Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2004, 37(2): 286-295

This article is a response to Judith Buckingham's critique of the author's PhD thesis methodology and research findings, and the work of Jeffries' thesis co-supervisor, Associate Professor of Sociology, Greg Newbold, that was presented in Buckingham's article "'Newsmaking criminology' or 'infotainment' criminology?'" As such, this response contributes to the debate on gender asymmetry of domestic violence. Jeffries supports her findings through a discussion of her research. The objectives of the research were to identify if there are any gender differences in sentencing and remand outcomes; if there are any gendered criteria in sentencing and remand; and how differences may occur if they do exist. Three hundred and eighty-eight male and female sentenced offenders, between 1990 and 1997, were sampled and matched for criteria, including major statutory offence and number of charges. Results show that some gender differences exist; men are more likely to be remanded in custody and for longer periods than females. Findings also show that the criteria employed for reaching judicial outcomes appears to differ for men and women and outcomes for women are less harsh. The author also discusses the social construction of femininity and masculinity, how this impacts on perceptions of men and women as offenders, and subsequently, on judicial outcomes.