The Impact Of Gender Bias On The Court Sentence - Research Paper Example

The Impact Of Gender Bias On The Court Sentence Abstract The paper discusses the presence of gender bias in present court systems, which leads to questionable ruling in the courtrooms. Several cases involving men and women in the judicial systems have been analyzed to bring out the variation in most courts. There are several reasons why the jury may give an order, which biases one of the parties against the other. These influences range from the internal jury opinion, tactics and practices used within the judicial system, leniency, structure of information channel and source, and different perceptions of different sexes of the jury while awarding plaintiffs to custody and support. More has been revealed as to why the family courts tend to give men priority in children custody, in spite of their unfriendly reputation in the past. While the non-judicial members feel the presence of bias in courts, judges, male and female attorneys give different results, but attorneys limit the bias to child custody and awarding of females by older male jurors. Keywords: Court System, Jury, Attorneys, Juror, Plaintiff, Child Custody, Child Support, Alimony, Gender Prejudice, Family Courts, Offender, Offended, Awards, Damages, Hearing Session Introduction Court systems all over the world face relative similar accusations of being biased against one side, while passing judgments in the judicial systems. Gender bias is not something new, although it is a fact that most of the judicial executives and staff would try to avoid being identified as associated with. Whether it is in the line of duty in the judicial system or inside the court executions, it is possible to realize strain of an issue being concerned and expended towards one group and not the other, for some reasons without enough weight to lead to the order given. Sometimes people wonder why some decisions are made so quickly, despite the matter being radical, yet there are other crucial aspects to consider. Is it ignorance on the part of the judicial conduct committee, the Judges, lawyers, inability of the offender or the offended to follow up their cases, or intervention by other interested third parties? These are some of the questions that concerned parties keep asking themselves at an occurrence of an unexpected outcome in court hearings. Court systems are there to listen to the cases brought forward, consider evidence and reasons of an action taken, then evaluate to provide a fair principle of directives to the concerned parties after consultation. Honestly, most cases have been handled with integrity, but there are few of those that have been appealed due to dissatisfaction of clients, soon after their final court hearing. Why do many individuals especially in cases related to domestic affairs rush back for a petition? Different nations may have different ways in how they conduct their legal affairs, and so do the justice functions and methods tend to differ. There are slight variations between United States and most of the Arab countries justice systems based on their beliefs and values, where punishments would also differ. Several important factors have been raised in the United States concerning family courts prejudice, most of which deal with rights over children’s custody. Other cases are associated with judgment panel tactics and practices, awarding of civil damages and leniency or rather show of sympathy, which favors one party over the other. Court tactics and practices As an offender or the offended, before going into the next hearing, it would be better to follow up a case and see the progress to match comprehension of the issue; otherwise people may be played thinking that all is well. The staff in the court system is well acquainted to the law and only God knows how integrated, perhaps corrupt, or honest they are. Many people would understand what it feels to loose a case, obviously at a better chance in a winning case, but whatever is put forward does not land in the record books let alone the case evidence report. As much as the lawyer is learned and working out to defend someone to his/her final destiny, both of them could be left out of the case unknowingly. That is, an individual may be walking into a court room in every hearing without a familiarity that his fate was already planned. Biasness does not necessarily apply in the final ruling, but also in the hearing cessions and the way of conduct from the highest power in the court. Gender prejudice was found to be in operation where the actions and decision taken relied of prior conceived and typecast perceptions of different gender capacity, role and nature (“Gender Bias Study,” 1990, Executive Summary, para. 2). Several men within the society have experienced what can be termed as discrimination demonstrated by judges, in situations of restraining orders in relation to domestic matters. The law applies for all the citizens; hence favorism should not apply in the structure of justice and a fair hearing should be assumed. Today, unlike in ancient times, the society is keen and very critical to legal issues that affect them. Fathers’ rights to seek custody of their children has been a rough procedure for those willing to keep fighting for what they believe is right. The distortion of hearings times, provided evidence and the back up mechanism that at times support women discourage