IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v11y2022i5p70-d909884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender and Sentencing in Lithuania: More Mercy for Women?

Author

Listed:
  • Artūras Tereškinas

    (Department of Sociology, Vytautas Magnus University, 44191 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Rūta Vaičiūnienė

    (Law Institute, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, 01109 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Liubovė Jarutienė

    (Law Institute, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, 01109 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

This article focuses on the structure of female and male crimes and gender disparities in sentencing in Lithuania, which present a significant gap in criminological research. Using Lithuanian court decisions on five types of offenses—murder, grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, drug distribution, and theft—we attempt to answer whether women are punished more leniently than men. Our research demonstrates that gender is a significant factor only in some sentences. Only the length of a prison sentence showed a statistically significant difference. When the importance of legal and extralegal factors in imposing prison length is compared, legal factors are found to be more significant predictors. The prison sentence length was mainly affected by the presence of a prior conviction, additional charges, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Although the average prison sentence for men in cases of grievous bodily harm and drug distribution was significantly longer than for women, the regression models developed for each offence type revealed that neither gender nor other extralegal factors appeared to be significant in determining the length of the prison sentence. The results allow us to argue that future research should focus more on analyzing extralegal factors and judges’ motives in discretionary sentencing decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Artūras Tereškinas & Rūta Vaičiūnienė & Liubovė Jarutienė, 2022. "Gender and Sentencing in Lithuania: More Mercy for Women?," Laws, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:70-:d:909884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/5/70/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/5/70/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Fernando Rodriguez & Theodore R. Curry & Gang Lee, 2006. "Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(2), pages 318-339, June.
    2. Mustard, David B, 2001. "Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 285-314, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager & Chiricos, Ted & Siennick, Sonja E. & Barrick, Kelle & Bales, William, 2017. "Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: Does age matter?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Bontrager Ryon, Stephanie, 2013. "Gender as social threat: A study of offender sex, situational factors, gender dynamics and social control," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 426-437.
    3. Avni, Omrit & Guetzkow, Joshua & Hasisi, Badi, 2024. "Bias in prosecutorial decision making: Bridging focal concerns & group threat," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Goulette, Natalie & Wooldredge, John & Frank, James & Travis, Lawrence, 2015. "From Initial Appearance to Sentencing: Do Female Defendants Experience Disparate Treatment?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 406-417.
    5. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2012. "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(2), pages 1017-1055.
    6. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2008. "Diferencias entre los sexos en los procedimientos judiciales: Pruebas de campo de causas de vivienda en Uruguay," Research Department Publications 3251, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    7. Vadim Volkov, 2016. "Legal and Extralegal Origins of Sentencing Disparities: Evidence from Russia's Criminal Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 637-665, December.
    8. Bindler, Anna Louisa & Hjalmarsson, Randi & Machin, Stephen Jonathan & Rubio, Melissa, 2023. "Murphy's Law or luck of the Irish? Disparate treatment of the Irish in 19th century courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121339, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Christian Bjørnskov & Axel Dreher & Justina A.V. Fischer, 2007. "On Gender Inequality and Life Satisfaction: Does Discrimination Matter?," KOF Working papers 07-161, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    10. Simone Bertoli & Morgane Laouenan & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Border Apprehensions and Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Citizens in the United States," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03818735, HAL.
    11. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Allan Collard-Wexler & Leonardo Felli & Leeat Yariv, 2010. "Gender and Racial Biases: Evidence from Child Adoption," CESifo Working Paper Series 2921, CESifo.
    12. Eren, Ozkan & Mocan, Naci, 2020. "Judge Peer Effects in the Courthouse," IZA Discussion Papers 13937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Lochner, L., 1999. "Education, Work, and Crime: Theory and Evidence," RCER Working Papers 465, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    14. Shawn D. Bushway & Emily G. Owens & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2012. "Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 291-319, June.
    15. Brendon McConnell & Imran Rasul, 2021. "Contagious Animosity in the Field: Evidence from the Federal Criminal Justice System," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 739-785.
    16. Vickers, Chris, 2016. "Socioeconomic status and judicial disparities in England and Wales, 1870–1910," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 32-53.
    17. Sarah Marx Quintanar, 2011. "Do Driver Decisions in Traffic Court Motivate Police Discrimination in Issuing Speeding Tickets?," Departmental Working Papers 2011-13, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    18. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2010. "Jury Discrimination in Criminal Trials," Working Papers 671, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    19. Shana M. Judge & Jenna L. Dole, 2022. "Charging sex traffickers under federal law: What dispositions should we expect when applying theories on prosecutorial decision‐making?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 677-715, September.
    20. Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Racial and Sex Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-92, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:70-:d:909884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.