This article explores how gender ideologies shape legal assessments in German human trafficking cases, with a particular focus on women as co-offenders, accomplices, or perpetrators. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of 93 criminal case files concluded between 2009 and 2013, the study interrogates prosecutorial decisions and judicial sentencing in cases involving sexual exploitation. While legal criteria appeared formally gender-neutral, subjective evaluations ‒ such as perceived credibility, lifestyle, caregiving roles, or emotional behavior ‒ revealed deep-seated gender biases. Female victims were frequently assigned partial responsibility for their victimization, especially when previously involved in prostitution or emotionally connected to the accused. The findings are interpreted through the lens of symbolic power (Bourdieu), rape myth acceptance, and gender-role ideology. Legal actors, through discretionary decision-making, play an active role in reproducing normative gender narratives and legitimizing symbolic violence. This article contributes to feminist criminology by highlighting how institutional practices reinforce structural inequalities and by calling for both legal reforms and critical reflection on the cultural assumptions embedded in the criminal justice system. Keywords: gendered justice, human trafficking, female offender, gender norms, symbolic power.
Ruth Sapelza (Fri,) studied this question.