From “iron fists” to digital traps: How contemporary legal policies bypass international gender standards

Abstract

Spanish

French

Thirty years after the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA), the treatment of women and girls within the criminal justice system remains a critical area where international law clashes with national practice. This article looks at how the implementation of UN frameworks, including the BPfA, the Beijing Rules, and the Bangkok Rules, are applied to women and girls in conflict with the law in the United States, Honduras, and El Salvador. By reflecting on data from research projects conducted between 2015 to date, this study demonstrates in particular that UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Chapter IV C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) are not effectively applied to women and girls. The findings reveal significant contradictions between international standards and lived realities when it comes to contemporary phenomena such as gangs and digital crimes.

Keywords

Beijing rules criminal justice gender juvenile justice Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action Bangkok rules Mano Dura digital violence gangs detention

Introduction

Fifty years after the establishment of the United Nations (UN), member states gathered in Beijing in 1995 to participate in the Fourth World Conference on Women, where they observed, among other issues, that

the status of women has advanced in some important respects in the past decade but that progress has been uneven, inequalities between women and men have persisted and major obstacles remain, with serious consequences for the well-being of all people. (United Nations, 1995: 2)

At the gathering, the Beijing Declaration was adopted and included a Platform for Action (BPfA) with 12 “critical areas of concern” (United Nations, 1995: 16) that were aimed to advance the human rights and equal treatment of women: (1) women and poverty, (2) education and training of women, (3) women and health, (4) violence against women, (5) women and armed conflict, (6) women and the economy, (7) women in power and decision-making, (8) institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women, (9) human rights of women, (10) women and the media, (11) women and the environment, and (12) the girl child (United Nations, 1995: 16–17). In this article, we look at girls and women involved in the criminal justice system, which can be linked to objectives 4, 5, 9, and 12.

More recently, at the 70th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), a report of the Secretary General stressed the need to “[e]nsur[e] and strengthen[. . .] access to justice for all women and girls, including by promoting inclusive and equitable legal systems, eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices, and addressing structural barriers” (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2026: 1), thereby reiterating the need to guarantee equality of women and men before the law, as stated in Rules 2, 3, and 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW; United Nations, 1979).

As increasing numbers of girls and women are being arrested and spending time incarcerated at all research sites featured in our studies (the United States, Honduras, and El Salvador), this article is timely. The Americas overall have the highest women incarceration rate worldwide (27/100.000). With 174,607 women in prison, the United States has the highest women incarceration rate (52/100.000); El Salvador follows in the third place with 42/100.000, and Honduras (11.4/100.000) also has above average rates of women in prison (Fair and Walmsley, 2025). While in each country the total number of women in prison is much lower than men, the incarceration rate of women worldwide is growing much quicker (57% increase since 2000) than that of men (22% increase since 2000) (Fair and Walmsley, 2025; Instituto Latinoamericano de las Naciones Unidas para la Prevención del Delito y el Tratamiento del Delincuente (ILANUD), 2025).

For the purpose of this article, our methodology is in line with Kilkelly and Pleysier (2023), who state that the “use of international standards enhances the comparability of single jurisdiction studies, allowing scholars in other jurisdictions to identify common or contrasting experiences, while playing a valuable role in comparative research” (p. 138). By applying UN frameworks on gender (BPfA), the rights of the child (United Nations, 1989), and criminal legal involvement (Bangkok Rules), in addition to UN Standards and Norms on juvenile justice (The Beijing Rules, 1985; The Havana Rules, 1990; The Riyadh Guidelines, 1990), this article reviews findings from qualitative studies on contemporary issues, which are yet to be considered within the context of UN Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, that is, girls/women and gangs and digital pathways to the criminal justice system. Based on comparative findings, used here as complementary forms of evidence, from three countries, we provide a unique perspective on similar contradictions to UN Standards and Norms found in each place, with particular focus on the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Section C & D, Beijing Rule 19, and Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1). Collectively, the UN Standards and Norms advise special provision for women and girls in the criminal justice system. Our findings demonstrate how these provisions are not being acknowledged or applied, further disadvantageously and punishing women and girls according to historical gendered and patriarchal thinking around girls/women and crime and punishment. While UN Standards and Norms are not enforceable upon states, as “soft law,” they can be used as guidelines to create national laws and standards, and they hold the power to “name and shame” states in international debates (Barberet and Jackson, 2017; ILANUD, 2025). It is also of note that the United States, one of the research sites featured in this article, has not signed and ratified the CEDAW or the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which are both fundamental human rights treaties that are the backbone of the Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice that we examine in this article.

