Gender biases in legal decision-making: an exploration of judicial and public perceptions across multiple offences

IF 2.1 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Criminal Psychology Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0049
Monika Lewandowicz-Machnikowska, Tomasz Grzyb, Dariusz Dolinski, Wojciech Kulesza
{"title":"Gender biases in legal decision-making: an exploration of judicial and public perceptions across multiple offences","authors":"Monika Lewandowicz-Machnikowska, Tomasz Grzyb, Dariusz Dolinski, Wojciech Kulesza","doi":"10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The purpose of the paper is to investigate how judges and the general population formulate judgments on legal cases, considering both legal and extralegal factors, with a focus on the significance of the defendant’s sex. Design/methodology/approach The first experiment aimed to determine if non-lawyers’ judgments are affected by the defendant’s sex, using brief excerpts from indictments with the defendant’s sex interchanged. Study 2 aimed to verify if this effect applies to future lawyers, suggesting a peculiar approval granted by men to women displaying illegal sexual behaviour towards young men. Findings The findings showed that the sex of the offender only influenced judgments in sexual offences, with male participants being more lenient towards female offenders. Originality/value The originality/value of the paper lies in its examination of the influence of the defendant’s sex on judgments made by both judges and the general population, specifically focussing on non-lawyers’ judgments. While previous studies have shown that judges tend to be more lenient towards women in certain cases, this paper adds novelty by investigating whether a similar effect is observed among non-lawyers. Moreover, the research sheds light on the relevance of the defendant's sex in cases of sexual offences and identifies a gender-specific leniency towards female offenders, particularly among male participants. The study also explores how this effect might extend to future lawyers, providing insights into societal attitudes regarding illegal sexual behaviour involving women and young men. Overall, the paper contributes valuable information to the understanding of how sex-based biases can influence legal judgments and decision-making processes.","PeriodicalId":44013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to investigate how judges and the general population formulate judgments on legal cases, considering both legal and extralegal factors, with a focus on the significance of the defendant’s sex. Design/methodology/approach The first experiment aimed to determine if non-lawyers’ judgments are affected by the defendant’s sex, using brief excerpts from indictments with the defendant’s sex interchanged. Study 2 aimed to verify if this effect applies to future lawyers, suggesting a peculiar approval granted by men to women displaying illegal sexual behaviour towards young men. Findings The findings showed that the sex of the offender only influenced judgments in sexual offences, with male participants being more lenient towards female offenders. Originality/value The originality/value of the paper lies in its examination of the influence of the defendant’s sex on judgments made by both judges and the general population, specifically focussing on non-lawyers’ judgments. While previous studies have shown that judges tend to be more lenient towards women in certain cases, this paper adds novelty by investigating whether a similar effect is observed among non-lawyers. Moreover, the research sheds light on the relevance of the defendant's sex in cases of sexual offences and identifies a gender-specific leniency towards female offenders, particularly among male participants. The study also explores how this effect might extend to future lawyers, providing insights into societal attitudes regarding illegal sexual behaviour involving women and young men. Overall, the paper contributes valuable information to the understanding of how sex-based biases can influence legal judgments and decision-making processes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律决策中的性别偏见:对多种犯罪的司法和公众认知的探索
本文的目的是调查法官和普通民众如何在法律案件中制定判决,同时考虑法律和法外因素,重点关注被告性别的重要性。设计/方法/方法第一个实验旨在确定非律师的判决是否受到被告性别的影响,使用被告性别互换的简短起诉书摘录。研究2旨在验证这种效应是否适用于未来的律师,表明男性对女性对年轻男性表现出非法性行为的一种特殊认可。研究结果显示,罪犯的性别只影响性犯罪的判决,男性参与者对女性罪犯更宽容。原创性/价值本文的原创性/价值在于它研究了被告的性别对法官和普通大众的判决的影响,特别关注了非律师的判决。虽然之前的研究表明,法官在某些案件中往往对女性更宽容,但这篇论文通过调查是否在非律师中观察到类似的效果,增加了新意。此外,该研究揭示了性犯罪案件中被告性别的相关性,并确定了对女性罪犯的特定性别宽大处理,特别是在男性参与者中。该研究还探讨了这种影响如何延伸到未来的律师身上,为了解涉及女性和年轻男性的非法性行为的社会态度提供了见解。总的来说,本文为理解基于性别的偏见如何影响法律判决和决策过程提供了有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Journal of Criminal Psychology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Policing rape and serious sexual offences: officers’ insights on police specialism Sexual harassment, rape myths and paraphilias in the general population: a mediation analysis study Operation Soteria Bluestone: Rethinking RASSO investigations The effect of tailored reciprocity on information provision in an investigative interview Reconstructive psychological assessment (RPA) applied to the analysis of digital behavioral residues in forensic contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1