A great deal of theoretical and empirical research explores whether gender
influences sentencing outcomes in general; however, some researchers argue
that this line of research may be too blunt, and that gender-based sentencing
leniency may be more or less likely depending on other characteristics of
offenders or their cases (Boritch, 1992; Crew, 1991; Farnworth and Teske,
1995; Spohn, 1999; see also Chesney-Lind, 1977; Daly, 1997). The type of
crime offenders are convicted of represents one such concern. What is al-
ternatively referred to as the selective chivalry, typicality, or evil woman thesis
stipulates that gender-role adherence may condition chivalrous outcomes
such that preferential sentencing outcomes are available only to female
offenders whose criminality does not violate gender expectations. Alterna-
tively, women whose criminality violates these conventional norms are
treated more harshly, perhaps similarly to men convicted of these crimes (see
Crew, 1991; Farnworth and Teske, 1995; Spohn, 1999). This point of view
contends that sentencing leniency is manifested only toward females who
commit crimes that are ‘‘typical’’ of females and stereotypic female gender
roles, such as drug use and property crimes like shoplifting and check for-
gery. ‘‘Evil women’’ who commit more masculine crimes, such as those that
involve violence, will not benefit from their gender at the sentencing stage,
and will not be preferentially treated compared to men, and may even
receive harsher sentences, as they are not only violating the law but gender
roles as well (see Boritch, 1992; Chesney-Lind, 1977). Corresponding to
this view, although it has not been applied to the gender question, is the
liberation thesis (Spohn and Cederblom, 1991), which stipulates that the
effects of extra-legal variables will be greater for less serious crimes (see also
Smith and Damphousse, 199

.