Gender,Critical Mass,and Judicial Decision Making

We examine the role of gender in legal decision making by applying critical mass theory to the U.S. federal district courts. We analyze whether behavioral differences manifest themselves in the decision‐making proclivities of male and female judges, contingent on the existence of a critical mass of female judges at a court point (i.e., each city in which a district court is located). Our results indicate that women jurists exhibit distinctive behavior in certain cases when there is a critical mass of women at a court point. These differences are most significant in criminal justice cases; modest differences between men and women are also identified in civil rights and liberties cases. Gender is not significant in labor and economic regulation cases. These findings suggest that the increasing presence of women on the federal bench could have substantial policy ramifications in the American polity.     

Structural Density and Criminal Victimization

This study examines the relationship between neighborhood structural density and rates of robbery and assault victimization. A theoretical framework linking defensible-space theory with an opportunity model of predatory criminal victimization suggests that structural density has a positive relationship with victimization, independent of victim characteristics. This perspective is compared to recent empirical and theoretical works that argue that denisty has either no relationship or an inverse relationship to crime. Hypotheses are tested with National Crime Survey victimization data for the years 1973 to 1978. The results support the major hypothesis and s h that structural density is positively related to rates of robbery and assault victimization, controlling for age, race, and sex of victim, and for extent of urbanization. Surprisingly, the positive relationship between structural density and victimization is stronger in rural areas than in urban areas.