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

Abstract

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.