多元女性主义犯罪学打开了法官量刑的批判理论视域，为检视法官性别等法外 因素在强奸罪量刑中的影响增添了正当化的维度，强奸罪量刑应满足均衡和正当的 要求。本文使用了量化与质性结合的混合研究方法，以北京市法院的女性法官为样 本，男性法官为对照组，通过倾向得分匹配模型衡量女法官在强奸案件中的量刑结 果是否与男法官有差异，并运用广义线性回归模型检验结果的稳健性。使用随机森 林识别实际影响量刑的法内与法外因素，以及各个因素的影响力大小。在量化部分 样本的基础上选择质性研究对象，使用深度访谈和参与观察法探究女性法官的性别 角色如何与重要的法内和法外因素结合影响审判实践。倾向得分匹配模型的结果表 明，女性法官在强奸案中平均比男性法官多判处 1 个月的有期徒刑，但广义线性回 归模型的进一步检验说明这一结果并不稳健，女性法官和男性法官量刑没有显著差 异。随机森林模型显示强奸罪量刑有着重定性轻定量和在一些重要量刑情节上缺乏 梯度的问题。深度访谈结果表明女性法官在强奸案件中可能做出比男性法官更严厉 的判决，但并不能仅归因于女性法官更同情女性被害人或更憎恨男性被告人。部分 女性法官具有更现代化的性别观念，更敏感察觉社会变化，适时调整经验判断的内 容，部分女性法官则持性别漠视态度，甚至倾向于轻判。法官的性别观念不仅影响 了量刑的法外因素，也影响着性同意要件等法内因素。女性法官的经验判断有利于 实现形式正义与实质正义的统一，吸收女法官的经验判断内容有利于均衡和规范强 奸罪的量刑。
结合量化和质性部分的研究，本文结合社会变化的实际需求建构有利于实现强 奸罪量刑均衡化和正当化的检验标准。首先吸收多元女性主义犯罪学对强奸罪的实 证研究成果形成假设，通过定量方法检验实践中的强奸案量刑是否符合均衡与正当 化假设，若不符合则通过定性研究总结合理的量刑规范，实现社会法益变迁与量刑 的动态平衡。为实现强奸罪量刑的均衡与正当要求，应当通过确立积极性同意要件 限制法官性别观念对强奸罪量刑的影响，将手段恶劣程度作为强奸罪量刑情节，并 根据未成年人的年龄成比例地限制赔偿谅解、认罪认罚等情节的减刑幅度。

Feminist criminology opens up the critical theoretical horizon of judges' sentencing, adding a legitimizing dimension to the examination of the influence of extrajudicial factors such as judges' gender in the sentencing of rape, which should satisfy the requirements of equilibrium and legitimacy. This paper uses a mixed research approach combining quantitative and qualitative methods, using a sample of female judges in Beijing courts and male judges as a control group, measuring whether the sentencing outcomes of female judges in rape cases differ from those of male judges by means of a propensity score matching model, and testing the robustness of the results using a generalized linear regression model. Random forests were used to identify the intra- versus extra-legal factors that actually influence sentencing and the magnitude of influence of each factor. Selecting qualitative research subjects based on a quantitative partial sample, in-depth interviews and participant observation were used to explore how female judges' gender roles combine with important intra- and extra-legal factors to influence trial practice. The results of the propensity score matching model indicated that female judges sentenced an average of 1 month more in prison than male judges in rape cases, but further testing of the generalized linear regression model illustrated that this result was not robust and that there was no significant difference in sentencing between female and male judges. The Random Forest model showed that rape sentencing was characterized by a preference for qualitative over quantitative sentencing and a lack of gradient in some important sentencing scenarios. In-depth interview results suggest that female judges may impose harsher sentences than male judges in rape cases, but this cannot be attributed solely to the fact that female judges are more sympathetic to female victims or more hateful to male defendants. Some female judges have a more modernized gender perspective and are more sensitive to changes in society, adjusting the content of their empiricaljudgments as appropriate, while some are gender-neutral and even tend to hand down lighter sentences. The gender concepts of judges not only affect the extrajudicial factors of sentencing, but also the intrajudicial factors such as the element of sexual consent. The empirical judgment of female judges is conducive to the realization of the unity of formal justice and substantive justice, and the absorption of the empirical judgment of female judges is conducive to the balanced and standardized sentencing of rape.
Combining the quantitative and qualitative parts of the study, this paper constructs a test that is conducive to the equalization and justification of rape sentencing in light of the actual needs of social change. Firstly, the hypothesis is formed by absorbing the empirical research results of multifaceted feminist criminology on the crime of rape, and the quantitative method is used to test whether the sentencing of rape cases in practice is in line with the hypothesis of equalization and justification, and if it is not in line with the hypothesis, then the qualitative research is used to summarize the reasonable norms of sentencing, so as to achieve the dynamic balance between the change of social interests and the sentencing. In order to achieve balanced and justified sentencing for rape, the influence of judges' gender perceptions on sentencing for rape should be limited by establishing the element of positive consent, making the degree of aggravation of the means a sentencing circumstance for rape, and limiting the range of sentence reductions for such circumstances as compensation and understanding, and guilty pleas, in proportion to the age of the minor.