The Impact of the Gender of Defendants and Judges on the Outcome of Protest Cases: An Empirical Study of Court Decisions under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in Moscow

   Socio-legal studies have consistently documented the phenomenon of the “female discount”—a tendency for female defendants to receive more lenient punishments than male defendants. However, the literature on courts in authoritarian regimes suggests that decision-making patterns may differ in cases involving state interests. We analyze 15,229 court decisions under the most common parts (2, 5, 6.1, 8) of Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, issued in Moscow from 2017 to 2024, to determine whether the “female discount” effect is observed in political cases. Using regression analysis, controlling for legal and extralegal factors, and including fixed effects for the year of the court decision and the court, we demonstrate that the “female discount” is observed at all stages of judicial decision-making in administrative protest cases (case dismissal, imposition of a more lenient or severe punishment, and the amount of the imposed penalty), with the exception of the possibility of imposing a fine less than the minimum. Our models also include judges’ gender; however, it has a significant impact on judicial decision-making only when deciding whether to impose a fine less than the minimum. This study contributes to the literature on empirical legal research and the study of courts in authoritarian regimes by demonstrating that even in the context of political cases in authoritarian regimes, extralegal factors in judicial decisions, and in particular the gender of the defendants, are a significant factor in judicial decisions.

1. Volkov V. V., Dmitrieva A., Titaev K. (2015) Russian Judges as a Professional Group. A Sociological Study. Moscow: Norma. EDN: WZSIBP (in Russ.)

2. Zhuchkova S. V., Vadim Yu. D., Kazun A. P., Belov M. D., Sidorova O. I. (2025) Text of Court Verdicts as a Data Source for Empirical Legal Studies in Russia. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, (2), pp. 170–192. EDN: GZHDTO. doi: 10.14515/monitoring.2025.2.2575 (in Russ.)

3. Zdravomyslova E. A., Temkina A. A. (2015) 12 Lectures on Gender Sociology. St. Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg Press. EDN: YWPCTY (in Russ.)

4. Kapustin O. A. (2019) Organization of Automated Case Allocation in the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction. Law and Justice, (1), pp. 129–134. EDN: YVNSOD. doi: 10.24411/2073-3313-2019-10027 (in Russ.)

5. Paneyakh E. (2011) The Trajectory of a Criminal Case and the Conviction Bias in the Russian Court. In Law and Law Enforcement in Russia: Interdisciplinary Studies, pp. 150–177. (in Russ.)

6. Paneyakh E., Titaev K., Shklyaruk M. (2018) Trajectory of a Criminal Case: Institutional Analysis of Russian Criminal Justice System. St Petersburg: European University in Saint-Petersburg Press. EDN: VPLHSC (in Russ.)

7. Titaev K., Shklyaruk M. (2015) In Terms of Official Record: A Study of the Connections between Legal Language, Everyday Worklife and Organizational Context. Sociology of Power, 27(2), pp. 168–206. EDN: UAXOHF (in Russ.)

8. Chetverikova I. (2014) The Impact of Family, Professional Status and Gender of Defendants on Sentencing Decisions by Russian Judges. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 17(4): 101–23. EDN: TDOSAZ (in Russ.)

9. Armstrong G. (1977) Females under the Law — “Protected” but Unequal. Crime & Delinquency, 23(3). doi: 10.1177/001112877702300202

10. Bontrager S., Barrick K., Stupi E. (2013) Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 16, pp. 349–72.

11. Boyd C. L., Epstein L., Martin A. (2010) Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), pp. 389–411. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00437.x

12. Chatsverykova I. (2017) Severity and leniency in criminal sentencing in Russia: the effects of gender and family ties. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 41(3), pp. 185–209. doi: 10.1080/01924036.2016.1228073

13. Esarey J., Chirillo G. (2013) “Fairer Sex’ or Purity Myth? Corruption, Gender, and Institutional Context.” Politics & Gender, 9(4), pp. 361–89. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X13000378

14. Fridel E. E. (2019) Leniency for Lethal Ladies: Using the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model to Examine Gender-Based Sentencing Disparities. Homicide Studies, 23(4), pp. 319–43. doi: 10.1177/1088767919867420

15. Gel’man V. (2021) Constitution, Authoritarianism, and Bad Governance: The Case of Russia. Russian Politics, 6(1), pp. 71–90. doi: 10.30965/24518921-00601005

16. George T. E., Weaver T. G. (2017) The Role of Personal Attributes and Social Backgrounds on Judging. The Oxford Handbook of U. S. Judicial Behavior. Oxford University Press, pp. 286–302. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579891.013.3

