Implicit Gender Bias in Judicial Decision-Making in Domestic Violence Cases in South Africa

Abstract

This study investigates implicit gender bias in judicial decision-making in South African domestic violence cases, focusing on how unconscious gendered assumptions shape reasoning, credibility assessments, and sentencing. Based on a qualitative analysis of 210 court judgments from Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Durban (2016–2022), along with 15 interviews with magistrates and prosecutors, the research identifies three recurring patterns of bias: emotional credibility bias, where women’s emotions are viewed as unreliable; the neutrality myth, which disguises patriarchal reasoning as objectivity; and reconciliation bias, reflecting judicial preference for family harmony over accountability.

Findings show that these biases are reinforced by patriarchal norms, weak institutional training, and formalistic legal culture, which collectively undermine the equality principles of South Africa’s Constitution (1996) and Domestic Violence Amendment Act (2021). The paper argues that effective reform requires gender-sensitivity training, trauma-informed judicial practice, and stronger accountability mechanisms within the justice system. A shift toward gender-responsive justice—grounded in empathy, equity, and survivor-centered adjudication—is essential to realizing South Africa’s vision of transformative justice.