Drunk women convicted of assault treated more harshly in sentencing than drunk men

Women around the world tend to receive less severe sentences than men. But my new research has found that women are twice as likely as men to receive harsher sentences for assault offences when intoxication is a contributing factor.

Sentencing guidelines for assault published in 2011 set out that both alcohol and drug intoxication may aggravate an offence on the basis of its seriousness. However, any justification for this position is surprisingly absent in sentencing guidance. The Sentencing Council also offers little practical direction on the extent to which alcohol intoxication should aggravate sentence outcomes, for whom, and in which contexts.

In my study, I analysed 30,861 sentences for assault offences detailed in the Crown Court Sentencing Survey. This paper-based survey is completed by judges passing sentences in the Crown Court in England and Wales and collects information on the factors taken into account by a judge in working out the final sentence for an offender. The sentences I analysed were handed out by judges between the second quarter of 2012 and the end of 2014.

I found that intoxication increased the severity of sentences for both men and women – both in terms of the probability of a custodial sentence and the severity of the sentence. The probability of a women going to prison or attracting a more severe sentence for assault was still lower than for their male counterparts. But on average, where intoxication featured in an offence, the proportionate increase in probability of a custodial or more severe sentence was higher for women than for men.

Using an example of an offence of actual bodily harm, I found the probability of a custodial sentence was lower for women than for men – both when sober and intoxicated. But when intoxication was cited as an aggravating factor it didn’t have the same impact for male and female defendants. The aggravation – the increase in probability of a custodial sentence – applied by the judge was 13.4%, over twice that applied to male defendants at 5.7%.

These findings likely represent outcomes shaped by normative views of femininity and intoxication and thus a gendered interpretation of role of intoxication in offending in which females are viewed as more ‘deserving’ of punishment and potentially more dangerous given their intoxication (drunk and thus doubly deviant). Also evidenced by the fact that several of the interactions between offence type and intoxication were also significant. Punishment is thus being dispensed unfairly where intoxication features in female offending. This is of concern in its own right, but also because women coming to the attention of the courts are likely those who are more socially and economically deprived and so likely face multiple disadvantages. Indeed, it may be

Dr Carly Lightowlers 

Senior Lecturer Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology at The University of Liverpool

because of this very fact they are seen as the ‘type’ of women more deserving of punishment by the courts (see Carlen 1998). That is, their ‘troublesome’ as opposed to their ‘troubled’ status is emphasised (Gelsthorpe and Loucks 1997) and serves to further disadvantage them when judges make sentencing decisions. This is likely due to both criminal behaviour and intoxication violating traditional conceptions of womanhood. For example, men drinking and engaging in assaults may be seen as “boys being boys”, whereas women might be expected to conform to different standards of behaviours for both their drinking and violation of the law. In turn, this may impact sentencing decisions by some judges.