them from further progress. Often you will hear many men grumbling over their victimization by the jury, who practically exhibit their bias nature against male partners of the female accusers in the courtrooms, regarding restraining ruling over their children custody. McLarnon struggled 7 years in a court system to access the right to see his son. In the same period, as a forensic investigator, he took it upon himself to research and learn about the criminal tactics, which the jury and the court personnel use to conclude on their ruling, and which leads to prejudice against men. The difficulty of his case was associated with phantom clinical evaluation that had gathered accusations and information from the lady alone, enough to nullify his allegation. Further more, his evidence in the court hearing tapes had been edited to abolish his evidence from record. McLarnon and his attorney were kept out of some hearings, which were carried out secretly at least 3 times; however, his ex-wife’s attorney and the judge did meet, meaning, for any consecutive hearing they already new the outcome. The court-ordered a guardian for his son, Massachusetts General Hospital’s psychiatry and the law department had unlawfully charged him $3000.00 up front before Massachusetts General Hospital realized McLarnon’s accusers were abusing his son, and began extorting money from him with a threat that he would never see his son again. His denial to give out money led to release of secret affidavits to the court without their consent or knowledge. (McLarnon, 2011). This case, a combination of corrupt judicial staff and biased jury was the stumbling block to the execution of justice. From such a case, it is evident that some gender may be limited to access full information on the case progress. The denial of a right to be heard contributes heavily for the favor to occur on one party. Suppose the phantom clinical evaluation was conducted on both parties, perhaps the perception that the jury had on McLarnon could convince to provide a better ruling. Such a bias is more founded on partial information which denies the other group, the right to be heard. Collaboration between the judicial staff that does not uphold integrity in the openness of human rights is what strengthens gender prejudice in the court systems. After all, they are the same who represent the law, and who judges the judge? Such staffs can only ‘speak the same language’ in relation to what they support. That is why most efforts protesting to the judicial panel on the unfair judgment fall on deaf ears. Instead, the panel exonerates the jury and they get away with it. Bias in relation to custody support Every one wants to keep their child after divorce and separation because of the benefits that come with it. So the loosing partner may have an additional cost if the court does not permit a shared custody of the child. Often, men with good flow of income do not have an issue on this, but those struggling to make ends meet have to fight for fair judgment just as their wives. However, the controversy about why most women are not directed to support fathers who keep custody of their children remains another criticism of injustice in the court system. If a father is declared in a court ruling to support his children by being the custodian, why does it not apply to the non-custodian women? The favor towards women is coined together with feminism, which empowers them to reach out for what they intend in custody cases. Women have become cunning enough, to some using false accusations in courts, which denies men access to their children as they fall prey to their ex-partners’ intensions of becoming their household financiers (Kennedy, 2005, para. 3). The same case applies to the custodian men, who are abused by being denied rights to receive support from their ex- wives, despite both being at financially stable. The perception of having men as dominant and powerful is used to measure up their financial ability, whereas the women are viewed as vulnerable in the physical nature, which tends to be applied on their financial status. Some declared support rulings are not logic and humiliates one partner at the expense of the other. There are definitely worthy fathers who deserve the right to retain their kids over their favored mothers. Traditions have for long dictated choice of a woman to keep the child, without giving efficient considerations to the best interests of the child that a father can provide. The society and economic changes have also forced women to be more active in the working environment, which now challenges their ability to balance children’s custody and the workload; hence the custody rule is withdrawn to the other partners. According to a former research conducted by Dotterweick and Mckinney (n.d), of the 4,579 attorneys and judges in the 4 states surveyed, almost half of all the constituents of the legal staff 44.3 percent feel that custody grants were still made on the assumptions that young kids still belong to their mothers (p. 215). Table 1 Note. Record of issues, which may lead to gender bias in court, over child custody and their results; where n means the total number. “National Attitudes Regarding Gender Bias in Child Custody Cases,” by Dotterweick and Mckinney (n.d), p. 212. Only until in the last two decades has the option of joint custody been considered. However, the variation between the female and male