Understanding violence against judges through a gendered lens

Violence against women in politics is increasingly gaining scholarly attention. While the literature on violence against women politicians and human rights defenders is growing, the problem of violence against judges has been mostly overlooked – particularly its gendered dimensions. Violence against judges poses a threat to the rule of law, democracy, and to women’s participation in decision-making. Reports from around the world suggest that the problem of violence against judges is old, yet the scholarship on this question is hugely underdeveloped and fragmented. Existing studies have mostly focused on the high prevalence of sexual harassment inside courts, and on the U.S. justice system. This paper is a first attempt to conceptualize violence against judges specifically through a gendered lens and contribute to the wider literature on political violence and violence against women in public office. We argue that judges are political actors, and that violence against judges can be understood as political violence since its purpose, choice of targets, surrounding circumstances, implementation and effects have political significance. In common with tendencies in the political branches, women are entering judiciaries in increasing numbers. By taking up these powerful positions, women often challenge a hierarchical and traditionally male dominated institution, seemingly violating gendered norms of appropriateness. This may provoke backlash and violent hostilities. At the same time, judges differ from politicians in some important aspects, which may shape judges’ experiences of violence. Appointed rather than elected, judges decide on highly political issues and wield extensive power over people’s lives. Powerful groups, organized crime, and individuals may react violently against judges’ decisions, and there may be ex ante efforts to ensure judicial compliance through court capture and the threat of violence. Further, as judges often decide cases alone or in smaller panels, they are easier to blame for unpopular decisions than other public officials. While drawing on the literature on violence against women in politics, this study seeks to explain what is particular to the violence facing judges as decision-makers. Our paper is informed by empirical research from a broader comparative project (“Women on the Bench”, a joint project between CMI and ODI) which analyzes the situation of women judges in five countries – Haiti, Guatemala, Angola, Uganda, and Afghanistan. These are countries where women have entered courts in increasing numbers, and with varying degree of state capacity to protect from and prosecute violence against judges. Our preliminary findings suggest that women and men judges experience different forms of violence and experience violence differently. Violence against judges also has different gendered consequences, which intersects with other forms of inequality.