Explaining Gendered Sentencing Patterns for Men and Women in the Late Victorian Period

Contemporary studies of disparities in the sentencing of male and female offenders claim that the differences found are caused by gender-related contextual factors, but not by a gender bias. In contrast, historical studies have suggested that women were disadvantaged by appearing to offend both against the law and the conventions of femininity. This article analyses minor assaults prosecuted in ten English magistrates’ courts between 1880 and 1920. It is based on a data-set that combines court cases and newspaper reports, and allows for the control of gender differences in sentencing outcomes through four contextual factors: severity of the assault, bonds between victim and assailant, culpability, and evidence. The findings reveal a differentiated pattern of sentences that questions the assumption that ‘doubly deviant’ women were more often convicted, and received higher penalties, throughout the Victorian period. The results show that the contextual factors of the offence affected judicial decision-making to the extent that they virtually account for gender differences in conviction rates, but do not, on their own, account for the different penalties handed out to men and women. Women who committed similar assaults to men were likely to receive a lighter punishment. Magistrates clearly targeted ‘male’ contexts of violence, and handed down more convictions and harsher penalties to men involved in these, in contrast to women involved in 'female' contexts. The findings of a strong gender bias in sentencing that disadvantaged lowerclass men indicate that local magistrates directed their efforts of 'civilizing' lower-class communities at 'dangerous masculinities', and deemed assaults committed by women as less important in this task.

Pre-sentence Report, Magisterial Discourse and Agency in Youth Courts in England

This article draws on interviews with Youth Court magistrates to examine if and how discourses, strategies and technologies of risk governance have affected Youth Court magistrates in England and Wales. The aim of the article is to detail the complex relationship between magisterial agency in decision making and youth justice policies which focus on risk control and management. The article demonstrates that, contrary to what might be assumed from the youth and risk governance theoretical literature, Youth Offending Team risk assessments form only one part of the information used by magistrates to explain young people’s presence in courts. This article concludes that magisterial decision making is framed not by formal, expert assessments of risk, but by magistrates’ claims that they are ‘knowing outsiders’, who through judicious use of information presented to them and their own life experiences are able to make objective judgements about both the risk assessments authored by Youth Offending Teams and the young lawbreakers before them.