Female Offenders: is Chivalry Dead? Intro: In the last two decades, there has been a definite shift in the leniency of sentencing female offenders in the criminal justice system. It has been suggested the shift turning to harsher, more severe punishments is due to more female practitioners in the criminal justice system which subsequently reduced the chivalry hypothesis. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of the literature and empirical research regarding past and present studies of female offenders, the chivalry hypothesis, the differences in male and female convictions, and to answer the enduring question: Is chivalry dead? While this paper does not incorporate all of the literature available, it does offer a good snap shot of many pertinent studies conducted regarding these topics and the issues pertaining to them.
Female Offenders Then and Now Over the years, the empirical evidence supporting the position that women offenders are treated less harshly than their male counterparts has been at best inconsistent. (Burnett, 1994: Coombs, 1995: Denno, 1994: Johnson & Nagel, 1994: Klein & Kress, 2014). The writers of these studies used a variety of theses to explain the leniency. Some suggested women are treated with chivalry and thus given lighter sentences for similar offenses created by men. While others suggested the leniency was due to the majority of females in the court system are first time offenders. In 1994, Kathleen Davy published Gender, Crime and Punishment. In the book she explores whether men and women who are convicted of similar crimes, are punished differently. Davy utilized forty male and female pairings of similar crimes, analyzed the court cases and concluded women participate in less serious crimes and this is the only factor in their lenient sentencing; concluding gender is not a factor. Coombs (1995) conducted a literary review on Davy’s book determining the following: Statistics in previous studies indicate that judges treat women defendants more leniently at sentencing. Women are also generally seen as embedded in familial relationships that provide informal social controls and thus as less in need of the formal social controls of the criminal justice system. Daly's narratives indicate that life is not so simple. Apparent gender disparities almost all evaporate when one examines the richer data of the narratives. Men and women are sentenced differently. Those differences in sentencing, however, seem to reflect differences between the crimes committed. A man kills an intimate as an expression of rage or jealousy. A woman kills an intimate to protect herself from potential future abuse. These differences in criminal activity may be real, or they may be characteristics that probation officers and judges recognize more readily in the women defendants because they, like the rest of us, expect to see certain characteristics in women but not in men. What is clear is that the differences are not the reflection of gender as such; rather, they are gendered. (p. 1692) According to the Bureau of Justice (2013) approximately 6,937,600 offenders were under the supervision of adult correctional systems (state and federal) at the completion of 2012, declining by about 51,000 offenders since 2011. This was the lowest decrease in the four consecutive years since the decline began IN 1999. Since 1995 the total number of male prisoners has grown by approximately 38 percent while female prisoners have increased by 64 percent. Also during this time the number of females employed in the criminal justice arena has also increased.
The Sentencing Project (2013) states though the overall state and federal correctional population has declined the female offender population have increased from 13,258 in 1980 to 113,605 in 2012. As previously stated, recent years have seen an increase in the number of women incarcerated as well as more severe punishment for less serious offenses. The same time as the number of women incarcerated increases so has the number of women employed in the criminal justice system. It has been suggested the increase of female criminal justice practitioners employed today compared to years past has affected the chivalry process. Has the perception moved from leniency to no leniency? Female judges and lawyers don’t want to be viewed as soft on women and therefore treat them harsher as a way of teaching them lesson. Is chivalry dead? Or has the chivalry hypothesis become selective?
The Chivalry Hypothesis According to many scholars and criminologists, the chivalry hypothesis posits that female criminals receive more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system as a result of chivalrous attitude towards women. In recent decades this hypothesis has received mixed empirical reviews. Some studies have offered partial support for the chivalry hypothesis whilst others have not. Johnson & Nagel (1994) noted: Chivalry is a term that is not rigorously defined, but basically refers to paternalism and protectiveness towards women. These attitudes are rooted in stereotypes that represent women as weak and in need of care (as opposed to the harsh punishment of prison), and submissive, a characteristic which renders them less responsible for their crimes. Therefore, those who do not deviate from dominant constructions of womanhood – are seen to be in need of protection and guidance, rather than punishment. (p. 134)
Moulds (1978) conducted a study on chivalry and paternalism and their presence in the decision-making process in the criminal justice system and concluded the following: It is clear from the data that the criminal justice system treats women substantially differently from the way in whit it treats men. It is apparent that women receive gentler handling than do men. This handling is pervasive regardless of race, type of crime, or prior record. What the data do not show is why this differential treatment exists. (p. 429) women are perceived as wayward and more pitiful then men. It has been suggested Judges can’t help but think of their own mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts and other female friends and unintentionally react with chivalrous behavior. Some research shows, however, that judges are selectively chivalrous. Empirical evidence indicates that minority women are (or at least have been, in the recent past) treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than white offenders (Johnson & Nagel, p. 183). Further studies suggest that law enforcement officials reserve chivalrous treatment for middle and upper class women who conform to gender stereotypes. Others have challenged the idea suggesting the lower rates of female incarceration are not due to lenient treatment of female offenders by criminal justice personnel. Small (2000) indicates this is a by-product of the women's liberation movement impacting the reduction of chivalry extended to female offenders in the past. The change in women’s criminal behavior is the reason for the reduction in leniency not chivalrous behavior.
Female vs. Male Offenders
Female and male offenders commit the same crimes and receive different punishments. Most studies conducted focused predominantly on the differences in sentencing because there are not many similarities. However, similarities and differences do exist in the patterns of offending. Allan & Steffensmeier (1996) stated: Patterns of offending by men and by women are notable both for their similarities and for their differences. Both men and women are more heavily involved in minor property and substance abuse offenses than in serious crimes like robbery or murder. However, men offend at much higher rates than women for all crime categories except prostitution. This gender gap in crime is greatest for serious crime and least for mild forms of lawbreaking such as minor property crimes. (p. 459)
Studies based simply on a comparison of sentences of male and female offenders for similiar offenses show that female offenders tend to get lower sentences than men (Farrington & Morris 1983). They argued, “Female offenders are far more likely to be first-time offenders, and to have committed a less serious form of the relevant offense; they stole smaller or fewer items, used less violence, and so on” (p.230). Farrington & Morris (1983) concluded in their study: The magistrate's actual decisions that the sex of the defendant did not have any direct influence on severity of sentence or probability of reconviction. Women tended to receive lower sentences insofar as they had generally committed less serious offences and were less likely to have prior convictions. However, when the sentencing of men and of women was examined separately, different factors were found to be significant. Looking at the factors which were important for women (but not for men), it was observed that women convicted with other offenders were more likely to receive a severe sentence than those convicted alone. Further, women in the 'other' marital status category (generally divorced or separated) received heavier sentences, as did women from a deviant family background (usually broken home).

