Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Gender Bias in Asylum Adjudications: Evidence for Leniency toward Token Women

  • Alejandro EckerEmail author
  • Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik
  • Martin Haselmayer
Original Article

Abstract

Gender is one of the most frequently studied variables in the literature on judicial decision-making. We add to this literature by hypothesizing that the impact of applicant gender is conditional on the gender balance in a judge’s caseload. We expect that female applicants receive more favorable decisions from judges whose caseload skews strongly male. Analyzing over 40,000 rulings by the Austrian Asylum Court between 2008 and 2013, we find support for direct gender effects for applicants and judges (yet no significant interaction between the two). We also show that gender balance in the caseload is a strong moderator of applicant gender. Judges with predominantly male caseloads are strongly biased toward female applicants, whereas judges facing a gender-balanced set of applicants display hardly any gender bias at all. These findings tackle essential questions of democratic rule of law and human rights. They indicate that applicants’ fundamental rights to a fair and equal trial may have been compromised. We discuss institutional remedies to reduce the potential for gender bias in Austrian asylum adjudication.

Keywords

Political asylum Asylum seeking Gender gap Gender equality Adjudication Human rights Sexism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the ECPR General Conference, September 6-9, 2017, University of Oslo (Norway), and at the Conference of Empirical Legal Studies Europe (CELSE), May 31-June 1, University of Leuven (Belgium). Alejandro Ecker gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (grant P25490-G22). The authors thank Gerhard Muzak (Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, University of Vienna) for providing useful background information as to the workings of the Austrian Asylum Court, and Michael Imre for valuable research assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The research did not involve human participants nor animals.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1030_MOESM1_ESM.docx (76 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 76.4 kb)

