This Doctoral Dissertation Improvement project systematically explores questions and hypotheses regarding the role of gender in the criminal processing and socio-legal interpretation of child assaults and homicides committed by parents. Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data ascertain whether the treatment of these offenses is gender-neutral, more lenient for women or more lenient for men. The study is partitioned into two closely related sub-projects. The first project analyzes data from a two-year sample of child assaults and homicides prosecuted by the District Attorneys Office of a large urban jurisdiction. Regression and logistic regression statistical techniques will be used to test whether there are gender differences in plea-bargaining and sentencing, controlling for legal and socio-demographic factors. The second project analyzes data from courtroom observations, interviews and trial transcripts to ascertain the social constructions of mother and fathers accused of assaulting and/or killing their children. Both projects examine the extent to which cultural preconceptions of gender, class and race enter into legal processes and discourses.
This research contributes to debates about justice and gender. Outcomes from the quantitative research will enhance existing research on the legal treatment of criminal women, demonstrating whether there are gender differences in the processing outcomes of crimes closely tied to gender roles. Results from the qualitative research explore the degree to which legal discourses are organized around gender categories. By assessing pivotal issues in the debates regarding "equal" or "different" treatment of women under the law, this research will assist in providing a clearer understanding of the relationship between formal legal processes and the social characteristics of the parties involved.