Prior history of offending, and seriousness of offense, is fundamental factors in determining severity of sentence, for any offender. Researchers found females are twice as likely as males to receive probation and slightly more likely than males to have their charges reduced. Studies examining gender bias in conviction (Farrington & Morris (1983); Ghali & Chesney-Lind, 1986; Nagel et al., 1982) examined gender bias in conviction and probation resulting in all writers suggesting women defendants are treated more leniently than men. When the researchers focused on comparing females to males, overall “the evidence suggested a tendency toward less severe sanctioning of females, particularly in the decision to incarcerate; and white females appeared to be treated with particular deference” (Farnworth & Teske, 1995). Farnworth & Teske concluded: Women are treated with chivalry in criminal processing, but only when their charges are consistent with stereotypes of female offenders. Selective chivalry predicts that decision makers extend chivalry disproportionately to white females. Differential discretion suggests that disparity is most likely in informal decisions such as charge reduction rather than in formal decisions at final sentencing. Gender disparity was evident in findings that females with no prior record were more likely than similar males to receive charge reductions, and this enhanced females' chances for probation. The only indication of selective chivalry was a greater tendency to change charges of assault to non-assault among white female defendants than among minority females. (p. 25)
In another study Spohn (1990), used data on defendants charged with violent felonies in Detroit, determining males are more likely to be sentenced to prison, and their expected minimum sentence (EMS) is 292 days longer than the EMS for females. Again, Spohn’s study corroborates other studies finding that female defendants receive more lenient treatment. (p. 1210) On the other hand, dramatic increases in the number of women incarcerated in state and federal prisons have led some researchers to conclude that differential sentencing of female offenders is a thing of the past. Unnever, Frazier & Henretta (1980) found no statistically significant effect of gender on sentencing. Gruhl et al. (1984), examined the incarceration decision, finding that female defendants were treated either similarly to or more leniently than male defendants. Many sources provide data that permit comparison of male and female offending. This writer reviewed the Uniform Crime Reports (US Department of Justice, 2013) for male and female offenders. The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is available to the public and is often used by law enforcement professionals who are seeking information on crime in the nation. Another source used was the National Crime Victimization Survey, which has a variety of information on male and female offending. Sentencing disparities can be explained to some extent by the lack or presence of previous convictions, females are more likely to present as first offenders, not having a criminal record is a point first considered by the judge in sentencing and works in the favor of both males and females. Males tend to commit more violent crimes whereas women commit minor offenses (shoplifting). On the other hand, Pollak (1961) suggests women's offending is underestimated because they are inherently deceitful, cunning, and smarter than men enabling them to conceal their crimes. Adler (1975) recognized a new breed of female criminal, one that is more aggressive, violent and unfeminine. Subsequently, desensitizing the chivalry theory.