Literature review and background

On 25 November 2024, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) along with several other international and UN agencies launched a joint statement and call to action: “Towards Beijing+30 – UNiTE to end violence against women and girls” (UN Women, 2024). The statement stresses that “[w]omen and girls are experiencing increasing levels of violence across private, public, and online spaces, exacerbated by intersecting inequalities and discrimination,” and that “ongoing backlash against gender equality, normalization of violence against women and girls (VAWG), effects of multiple crises, as well as rapid technological change, are creating additional challenges to overcoming this violence” (UN Women, 2024: para. 1). All duty bearers, including Member States and the private sector, were called to act upon the priorities set out in the evaluation of 30 years after the implementation of the BPfA (UN Women, 2025), most importantly regarding “recommitting to preventing and ending VAWG, demonstrating accountability, and providing resourcing” (UN Women, 2024: para. 7).

The BPfA, adopted in 1995 during the Fourth World Conference on Women, focused on gender equality. Prior to that, the CEDAW had been adopted in 1979, and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) of 1985 briefly included that special attention should be paid to girls within the criminal justice system. The Beijing Rules can be connected to the BPfA when we think of the criminal justice system as a violence against women and girls that needs to be eradicated. Given the topic of our case studies, we are furthermore concerned with the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders with their Commentary of 2010 (The Bangkok Rules). So, instead of perceiving UN Standards and Norms in isolation from each other, we find it important to analyze these different UN Standards and Norms in relation to each other, in order to come to more holistic recommendations for research and policymaking.

The Bangkok Rules (2010) were adopted in response to the lack of gender-specific treatment of girls and women in prison in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955). The Bangkok Rules, therefore, recognize the need for a different treatment of women in prison because women are more likely to suffer from mental health issues, victimization, self-harm, and suicide in prison. The Bangkok Rules furthermore provide guidance regarding the support of mothers with children in prison, specific health and hygienic needs, dealing with heightened levels of stigma and discrimination, creating gender-responsive rehabilitation programs in prison, and paying special attention to the needs of minority groups such as indigenous women or women practicing a different religion or culture (Barberet and Jackson, 2017; ILANUD, 2025; James and Glaze, 2006; Smith et al., 2023).

Although the BPfA of 1995 discusses the issues of violence against women and the situation of women’s experiences in armed conflict, it does so from a one-directional victim-perspective that does not include women involved in the criminal justice system. While the victim–perpetrator dichotomy still seems to be held onto within UN texts and rulings, research has shown that the lines are much more blurred (Derluyn et al., 2015; Sparks et al., 2023; Weber, 2021). In this article, we maintain a more holistic perspective on girls and women involved in the criminal justice system as both victims and (alleged) perpetrators.

Following the Beijing Rules (1985), the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty known as the Havana Rules (1990) and the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency known as the Riyadh Guidelines (1990) continue a similar pattern of gender-neutral assumptions and suggestions. Both assert that discrimination of application is not acceptable in any form with the Havana Rules including on the basis of sex (Section I.3 Havana Rules, 1990). In Section IV:1:28 “sex” is mentioned again in relation to detention, suggesting that “conditions that take full account of their particular needs, status and special requirements according to age, personality, sex and type of offences as well as physical and mental health” (Havana Rules, 1990: 4).

