On the Judicial Agenda for the 80s - Equal Treatment for Men and Women in the Courts

• NCJ Number: 73430
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 64 Issue: 5 Dated: (November 1980) Pages: 202-209
• Author(s): N J Wikler
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 8 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Research evidence that sex-based bias influences decisionmaking in U.S. courts is reviewed, and corrective remedies for discriminatory practices by judicial personnel are explored.

Abstract

Empirical studies of judicial attitudes by legal researchers and social scientists confirm that male judges tend to adhere to traditional values and beliefs about the natures and proper roles of men and women and prefer traditional and familiar institutions and roles. Other evidence for sex role stereotyping can be found in the law's historical view of sex roles, its impact on the thinking and structure of the judiciary, and in histories of women's new dependent legal status, especially regarding marriage and property. Moreover, new studies of differential treatment among women for the same offense point toward judicial enforcement of sex role expectations. Pervasive sexism in the courts also extends to female victims, as shown by extensive research indicating that the legal system has protected the rape offender and punished the female victim. Myths in family law are illustrated by the continuing preference of awarding women custody of children after divorce. As with most adults, judges have learned sex stereotypes through the social institutions that reinforce them and only recently have judges been exposed to influences that identify sex discrimination in the law. In addition to legislative reform and inclusion of women in the judiciary, the elimination of gender bias in judicial decisions can be accomplished through systematic education of judges on both an informal and formal basis. In addition to bar association polls, 'court-watchers,' media access to the court room, more attention to the judicial selection process, and the introduction of course materials and curricula in established State, regional, and judicial education programs will sensitize judges to the issues of gender bias. Thirty-three footnotes are provided.