« "California court wants proof on confining sex predators" | Main | Abortion doctor killer convicted (and subject to mandatory life WITH parole sentence) in Kansas »

January 29, 2010

Is it bad for sentencing jurisprudence that women are still badly under-represented on the bench?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by the report in this post at The BLT, which details the following statistics (that I find quite depressing):

Women currently make up 22% of all federal judges, a new study has found, and 26% of state-level judges.

The study by the University at Albany-SUNY's Center for Women in Government and Civil Society found that only two states — New Jersey and Connecticut — had achieved a "critical mass" of 33% women among the state's federal judgeships.  As for state judges, eight states have hit the one-third women mark, but 13 are below 20%.

The 33% threshold is “important because it is the point where women become a critical mass and where their number is large enough to induce change in the normative conception of leadership,” said center director Dina Refki in a statement.

Women’s share of the federal bench is at 10% or less in eight states — and nearly non-existent in Montana and New Hampshire.

In this post a few months ago, I asked "Do women make better sentencing judges?," and this new study certainly justifies continued discussion of that question.  But, as the title of this post is meant to explore, I would also like to hear thought from readers about whether they think having more women on appeals courts might impact sentencing jurisprudence for the better.  

January 29, 2010 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20128772924b3970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is it bad for sentencing jurisprudence that women are still badly under-represented on the bench?:

Comments

Female judges have to be "accommodated," like cripples.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3738344.stm

They are more likely to be Democrats and to support government tyranny.

They are more likely to coddle criminals, including vicious male predators who destroyed the life of a female. The criminal grows government by causing massive damages.

So, under the guise of equality, the call for more female judges is a stealthy call for more left wing control of the courts, and its devastating consequences to crime victims.

How would you like to face 10 times as many hostile, bigoted, America and male hating, pro-street criminal Sotomayors everywhere you went to court. What a waking nightmare.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 29, 2010 8:07:22 PM

How would you like a female judge in a nasty divorce dispute with false allegations of sexual abuse of the children? You might as well have the KKK Imperial Wizard be assigned to try the cases of all black folks.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 29, 2010 8:11:55 PM

Doug, why do you let Supremacy Claus post on your blog?

Posted by: Domino | Jan 29, 2010 8:49:16 PM

That is the left. Abandoned by the facts 100 years ago, the left only has personal attack and censorship. Why not move to Venezuela for a correct policy discussion?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 29, 2010 11:03:38 PM

It should start with a boycott list, the taking back of America from the feminist. All product and service providers refuse to serve the feminist lawyer and its running dogs. To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 29, 2010 11:40:59 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB