Gender and Ethnicity: research reveals that women judges make more liberal decisions

Having more women on the bench will make a difference to the way courts uphold people's rights, a leading Australian judge told delegates at the IBA conference.


Roselyn Atkinson, a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, said US research into death penalty and obscenity cases showed that women judges tended to make more liberal decisions to uphold individual rights.


'Interestingly and... equally importantly, the presence of a woman on the court tended to increase the probability that male judges would adopt a similar position,' she added.


Judge Atkinson told the session on gender and ethnicity in judges: 'The point is not to replace a judiciary which has been perhaps unconsciously biased in favour of a male point of view with one which is biased in favour of a female point of view, but to ensure that the public has faith that the court will be impartial and able to recognise and therefore eliminate unconscious bias.'


The judge sought to dispel the myth that 'there is some kind of dichotomy between merit and the appointment of women, as if, on an equal playing field, more men would be appointed than women. A merit system would not be infected with this error. A system based purely on merit would be likely to see men and women thriving equally'.


Judge Atkinson attacked the notion that experience and merit are the same thing, and that because men have more experience than women, either individually or as a group, the two are not on an equal footing. This wrongly assumes that experience as an advocate equals capacity to be a fine judge, she maintained, while perpetuating the discrimination that women have faced as barristers.


She argued: 'Bundled with these misconceptions is the view that a diverse judiciary will not be an elite judiciary, whereas in fact widening the pool ensures the best people are considered for appointment.'


The judge concluded: 'The argument, and ultimately justification, for a diverse judiciary is that it better serves the interest of justice for all members of society.'