17. Hendley K. (2009) “Telephone Law” and the “Rule of Law”: The Russian Case. The Hague Journal of the Rule of Law, (1), pp. 241–261. doi: 10.1017/S1876404509002413

18. Hendley K. (2017) Everyday Law in Russia. Cornell University Press.

19. Kashanin A., Churakov V. (2021) “Issue on ‘Small’ and Indisputable Cases in Russian Courts.” Global Jurist, 21(1), pp. 273–303. doi: 10.1515/gj-2020-0019

20. Kosař D. A., Blisa A. (2018) Court Presidents: The Missing Piece in the Puzzle of Judicial Governance. German Law Journal, 19(7), pp. 2031–76. doi: 10.1017/s2071832200023324

21. Kruttschnitt C. (1982a) Respectable Women and the Law. The Sociological Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 221–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1982.tb01009.x

22. Kruttschnitt C. (1982b) Women, Crime, and Dependency: An Application of the Theory of Law. Criminology, 19(4), рр. 495–513. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1982.tb00435.x

23. Ledeneva A. (2008) Telephone Justice in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 24(4), рр. 324–350. doi: 10.2747/1060-586X.24.4.324

24. Lee F. L. F. (2023) Judges’ Understanding of Protests and the Cultural Underpinnings of Legal Repression: Examining Hong Kong Court Verdicts. Social & Legal Studies, 32(3), рр. 464–484. doi: 10.1177/09646639221122443

25. Mccall M. (2008) Structuring Gender’s Impact. American Politics Research, 36, рр. 264–296. doi: 10.1177/1532673X07307969

26. Moustafa T. (2014) Law and Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, рр. 281–299. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030532

27. Mustafina R. (2022) Turning on the Lights? Publicity and Defensive Legal Mobilization in Protest-Related Trials in Russia. Law & Society Review, 56(4), рр. 601–622. doi: 10.1111/lasr.12631

28. Nagel I. H., Cardascia J., Ross C. E. (1981) Sex differences in the processing of criminal defendants. Women and crime, 104, рр. 259–282.

29. Nagel I. H., Hagan J. (1983) Gender and Crime: Offense Patterns and Criminal Court Sanctions. Crime and Justice, 4, рр. 91–144. doi: 10.1086/449087

30. Reuter O. J., Robertson G. B. (2015) Legislatures, Cooptation, and Social Protest in Contemporary Authoritarian Regimes. The Journal of Politics, 77(1). doi: 10.1086/678390

31. Rodriguez F. T., Curry R., Lee G. (2006) Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses? Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), рр. 318–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00383.x

32. Shields R. T., Cochran J. C. (2020) The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(1), рр. 95–118. doi: 10.1007/s10940-019-09416-x

33. Solomon P H. (2007) Courts and Judges in Authoritarian Regimes. World Politics, 60(1), рр. 122–145. doi: 10.1353/wp.0.0004

34. Songer D. R., Crews-Meyer K. A. (2000) Does Judge Gender Matter? Decision Making in State Supreme Courts. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), рр. 750–762.

35. Steffensmeier D., Kramer J., Streifel C. (1993) Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), рр. 411–446.

36. Steffensmeier D. J., Hebert С. (1999) Women and Men Policymakers: Does the Judge’s Gender Affect the Sentencing of Criminal Defendants? Social Forces, 77(3), рр. 1163–1196. doi: 10.2307/3005975

37. Steffensmeier D. J., Ulmer J. T. (1998) The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), рр. 763–798. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x

38. Van Slyke S. R., Bales W. D. (2013) Gender dynamics in the sentencing of white-collar offenders. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(2), рр. 168–196. doi: 10.1080/1478601X.2012.729707

39. Williams M. (1999) Gender and Sentencing: An Analysis of Indicators. Criminal Justice Policy Review, (40), рр. 471–491. doi: 10.1177/088740349901000401

40. Wu С., Lin A. M. (2022) Protesters on trial: examining factors influencing district court decisions in social protest litigation in Taiwan. Social Movement Studies, 21(6), рр. 833–853. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2021.1967130

41. Xia Y., Tianji C., Hua Z. (2019) Effect of Judges’ Gender on Rape Sentencing: A Data Mining Approach to Analyze Judgment Documents. China Review-an Interdisciplinary Journal on Greater China, 19(2), рр. 125–149. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26639660

42. Zhuchkova S., Kazun A. (2023) Exploring Gender Bias in Homicide Sentencing: An Empirical Study of Russian Court Decisions Using Text Mining. Homicide Studies. doi: 10.1177/10887679231217159