Finally, the UN CRC, adopted in 1989, brings together the rights of “all” (p. 1) children with sections based on the juvenile justice system incorporated in Articles 37 and 40. Much like the previous rules, Beijing, Havana, and the Riyadh Guidelines, the focus of the CRC in relation to delinquency is to use detention as a “last resort” (1989: 1), prioritize community-based services, rehabilitation, promote wellbeing, and ensure fair, equal treatment under the law while also protecting children from harm and abuse. While reiterating “sex” based discrimination as against the rules and asserting in the preamble that children should be prepared to live a life “in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity” (1989: 1). Although the CRC is not gender responsive, the continual reference to “all” children is a supportive reminder of inclusiveness.

Methodology

This article is based on several ongoing research projects in El Salvador, Honduras, and the US (2015 to date), on the following topics: women and girls in and around gangs (Honduras), girls in the juvenile justice system (US), and the social reintegration of women ex-detainees (El Salvador). The data were gathered independently by each author utilizing similar feminist qualitative methods, including ethnography, participant observation, interviews, focus groups, and participant supported online content analysis. In total, 136 people aged 13–74 years participated in these studies. For the scope of this article, we used our data as complementary forms of evidence in the analysis of UN Standards and Norms.

Since the publication of the BPfA in 1995, several studies have been conducted to analyze and evaluate the extent to which the BPfA has been put into practice in the different member states (Molyneux and Razavi, 2005), with some studies focusing on specific countries, such as South Africa (Labantu, 2021). Similar evaluations have been done for the Bangkok Rules (Barberet and Jackson, 2017; Cobbina-Dungy, 2022; Van Hout et al., 2023), with several studies focusing on country- or region-specific cases, for example, in Latin America (ILANUD, 2025), Thailand (Chitsawang, 2017), South Africa (Van Hout and Wessels, 2022), and Spain (Cerezo, 2017); or topic-specific cases, for example, the architectural design of women’s prisons (García Basalo, 2017).

This study takes a similar approach to the aforementioned studies by applying the BPfA and other UN Standards and Norms to our data to identify common themes regarding how rules can or cannot be applied. The most prevalent themes that emerged during coding using the rules were around the UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Section C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) for women and girls in the criminal justice system. These themes provide points of comparison which demonstrate that despite very different geographic, social, and economic environments and different legal challenges, similar responses occur with how the criminal justice system treats women and girls.

Using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022), each author coded their own data from each research project looking specifically for how rules could or could not be applied to the participants and criminal justice systems of which they were a part. We then met to discuss the most prevalent results. Each author selected quotations from each theme they felt illustrated points related to the least possible use of institutionalization and the elimination of discrimination. We then discussed the quotations assigned to themes to ensure we agreed with the other author’s interpretation and together decided on which findings would be included here. We have selected each quotation in the results section to illustrate evidence related to the UN Standards and Norms from each country with the knowledge that each of us have multiple examples relating to the least possible use of incarceration and ending inequality.

Each study received the necessary institutional review board (IRB) approval or equivalent according to the country’s requirements. Informed consent procedures were followed for each study. In accordance with confidentiality agreements, all participants have been de-identified and personally selected or were given pseudonyms. While the authors have discussed these studies in other papers (Van Damme 2026, 2021, 2019; Lyttle Storrod 2022, forthcoming; Lyttle Storrod and Van Damme, 2025) and presentations at international conferences (e.g., American Society of Criminology, Eurogang workshop, European Society of Criminology), the incorporated analysis of the UN Standards and Norms applied to our findings is unique to this article and the presentation given at the NGO CSW parallel event alongside CSW69 in New York City in 2025.

Findings

The findings presented here represent comparable points of evidence within our data around UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Section C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) against women and girls in the criminal justice system. Each section includes a definition of the rules and how they were not being appropriately applied within each country.

