NCJ Number
43571
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: (APRIL 1977) Pages: 109-120
Date Published
1977
Length
12 pages
Annotation
INEQUITIES IN SENTENCING PRACTICES FOR MALES AND FEMALES AND SEX-BIASED INCONSISTENCIES IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE DISCUSSED, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT.
Abstract
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF FEMALES OFTEN OCCURS WHEN SENTENCING JUDGES HAVE DISCRIMINATORY POWER -- A REFLECTION OF THE 'CHIVALRY FACTOR.' IN OTHER CASES, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE'S DISCRETIONARY POWER IS PREEMPTED BY STATE STATUTES. SOME STATES HAVE 'PROTECTIVE STATUTES,' WHICH REFLECT THE IDEA THAT, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, WOMEN REQUIRE LONGER PERIODS OF INCARCERATION FOR THEIR OFFENSES THAN DO MEN. FOR EXAMPLE, IOWA LAW ALLOWS WOMEN TO BE CONFINED UP TO 5 YEARS FOR A MISDEMEANOR BUT, WITH SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS, LIMITS THE IMPRISONMENT OF MALE MISDEMEANANTS TO 1 YEAR. COURT CHALLENGES TO SPECIAL SENTENCING STATUTES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY ARE CITED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE BROAD POWERS OF DISCRETION GRANTED TO THE JUVENILE COURTS ARE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DOUBLE STANDARD OF JUVENILE MORALITY AND RESULT IN DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT AGAINST FEMALES. IT IS NOTED THAT, OF INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILES, 50 PERCENT OF GIRLS BUT ONLY 20 PERCENT OF BOYS ARE INSTITUTIONALIZED FOR NONCRIMINAL OFFENSES. THE VAGUENESS OF STATE JUVENILE MORALITY STATUTES IS CRITICIZED, AND STATE STATUTES THAT SPECIFICALLY DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES ARE CATEGORIZED. CASES IN WHICH SENTENCING PROVISIONS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MALES ARE CITED. THE POTENTIAL OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT FOR ELIMINATING SEX DISCRIMINATION IN THE COURTS IS BROUGHT OUT.