Gendered judicial discourse in the sentencing of sexual offenders: a new explanatory model

Sentencing that favours female sexual offenders (FSOs) over male sexual offenders (MSOs) has negative consequences for victims, offenders and the community. There have been calls to utilise qualitative methods to provide a richer understanding of why these disparities exist. As such, this study aimed to examine whether perpetrator gender influenced judges' sentencing discourse of convicted sexual offenders. Using a systematic matching process, sentencing remarks for sexual perpetrators (n = 9 MSOs and n = 9 FSOs) sentenced in Queensland between 2012 and 2019 were thematically analysed. Three main themes and two sub-themes emerged: (1) gendered discourse about sexual offenders are predicated on crime severity (sub-themes included reduced culpability of non-assaultive FSOs compared with non-assaultive MSOs and the villainisation of violent FSOs compared with violent MSOs); (2) gender differences in offender contrition; and (3) judges' emphasis on parental abuse of trust, rather than a gendered responsibility, in child abuse cases. An explanatory model was developed to explicate the findings using cognitive dissonance, social role and sexual script theories. The model advances current conceptualisation of this phenomenon, thereby addressing limitations of previous theories.