English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The predominant theories on courtroom decision-making explain extralegal disparities with the courtroom actors’ use of stereotypes. We conducted a vignette study on a sample of judges at the Chinese National Judges College, manipulated the sex of the defendant in each vignette, then asked the subjects for the recommended sentence. The survey also contained a series of questions on the beliefs about the causes of crime, the patterns of criminal behaviors, and the effectiveness of punishment. We found that the judges recommended significantly less harsh sentences for the female homicide defendant, but recommended significantly harsher sentences for both female defrauding and drug trafficking defendants. We also found little evidence that the perception and belief variables were confounders behind the observed sex disparities.

Sex Disparities in Sentencing and Judges’ Beliefs: A Vignette Approach