attorneys, 56 to 33.6 percent respectively shows great disparity, as 49.9 percent of all the attorneys agree with the assumption (Dotterweick and Mckinney, n.d, p. 216). Disputes arise often after authority declare a ruling on child support guidelines, which many of the modern noncustodial are evading to pay support to, considering the increased costs of living around the globe. The non custodial males in Massachusetts have experienced probably some of the toughest law requirements in regard to the time limits alimony orders. Just how long are men supposed to support their families? For a lifetime, and does the mechanism loosen up with age? Steve Niro in Massachusetts got married to his first wife in 1981 but later divorced after 5 years. He later remarried 15 to 16 years ago but as of 2010, he was still paying his alimony, even after his youngest son graduated from college. He therefore stopped his child support payment, which left his former wife with $65 a week. After a short period, he was summoned to court, which saw his alimony payment adjusted to $700 per week in a situation where their marriage had ended more than 20 years ago. Worcester county probe judge stated that Steve should pay his ex-wife, Carol 30 percent of the difference between in their annual income, which was equivalent to $36000 a year for an unspecified duration, with the basis that carol reared the children almost entirely alone, considering that she was sucked from her job leaving her unemployed for an year (English and Globe Staff, 2010, Years and Marriages later, para 1-5). Gender fairness and reform in Massachusetts law courts is hoped to bring change to the heavy alimony bestowed highly on the men than the women. One would not expect such a situation in the modern society, where the long held views on the sex responsibilities and gender identities are have transited. Just because the man had acquired an executive job creating substantial difference in their salaries is not psychologically a measure to be used against his, but rather impedes the nature of satisfactory judicial conclusions and exposing the jury and the courts biasness. It is actually more reasonable for the financial supporter to reduce the allowance paid off based on segments of allocation as expenses reduce, rather than put men in a lifetime payment, which sounds more similar to a death sentence. In the duration between 1993 and 2007, the ratio of women to men awarded child custody was 5:1, while those awarded child support were 8:1 (Galbi, 2011, para. 2). These statistics are evidence that only a small percentage of fathers receive child support from the mothers after the court order, which leaves an unanswered question as to why. Most courts may rely on the psychological impact of the mother after loosing the child custody, and burden of paying for the upkeep. Of course, this intertwines again with leniency and traits of sympathy in judicial mechanism. Differential awarding The structure of awarding damages to the plaintiffs needs to be recognized and not left for the jury to determine it. A particular gender may be biased, determining how little or much the award for the damages may be. The likelihood of a noncustodial mother being ordered to pay less support fee than noncustodial father would be high. According to records by Dalrock (2011), mothers receive custody support than fathers do, both in terms of amount, and the rate at which they receive it when compared. Nonetheless, it is the jury’s inability to be influenced that could save the accused from carrying an extra burden of fines. Some research conducted to determine how biased the juror’s decisions may imply, showed that female jury regardless of the age, treated both gender plaintiffs with equality, unlike the male jurors who were influenced by stereotypical notions (“Gender Bias Study, 1990, Discussions of Findings, para. 4). Table 2 AWARDS GIVEN BY MEN OVER 40 IN MIDDLESEX Female Plaintiff Male Plaintiff    Medical Expenses $ 54,198 $ 72,584 NS    Diminished Earning Capacity $ 1,101,543 $ 1,209,208 t = -1.9667; p = .051 *    Pain and Suffering $ 551,430 $ 763,253 t = -2.0326; p = .044 ** NS = Not Significant  * = Marginally Significant ** = Significant Note. Description of how male jurors above 40 years would award different gender plaintiffs. Adapted from “Gender Bias Study of the Courts in Massachusetts,” 1990, New England Law Review , 24, n.p. Copyright (c) 1990 New England School of Law. Adapted with permission. Table 3 AWARDS GIVEN BY WOMEN OVER 40 IN MIDDLESEX Female Plaintiff Male Plaintiff    Medical Expenses $ 60,337 $ 61,918 NS    Diminished Earning Capacity $ 1,117,849 $ 1,155,555 NS    Pain and Suffering $ 750,908 $ 933,486 NS NS = Not Significant  * = Marginally Significant ** = Significant Note. Description of how female jurors above 40 years would award different gender plaintiffs. Adapted from “Gender Bias Study of the Courts in Massachusetts,” 1990, New England Law Review , 24, n.p. Copyright (c) 1990 New England School of Law. Adapted with permission. While most of the jury below forty years would award higher awards for the damages to the female plaintiffs, the same sex but above the age would favor the male plaintiffs. The correlation between the male jury above 40 years and more awards to their same sex plaintiff, is evidence of bias in court systems especially those dominated by older generations. An older female jury tries to