It hypothesizes that female defendants will be treated more leniently than male defendants, and that sex of subject-judge has no effect on punitiveness. In addition, no interaction effect was expected. Two self-administered questionnaire forms were randomly distributed to students enrolled in an undergraduate criminology and penology course. Each subject completed a 'male offender' or 'female offender' questionnaire which included eight offense descriptions covering violent, property, public disorder, and sexual offenses. The effects of defendant's and subject's sex on the assignment of penalties to offenders were generally as hypothesized. Female defendants were treated more leniently than male defendants by both male and female subject-judges. This was the case when responses to the eight offenses were summated and examined, and when the responses to each of the individual offenses were examined with the exception of homosexuality. Further, as expected, sex of subject had little effect on severity of sentencing. To the extent that these findings can be extrapolated to real juries and judges, they confirm the paternalistic view that relative to men, women receive preferential treatment in criminal court. Three interrelated factors comprise this paternalistic viewpoint: chivalry, naivete, and practicality. While this interpretation goes somewhat beyond the data in the report, it does help explain the findings and suggests future lines of inquiry. Tabular data, sample questions, 2 footnotes, and 16 references are appended.