Ages of Chivalry, Places of Paternalism
| Author | Candace Kruttschnitt,Jukka Savolainen |
| Published date | 01 May 2009 |
| Date | 01 May 2009 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1477370809102166 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Ages of Chivalry, Places of Paternalism
Gender and Criminal Sentencing in Finland
Candace Kruttschnitt
University of Toronto, Canada
Jukka Savolainen
University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA
ABSTRACT
In this study, we argue that the traditional paradigm used to explain the leniency
accorded to women offenders in US criminal courts ignores advances in feminist
research which suggest how normative patterns that reinforce gender identities
can and do change. Using data from Finland, a society generally characterized
by more gender equality than is found in the USA, we examine whether an
offender’s sex has a significant impact on the decision to imprison. Controlling
for relevant legal and social characteristics, and considering the conditional
effects of labour force participation and parental responsibilities, the findings
show that the often-noted preferential treatment given to female offenders,
relative to their male counterparts in the USA, is not present in Finland.
KEY WORDS
Finland / Gender / Sentencing / Sex Disparities.
Over two decades ago, in what was the first major review of the relationship
between gender and criminal court processing decisions, Nagel and Hagan
(1983: 134) concluded that (1) female offenders receive preferential treat-
ment over male offenders; (2) the preferential treatment accorded to females
is more pronounced in the decisions pertaining to the granting of probation,
suspended sentences or fines; and (3) gender has little effect on ‘the most
severe outcomes, such as imprisonment’. Two decades later, with consider-
ably more rigorous research, the findings in the USA remain largely un-
changed. Most studies analysing sex-based disparities in sentencing find
Volume 6 (3): 225–247: 1477-3708
DOI: 10.1177/1477370809102166
Copyright © 2009 European Society of
Criminology and SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
www.sagepublications.com
226 European Journal of Criminology 6(3)
that women are favoured over men in the ‘in/out’ decision (or the deci-
sion to imprison as opposed to granting probation) but not in length of
prison sentence (see e.g. Daly and Bordt 1995; Kruttschnitt 1996; Daly and
Tonry 1997).
Reviews of the relationship between sex and criminal court sentences
offer essentially three explanations for the relatively persistent findings
of discrimination in favour of female offenders. Some scholars argue that
gender interacts with particular statuses and expectations that are associated
with more or less severe dispositions. So, for example, the relatively lenient
treatment accorded female offenders is explained by their greater childcare
responsibilities and perceptions that they are less culpable and less of a
threat to society than male offenders (Steffensmeier et al. 1993; Daly and
Bordt 1995). Others voice concerns over the methodological quality of this
research (see e.g. Wooldredge 1998), leading to the conclusion that any evi-
dence of sex disparities is an artefact of inadequate statistical controls and,
building on the prior rationale, the way in which gender can be ‘embedded’
in offence severity and prior record (Daly and Tonry 1997: 231). And still
others argue that, despite the invocation of sentencing reforms, designed to
limit judicial discretion based on extra-legal criteria such as sex and race,
these reforms have had only a limited effect (Koons-Witt 2002; Griffin and
Wooldredge 2006).
Although each of these factors may be important for understanding
the extant research on sex and sentencing, we aim to advance this field by
taking a different approach. We examine the effect of sex on sentencing
outcomes with data from Finland. The use of Finnish data allows us (1) to
draw on some of the innovations in feminist theory that have implications for
criminologists and (2) to shed light on whether the prior findings are cultur-
ally, and in some respects economically and socially, unique to the United
States (see also Boritch 1992). We begin with a review of the theoretical
paradigm that has underpinned virtually all of the sex-sentencing research.
Sex role theory
To explain sex-based disparities in sentencing decisions, scholars have
drawn primarily on sex role theory. The notions of chivalry and paternalism,
although etymologically distinct, are frequently invoked to justify the
leniency accorded to women (Moulds 1980). Chivalry connotes male protec-
tion of females, while paternalism – a slightly more pejorative concept –
implies status and power differences between men and women; the status of
women is likened to the status of children, who are essentially defenceless
To continue reading
Request your trial