless of presence or absence of guidelines and type of commitment offense. Results did, however, support the notion that because Pennsylvania’s guideline system confers greater discretion to judges than do guidelines in other jurisdictions, the presence or absence of guidelines does not alter the impact of sex on sentencing decisions. It is concluded that broad claims about the negative impact of guidelines on female offenders should be cautiously interpreted. The research adds to the gender and sentencing literature, highlighting key considerations for the creation of correctional policies. Although it has been argued that sentencing guidelines reduced favorable treatment afforded female offenders, only one study has directly theoretically assessed the impact of guidelines on sentencing outcomes for men versus women. The main objective of this study was to explore the viability of bureaucratization of sentencing, specifically through the role of guidelines, as an explanation for the increasing similarity in how women and men are punished. The study examined gender effects on sentencing outcomes in Pennsylvania, across three periods, including a suspension of guidelines. It examined the impact of guidelines on sentences for men and women under a guidelines system that afforded judges greater flexibility. Tables, figure, notes, and references