Least possible use of institutionalization

In the BPfA (1995), Chapter IV C. “Women and health” (p. 34) speaks of providing rehabilitation programs to women substance abusers. Also, Chapter IV D. “Violence against women” (p. 48) contains an agenda of how violence against women should be eradicated, and that women should not be criminalized for their own victimization. Prior to the BPfA (1995), the Beijing Rules of 1985 already argued for the least possible use of institutionalization, with Rule 19.1 stating that “the placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the minimum necessary period” (p. 12). The Bangkok Rules (2010), too, argue for alternatives to imprisonment, specifically advocating that “women with caretaking responsibilities for children shall be permitted to make arrangements for those children, including the possibility of a reasonable suspension of detention” (Rule 2.1, p. 8). The least possible use of institutionalization, although promoted in several UN Standards and Norms regarding juveniles and women, is a point of contradiction found in our studies, where institutionalization seemed favored rather than restricted and furthermore was applied in gender-biased ways.

In Latin America, crimes related to local policies on drugs and organized crime have been met with harsher penalization, which disproportionately affect girls and women (ILANUD, 2025). In Honduras, the Los Angeles-born gangs, the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18, started recruiting more girls and women in the past two decades, in response to the massive incarceration of alleged gang members and leaders under the Iron Fist (Mano Dura) anti-gang policies.¹ Girls and women were deemed particularly useful to gangs to execute extortions (one of the main revenues of the gangs), small-scale drug trafficking (mostly transporting drugs as drug mules), and assassination, because their “innocent feminine looks” raise much less suspicion than the male gang members, (Van Damme, 2020; Martínez D’Aubuisson, 2015; Méndez, 2019).

This new phenomenon of increased numbers of girls and women in gangs, however, was met with old attitudes, primarily harsher penalties. Under the presidency of Juan Orlando Hernández (2014-2022), the Mano Dura policies were reinforced. In February 2017, the penalties for extortion (Article 222 of the Penal Code)² were raised to 15 or 20 years of imprisonment, which equals penalties for homicide.³ Furthermore, the concept of the crime of terrorism (Article 335 of the Penal Code)⁴ was reformed and extended, with the result that the gangs and gang activities could also be included in the expanded definition and punished accordingly (Van Damme, 2020). Consequently, since the adoption of the Bangkok Rules (2010), the number of women incarcerated in Honduras has increased and it nearly doubled in the past 10 years, from 627 women in prison in 2014 to 1,185 in 2023 (Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, 2025).

As a result of these increased penalties, more girls and women are being imprisoned for longer periods of time. This is problematic because even girls or women who were simply accompanying someone committing extortion are convicted of the crime of extortion and sent to the gang section in prison. Emily (15 years, Honduras), for example, was incarcerated when she was 13–14 years old, on charges of assisting her gang-affiliated brother on an extortion mission. Although she barely had any experience in the gang, she was sent to the female juvenile detention center where other gang members pertaining to her brother’s gang were detained. Thus, even if a girl or woman does not fully belong to the gang (i.e. was not baptized into the gang), she is being sent to the gang section (either the Barrio 18 or MS-13 gang section). Consequently, she is forced to join the gang in prison, limiting her chances of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Furthermore, despite ongoing national efforts in the US, related to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA, 2018) which warrants the deinstitutionalization of young people held for status offenses, mirroring the Riyadh Guidelines (1990), girls in the digital study were consistently detained for violations of probation (VOP). Around 70% of the girls in the study had received a violation of probation, with a quarter of them spending time in detention as a result. Digital evidence was a consistent part of violation cases. As a probation officer in the United States explained,

It’s hard for it just to be an isolated incident to violate nowadays. I know with this state, they’re trying to get away from violating for just one little thing wrong. So, it’s usually a built up case . . . we can bring anything on social media to court . . . we’re seeing the families, are sending posts of these girls. . . drunk or using drugs like you know . . . they’ll post it on there . . . We can always bring it in. Um, violate for, for that.