References

  1. Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law and Society Review, 31(4), 789–822.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3053987.Google Scholar
  2. Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354(6309), 217–222.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2147.Google Scholar
  3. Bogoch, B. (1999). Judging in a ‘different voice’: Gender and the sentencing of violent offences in Israel. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 27(1), 51–78.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ijsl.1999.0081.Google Scholar
  4. Bontrager, S., Barrick, K., & Stupi, E. (2013). Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 16(2), 349–372.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, C. L. (2013). She’ll settle it? Journal of Law and Courts, 1(2), 193–219.  https://doi.org/10.1086/670723.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, C. L. (2016). Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges’ sex and race. Political Research Quarterly, 69(4), 788–799.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916663653.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L., & Martin, A. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 389–411.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00437.x.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, N. (2007). Gender in the aggregate, gender in the individual, gender and political action. Politics & Gender, 3(1), 104–124.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X07221014.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, S. (1986). President Carter's selection reforms and judicial policymaking: A voting analysis of the United States courts of appeals. American Politics Quarterly, 14(4), 328–344.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8601400404.Google Scholar
  10. Etienne, M. (2010). Sentencing women: Reassessing the claims of disparity. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 14(1), 73–84.Google Scholar
  11. Eurostat. (2019). Asylum and first time asylum applicants by citizenship, age and sex annual aggregated data (rounded) (migr_asyappctza). [Data explorer]. Retrieved from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyappctza&lang=en. Accessed 1 Feb 2019.
  12. Farhang, S., & Wawro, G. (2004). Institutional dynamics on the US court of appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20(2), 299–330.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewh035.Google Scholar
  13. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gottschall, J. (1983). Carter’s judicial appointments: the influence of affirmative action and merit selection on voting on the US courts of appeals. Judicature, 67, 164–173. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/judica67&div=42&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals. Accessed 1 Feb 2019.
  15. Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as policymakers: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 308–322.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2110855.Google Scholar
  16. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12138.Google Scholar
  17. Hangartner, D., Lauderdale, B. E., & Spirig, J. (2016). Refugee roulette revisited: judicial preference variation and aggregation on the Swiss Federal Administrative Court 2007–2012. Working Paper. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629290. Accessed 11 Feb 2019.
  18. Hanretty, C. (2012a). The decisions and ideal points of British law lords. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 703–716.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000270.Google Scholar
  19. Hanretty, C. (2012b). Dissent in Iberia: The ideal points of justices on the Spanish and Portuguese constitutional tribunals. European Journal of Political Research, 51(5), 671–692.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02056.x.Google Scholar
  20. Herzog, S., & Oreg, S. (2008). Chivalry and the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism: Individual differences in crime seriousness judgments. Law & Society Review, 42(1), 45–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2008.00334.x.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.Google Scholar
  22. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990. https://doi.org/10.1086/226425.
  23. Keith, L. C., Holmes, J. S., & Miller, B. P. (2013). Explaining the divergence in asylum grant rates among immigration judges: An attitudinal and cognitive approach. Law & Policy, 35(4), 261–289.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12008.Google Scholar
  24. King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management, 36(2), 482–510.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328508.Google Scholar
  25. Kritzer, H. M., & Uhlman, T. M. (1977). Sisterhood in the courtroom: Sex of judge and defendant as factors in criminal case disposition. Social Science Journal, 14(2), 77–88.Google Scholar
  26. Laws, J. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1(1), 51–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287213.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, B., Keith, L. C., & Holmes, J. S. (2015). Leveling the odds: The effect of quality legal representation in cases of asymmetrical capability. Law & Society Review, 49(1), 209–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12123.Google Scholar
  28. Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285–314.  https://doi.org/10.1086/320276.Google Scholar
  29. Muzak, G., & Rohrböck, J. (2008). Der Asylgerichtshof [the asylum court]. Vienna, Austria: Verlag Österreich.Google Scholar
  30. Myers, M. A., & Talarico, S. M. (1987). The social contexts of criminal sentencing. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Peresie, J. L. (2005). Female judges matter: gender and collegial decisionmaking in the federal appellate courts. Yale Law Journal, 114(7), 1759–1790. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4135764. Accessed 25 Jan 2019.
  32. Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A. I., & Schrag, P. G. (2007). Refugee roulette: disparities in asylum adjudication. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 295–411. https://ssrn.com/abstract=983946. Accessed 11 Feb 2019.
  33. Schanzenbach, M. (2005). Racial and sex disparities in prison sentences: The effect of district-level judicial demographics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34(1), 57–92.  https://doi.org/10.1086/425597.Google Scholar
  34. Songer, D. R., Davis, S., & Haire, S. (1994). A reappraisal of diversification in the federal courts: Gender effects in the courts of appeals. The Journal of Politics, 56(2), 425–439.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2132146.Google Scholar
  35. Spohn, C. (1991). Decision making in sexual assault cases: Do black and female judges make a difference? Women & Criminal Justice, 2(1), 83–105.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v02n01_06.Google Scholar
  36. Spohn, C. (2013). The effects of the offender's race, ethnicity, and sex on federal sentencing outcomes in the guidelines era. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 75–104. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4347&context=lcp. Accessed 9 Jan 2019.
  37. Starr, S. B. (2014). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 127–159.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu010.Google Scholar
  38. Steffensmeier, D., & Hebert, C. (1999). Women and men policymakers: Does the judge's gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants? Social Forces, 77(3), 1163–1196.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/77.3.1163.Google Scholar
  39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.Google Scholar
  40. Voeten, E. (2007). The politics of international judicial appointments: Evidence from the European court of human rights. International Organization, 61(4), 669–701.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818307070233.Google Scholar
  41. Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5(2), 178–192.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089124391005002003.
  42. Yoder, J. D. (1994). Looking beyond numbers: the effects of gender status, job prestige, and occupational gender-typing on tokenism processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(2), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786708.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro Ecker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik
    • 2
  • Martin Haselmayer
    • 2
  1. 1.Mannheim Centre for European Social ResearchUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of GovernmentUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations