Fight like a Woman: Domestic Violence and Female Judges in Brazil (2405.07240v3)

Abstract: We investigate the impact of judges' gender on the outcome of domestic violence cases. Using data from S~ao Paulo, Brazil, between 2010 and 2019, we compare conviction rates by judge's gender and find that a domestic violence case assigned to a female judge is 31\% (10 p.p.) more likely to result in conviction than a case assigned to a male judge with similar career characteristics. To show that this decision gap rises due to different gender perspectives about domestic violence and not because female judges are stricter than their male counterparts in all rulings, we compare it against the gender conviction-rate gap in similar types of crime. We find that the gender conviction-rate gap for domestic violence cases is significantly larger than the same gap for other misdemeanor cases (3 p.p. larger) and for other physical assault cases (8 p.p. larger). Furthermore, we find evidence that at least two channels explain this gender conviction-rate gap for domestic violence cases: gender-based differences in evidence interpretation and gender-based sentencing criteria. Lastly, we find that this gender conviction rate has no significant impact on the probability of appeals, ruling reversals or recidivism.

• The paper finds that domestic violence cases presided over by female judges have a 31% higher conviction rate compared to those handled by male judges.
• The study employs a robust empirical strategy using random case allocation to isolate judge gender effects from other confounding factors.
• The findings highlight the impact of representational bias and suggest that greater gender diversity in judicial panels can lead to more balanced legal outcomes.

Analysis of Judicial Gender Differences in Domestic Violence Case Outcomes in Brazil

This paper explores the impact of the judge's gender on conviction rates in domestic violence cases within São Paulo, Brazil, from 2010 to 2019. It presents substantial evidence that assignments of female judges to domestic violence cases lead to significantly higher conviction rates compared to their male counterparts. This paper introduces several multi-layered analyses to deconstruct these findings, presenting a systematic approach to understanding gender biases in judicial outcomes.

The paper reports that cases presided over by female judges show a 31% higher probability of resulting in conviction compared to male judges with analogous career backgrounds. This is a striking statistic that signals potential gender-based divergences in handling domestic violence cases. By examining this gap through rigorous empirical methods, the paper disentangles individual judge characteristics from broader systemic issues affecting judicial outcomes.

The researchers employed a robust empirical strategy, leveraging the random allocation of cases within Brazilian court districts to ensure that judge gender was not systematically related to the types of cases they ruled on. This methodological choice underpins the paper's validity and enhances the reliability of the findings. The detailed statistical analysis further revealed that the gender conviction-rate gap was significantly more pronounced for domestic violence cases compared to other comparable crimes, such as misdemeanors and non-domestic physical assaults. This specificity suggests the presence of an in-group bias, indicating that female judges might adopt different perspectives that make them more inclined to convict in cases affecting women directly.

The exploration of this potential in-group bias is deepened by analyzing two explanatory channels: the representational and informational accounts. The paper finds that representational bias plays a role—female judges appeared particularly more likely to convict in intimate partner violence cases, where identity-based affiliations and empathy towards victims may inherently be stronger. Furthermore, differences in the interpretation of evidence between male and female judges (informational account) seem to contribute to the observed disparities. Female judges demonstrated higher conviction rates in cases lacking hard evidence, suggesting they may interpret circumstantial evidence more stringently or with differing emphatic angles compared to their male counterparts.

Despite these differing conviction strategies, the paper finds no consequential impact on judicial efficiency or defendant recidivism. The gender of the judge did not influence the likelihood of appeal, the success of appeal, or rates of recidivism. This implies that although female judges convict more frequently in these cases, their stricter judgment does not seem to overburden the legal system nor lead to adverse outcomes for defendants in their post-conviction conduct.

Implications of this paper emphasize the importance of gender diversity among judicial bodies. The findings imply that diversity in judge panels might promote a more rounded and nuanced understanding of complex social and criminal issues, notably those intertwined with gender dynamics. On a theoretical level, it presents a case for broader consideration of how top-down judicial practices and policies might systematically impact gender-specific crimes.

Looking forward, the future trajectories of AI and legal analytics may integrate predictive assessments of case outcomes like these, potentially highlighting and mitigating biases rooted in identity and experience. This research also presses upon the necessity to explore institutional interventions that address these biases—not by altering the gender distribution in judicial appointments, but by enhancing training and awareness to cultivate comprehensive, balanced judicial perspectives across demographics.

This paper contributes to an ongoing discourse about gender, bias, and justice, expanding the horizons of both academic inquiry and practical judicial reform efforts. Through meticulous statistical and policy analysis, it highlights the nuanced roles that systemic and individual characteristics play in judicial outcomes and prompts continued interdisciplinary exploration to foster equity within the justice system.