balance the awards to almost all the sex groups, eliminating the chances of discrimination in legal institutions, an aspect that can be doubted when comparing with the same age male jury. The result of the differences in awarding creates an imbalance in the economic status as women receive less than men. Family courts The aspect of domestic violence against female spouses and children from their fathers has been used as tool to deny custody of children to their mothers. While most of this violence is realistic, women are criticized to use them as a weapon against their partners acquiring custody. What justice would it be, a father getting the right to full custody of children who have seen him batter their mother and abuse her to the end of the divorce, yet the mother raises the concern in court, but looses the custody over a claim to seek jury sympathy of force in false accusations to win the case? Most likely, the psychological damage to the child persists when they recall the past. Basing on the issue together with the fathers’ financial ability, women feel powerless and discriminated in the judicial systems that are male dominated. The argument is not for the women to win the case, but rather they deserve a fair hearing that involves evaluation of the past considering both parties’ faults. Definitely, the women understand their male partners’ capability and to what extent they can go. Hence, reporting domestic violence cases, they try to prevent their kids from going through similar problems. In a California state university conducted research, among the 100 self identified protective parents, who completed the 101- item questionnaire, 94 percent of the protective mothers surveyed were the primary care providers, 87 percent of whom had custody before the divorce. After reporting child abuse, only 27 percent of the surveyed mothers retained custody, with a ratio of 97:45 percent of the mothers reporting that the court personnel ignored or minimized the allegations on abuse, and being labeled as having (PAS)Parental Alienation Syndrome (Dallam, 2006, Protective mothers in child custody disputes, para 1). If the evaluations on historical domestic conduct were also given a priority, custody and gender bias disputes would be minimized; an individual with the right motive, lawful conduct and with better psychological suitability to be morally effective on the kids, would get a fair ruling on substantial basis. According to the leadership council, allegations point towards family courts decisions, where the negative opinion about women motivate the jury to disregard women’s accusations of domestic and most specifically child sexual abuse (2012, Achieving equal justice, para.1). The fear that children have been left with abusive fathers is then a major concern that women feel they deserve to protect themselves and their children. The best interest of the children may be betrayed in a controversy in courts functions, without the actual facts that represent the reality on the ground. Conclusion As most of the court systems are guided by the legal constitution to uphold justice and integrity in the society, most of them qualify in their function. However, there are few of those who do not acquire enough information, others work under pressure if not corrupt, driven by negative stereotypes while offering awards or relying on outdated if not illogical law, that suppresses one gender entirely. Nations need work on law reforms and perhaps carry out jury vetting to determine their integrity in work. The older jury though experienced enough need to familiarize themselves with the current reformed law, so that they take another strategy of reaching a decision, without over reliance on old cases, that could not be much more relevant in this modern society. References List Dallam Stephanie. (2006, May 27). Are Good Enough Parents Loosing Custody to Abusive Ex-Partners. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html Darlock (2011, August 22). The Bias against Fathers in U.S. Custody and Child Support. Retrieved from http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/08/22/the-bias-against-u-s-fathers-in-custody-and-child-support/ Dotterweich Douglas, & McKinney Michael. (n.d). National Attitudes Regarding Gender Bias in Child Custody Cases. Retrieved from communities.earthportal.org/files/43301_43400/.../file_43367.pdf English Bella, & Globe Staff (2010, July 18). Alimony Reform in Print. Retrieved from http://www.massalimonyreform.org/news.html Galbi Douglas. (2011, April 24). Sex Discrimination in Child Custody and Child Support. Retrieved from http://purplemotes.net/2011/04/24/sex-discrimination-in-child-custody-and-child-support/ “Gender Bias Study of the Courts in Massachusetts.” New England Law Review, 24, (1990). Retrieved form http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm Kennedy Helena. (2005, March 10). Why is the Criminal Justice System Still Skewed against Women? Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/mar/10/ukcrime.gender MacLarnon Zed. (2011, April 24). Judicial Bias (?)- How It Works and How to Defend Against by Zed McLarnon. Retrieved from http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-10.htm The Leadership Council. (2011, April 14). The Pas Scam: State Gender Bias Report. Retrieved from http://abatteredmother.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/the-pas-scam-state-gender-bias-reports/ Read More