Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2004, 37(2): 253-275

This article reviews research and evidence that finds discrimination against men in the New Zealand criminal justice system. In particular, it critiques the work of Associate Professor Greg Newbold and a criminology PhD thesis by Samantha Jeffries, "Gender Judgements: An Investigation of Gender Differentiation in Sentencing and Remand in New Zealand", which Newbold co-supervised. Buckingham argues that the way in which this controversial and high profile media approach to criminology treats domestic violence against women can influence and mislead both the general public and public policy. At the centre of this debate is the question of gender asymmetry in domestic violence. The article discusses research from the longitudinal Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, which Newbold has supported. This work had been interpreted to show that men's and women's rates of domestic violence offending are similar. The author points to a balance of reputable research, based on the same study, that finds that the consequences of domestic violence are more severe for women, and that men and women have differing intentions and motivations for perpetrating violence. Buckingham points out, however, that findings from this same study show that men are 4 times more likely to be the perpetrators of domestic violence than women. Furthermore, the author contends that the research Newbold has promoted is a selective interpretation of domestic violence offending and victimisation, and maintains that its promotion in the media is counter to efforts to prevent violence against women.