Conclusion
The results of this research show chivalry is not dead. In some ways, the criminal justice system is more lenient; in other ways, it comes down more harshly on women. However, for the most part women continue to receive more lenient sentences than their male counterparts for a variety of crimes. Though there are, and will continue to be, mixed empirical results on this hypothesis it should continue to be researched as history has shown one thing is certain; change is constant.
References
Adler, F. (1975) Sisters in crime: the rise of the new female criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2013). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2012.

Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4909

Burnett, A.L. (1994). Permeation of race, national origin and gender issues from initial law enforcement contact through sentencing: the need for sensitivity, equalitarianism and vigilance in the criminal justice system. American Criminal Law Review, 31.4, p1153-1175.
Coombs, M. (1995). Gender, Crime, and Punishment. Michigan Law Review, 93.6, p1686-1712.
Daly, K. (1994) Gender, Crime and Punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Denno, D.W. (1994). Gender, crime, and the criminal law defenses. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 85.1, p. 80-180.
Farnworth, M., & Teske, R. (1995). Gender Differences in Felony Court Processing: Three Hypotheses of Disparity. Women and Criminal Justice. Vol. 6.2, p.23-44.
Farrington, D. P. & Morris, A. (1983). " In some ways, the system is more lenient; in other ways, it comes down more harshly. ". British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 23, 229–48.
Ghali, M. & Chesey-Lind, M. (1986). Gender bias and the criminal justice system: An empirical investigation. Sociology and Social Research, 70,164-171.
(Gruhl, J., Welch, S. & Spohn, C. (1984). Women as criminal defendants: A test for paternalism. Western Political Science Quarterly, 37, 456-467.
Hendrix, N. (2013). The Courts. Experience Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jeffries S., Fletcher G.J.O., & Newbold G., (2003). Pathways to sex-based differentiation in

criminal court sentencing. Criminology, 41, p. 329-354.
Johnson, B.L., & Nagel, I.H. (1994). The role of gender in a structured sentencing system: equal treatment, policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the United States sentencing guidelines. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85.1, p. 181-221.
Klein, D., & Kress, J. (2014). Any woman's blues: a critical overview of women, crime, and the criminal justice system. Social Justice, 40.1-2, p. 162.
Moulds, Elizabeth F. (1978). “Chivalry and Paternalism: Disparities of Treatment in the Criminal Justice System”. Western Political Science Quarterly 31(3): 416-40.
Nuebauer, D., & Fradella, H. (2014). Federal Courts. America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System (11 ed., ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pollak, O. (1961). The Criminality of Women. New York: Barnes.
Small, K. (2000). Female Crime in the United States, 1963-1998: An Update. Gender Issues, 18(3), 75.
Spohn, C. (1990). The sentence decisions of black and white judges: Expected and unexpected similarities. Law and Society Review, 24, p. 1197-1216.
The Sentencing Project (2013). Women in the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=138.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (2013). The Uniform Crime Report. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.
Unnever, J. D., Frazier, C.E. & Henretta, J.C. (1980). Race differences in criminal sentencing. The Sociological Quarterly, 21, 197-206.