Gender Bias in the Disposition of Juvenile Court Referrals: The Effects of Time and Location*

Abstract

Theory based on sex role traditionalism predicts a more punishing decision for female than for male offenders, while theory based on chivalry (paternalism) predicts greater leniency by the courts for female offenders. This paper tests these two models using a large sample (36,680) ofjuvenile court referrals in metropolitan, urban, and rural locations spanning a nine-year period. Nonparametric analysis of covariance is used to control for differences in offense, previous contact with the court system, and other background variables. Evidence of gender bias in dispositions was found. The patterns of bias across time, location, offense committed, and previous referral to the court system supports the persistence of chivalry and a decline in sex role traditionalism in court decisions. Greater punishment for girls than boys was found only for repeat offenders committing more serious offenses. Even in those cases, girls were more likely to be taken out of the home environment by the courts through a custody transfer while boys were more likely to be sent to a lock-up facility. *We would like to thank the Nebraska Commission for Law Enforcement andCriminal Justice for permission to use the data on juvenile referrals. We also would like to thank N. Steven King for his help with the project and Wayne Osgood for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 29 NUMBER 4 1991 677 JOHNSON AND SCHEUBLEnine-year period. The availability of longitudinal data for one state allows the evaluation of inconsistencies in previous findings, which possibly are due to geographic location or to the time period of the disposition. TWO MODELS OF SEX EFFECTSTraditional Western values and sex role expectations would predict that male and female juveniles would receive differential treatment by the court system. Within American society, certain behaviors are sex typed-"behaviors which typically elicit different rewards from one sex than the other" (Mischel, 196656). Thus, the same lawbreaking behavior could result in different dispositions by sex because some behaviors are deemed to be more acceptable for males and some behaviors are more acceptable for females. For example, Simon (1975), Feinman (1979), and Edwards (1989, refer to the traditional sex role model as a reaction by society to treat female offenders more punitively. This is because law-violating behavior by girls is seen as inappropriate and in conflict with the traditional definition of the feminine role as being dependent, gentle, and compliant. For males, getting in trouble with the law is viewed as one consequence of independence, aggressiveness, and self-reliance, which are strong components of the traditional male role. This model would expect that the more a girl's law-abiding behavior departs from the traditional female role expectations, the more punitive the court's reaction. As a result, girls committing status offenses would be treated more severely than boys committing the same offenses, and female repeat offenders would also be treated more sever...

Differentiating among racial/ethnic groups and its implications for understanding juvenile justice decision making

“…A shortcoming of the work by Fisher and Doyle-Martin (1981) was the failure to control for the independent effects of the type of charge that led to the initial referral. This omission was critical because decision making might be influenced by the youth's offense (D. Johnson & Scheuble, 1991) and stereotypes may be associated with drug or alcohol offenses that in turn may affect case outcomes (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Leiber (1994) found evidence to support this claim.…”

“…This second perspective, the chivalry perspective, suggests that male decision makers may treat females more leniently because they are taught by society to protect them, or they may have stereotypical beliefs that make it difficult for them to imagine that females engage in delinquent behavior (e.g., Bishop & Frazier, 1996;D. Johnson & Scheuble, 1991).…”

Assessing the Impact of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI): Predictors of Secure Detention and Length of Stay Before and After JDAI

“…Prior research on the impact of gender on the decision to detain a youth has produced mixed results. While some studies have found that females are treated with leniency compared to their male counterparts (Bishop & Frazier, 1992, 1996Johnson & Scheuble, 1991;McCord et al, 2001), other research has found that females are treated more harshly than males (Bishop & Frazier, 1996;Chesney-Lind, 1977). Several studies have examined the intersection of race and gender on juvenile justice decision-making and have found that while white males and females are treated similarly to one another, African-American females often receive some degree of leniency compared to their male counterparts, which supports the findings in the current study (Leiber & Johnson, 2008;Rodriguez, 2007).…”

A comparison of juvenile court outcomes for Native Americans, African Americans, and whites

“…This omission is critical because past studies show that decision making may be influenced by the youth's offense (Johnson and Scheuble 1991). Also, stereotypes associated with drug or alcohol offenses have been found to affect the likelihood of receiving either harsher or more lenient outcomes in criminal and juvenile court proceedings (Farnworth et al 1991;May 1982aMay , 1982bMoore et al 1978;Robbins 1984;Winfree, Griffiths, and Sellers, 1989;Zatz 1984).…”