skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 122196 Find in a Library
Title: Fines for Women: Paradoxes and Paradigms (From Paying for Crime, P 66-85, 1989, Pat Carlen and Dee Cook, eds. -- See NCJ-122192)
Author(s): H Allen
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 20
Sponsoring Agency: Open University Press
Bristol, PA 19007
Sale Source: Open University Press
1900 Frost Road
Suite 101
Bristol, PA 19007
United States of America
Type: Issue Overview
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: When imposing fines on convicted women, British sentencers use a logic that subverts their rhetoric regarding just deserts and the desirability of sentencing that matches the offense.
Abstract: Analysis of statistical evidence on the sentencing of males and females shows important sexual differences both in the kinds of offenses that typically result in fines and in the overall balance between fines and other dispositions. For example, offenses in which females receive significantly fewer sentences of fines than do males include criminal damage, disorderly conduct, fraud, forgery, and most personal violence. However, females receive significantly more sentences of fines than do males in traffic cases. Statements from criminal justice officials indicate that the distribution of fines for female offenders is influenced by four interrelated factors: a reluctance to fine women, a readiness to use light sentences, a relative preference for probation, and a reluctance to impose major penalties. To address the gender disparities, sentencers should examine their own attitudes, and courts should establish explicit precedent against sexual disparity in sentencing. Additional recommendations and 5 reference notes.
Main Term(s): Fines
Index Term(s): England; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing factors; Sex discrimination; Wales
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.