Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Gender
Description
Gender disparity in sentencing outcomes has a long tradition in sentencing literature, with a substantial body of evidence indicating that women offenders are treated with greater leniency over male counterparts. The prior literature on gender and sentencing, however, has ignored broader social contexts within which judicial decision-making occurs. This dissertation attempts to address this limitation by dissecting the nature of gender disparity through ecological lenses. Using federal sentencing data for FY 2001 through 2010 and other complementary data sets, this dissertation, divided into two major sub-studies, has examined the roles of two social contextual variables, such as religioius and political conservatism, in producing gender differentials in sentencing outcomes.
ContributorsKim, Byung Bae (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Wright, Kevin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Prior sentencing research, especially research on cumulative disadvantage, has mainly focused on the treatment of male defendants, and little attention has been paid to female defendants, especially minority female defendants. Drawing on the intersectional vulnerability and focal concerns perspectives, the current study emphasizes the need to examine disparity in sentencing through an intersectional lens and across multiple decision-making points. Using the State Court Processing Statistics dataset (SCPS) from 1990-2009, this paper investigates the impact that race/ethnicity has for female defendants across individual and successive stages in the sentencing process. The results suggest that race operates through direct and indirect pathways to cause lengthier sentences for Black female defendants compared to White female defendants, thus providing evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Black female defendants. Theoretical, research, and policy implications will be discussed.
ContributorsKramer, Kelsey Layne (Author) / Wang, Xia (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Telep, Cody (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Procedural justice has become a widely researched topic in the criminological field with applicability to multiple arenas, including policing, corrections, and courts. Its main tenents suggest that through fair treatment, respectful dialogue and being given a proper voice, citizens will view their experiences with authority more justly. However, though the literature regarding procedural justice has grown immensely, it is still unclear whether certain characteristics of individuals, such as gender and mental health, play a role in their perceptions of procedural justice. Using secondary data originally collected for Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel and Lindquist’s Multi-Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), an attempt is made to address the previously neglected association between procedural justice, gender, mental health and the added aspect of specialized drug court participation. Results suggest that both gender and mental health, namely depression, play a significant role in predicting procedural justice. Additionally, being a drug court participant was significantly related to higher levels of perceived procedural justice. Implications for theory, research, and policy are discussed.
ContributorsSomers, Logan J (Author) / Reisig, Kristy (Thesis advisor) / Telep, Cody (Committee member) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016