As the quote above suggests, the use of digital evidence in the course of VOP is an easily accessible way to bring young people into the criminal justice system. Scholars have argued that an increased use of digital evidence could be identified as a violation of young people’s right to privacy and particularly disturbing when used to penalize them (Kilkelly and Pleysier, 2023; La Fors-Owczynik, 2015; O’Brien, 2024). VOP that included running away, sexting, and risk of sex trafficking often culminated in time in detention for girls in this study. As explored elsewhere, violating court orders that put girls into a digital lockdown and not boys, meant that when girls accessed social media, this too became a prolific way that the terms of their probation would be violated leading to detention for undetermined amounts of time (Lyttle Storrod, 2022). The use of detention in these circumstances seems extreme and in contradiction to Rule 65 of the Bangkok Rules (2010), as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (2007), the Havana Rules (1990), and Riyadh Guidelines (1990), which state that detention should be avoided to “the maximum extent possible” (Bangkok Rules, 2010: 19) and used as “a measure of last resort” (CRC, Article 37 (b), 2007).

Elimination of discrimination

Discrimination against girls and women has been defined by CEDAW (Rule 2) as:

any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. (United Nations, 1979: 2)

The BPfA reaffirms the need to “take all necessary measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and the girl child and remove all obstacles to gender equality and the advancement and empowerment of women” (1995: 4). Looking at how this is included in the UN Standards and Norms targeting the criminal justice system, Rule 26.4 of the Beijing Rules (1985) states that

Young female offenders placed in an institution deserve special attention as to their personal needs and problems. They shall by no means receive less care, protection, assistance, treatment and training than young male offenders. Their fair treatment shall be ensured. (p. 15)

This rule was included in the Beijing Rules (1985), because “female offenders normally receive less attention than their male counterparts” (p. 15). Also, the Bangkok Rules (2010), supplementing the principle of non-discrimination laid out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners of 2015 (also referred to as the Nelson Mandela Rules), states that “account shall be taken of the distinctive needs of women prisoners in the application of the Rules. Providing for such needs in order to accomplish substantial gender equality shall not be regarded as discriminatory” (Rule 1, p. 8).

It needs to be acknowledged that, within the framework of the UN Standards and Norms discussed in this article, some advances have been made when it comes to the guarantees and protections of girls and women’s rights in prison. For example, in Honduras, girls under the age of 18 are housed in separate facilities located within the center of the capital, Tegucigalpa, and are therefore more easily accessible than the adult facilities, which are located at least an hour drive from city centers and not easily accessible via public transportation. Also, the women can request to see a psychologist and sometimes also receive psychological care from organizations outside the prison, such as the National Program for Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Social Reintegration (PNPRRS/Programa Nacional de Prevención, Rehabilitación y Reinserción Social⁵).

Despite these advances, many challenges remain. We examined the Concluding Observations of the CEDAW Committee to the most recent periodic reports of Honduras (7th, 8th, and 9th Periodic Reports – CEDAW, 2016, 2022) and El Salvador (8th, 9th, and 10th Periodic Reports – CEDAW, 2017, 2026). For both countries, the CEDAW Committee has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding the long periods of pretrial detention for women and the subsequent overcrowding, the lack of access to justice, as well as the condition of girls and women in detention, due to the limited access to food, healthcare, and hygiene products. Special concerns were voiced regarding the condition of women in the maternity unit, who lacked adequate prenatal and postnatal healthcare, clean water, and adequate nutrition for them and their babies. In El Salvador, concerns were voiced around the deaths of pregnant women and newborns, as well as the failure to implement national legislation such as the Caring Births Act (Ley Nacer con Cariño, 2021) – which protects (prenatal) women and their newborns, including those in detention – because of the absolute criminalization of abortion (Article 133 of the Criminal Code – Código Penal, 1997).

Also according to our data, incarcerated girls and women still do not have the same rights and protections, whether formally or informally, as incarcerated boys and men. For example, incarcerated male gang members in Honduras receive more support from the gang (including food, clothing, etc.), as opposed to women gang members. There also remains a much greater stigma toward women in prison than toward men in prison, meaning that women in prison receive far fewer visits (e.g. from family members) than men in prison, due to the perceived issue of “double deviance” (Barr, 2019) – that is, a woman in prison deviated against the law and against her traditional role as a docile being. This, consequently, makes them feel even more isolated and badly affects their health:

In my position, as I have my health (issues). I mean, I have a bad foot. I mean, I have one foot in the cemetery and one here in prison, so . . . Nothing, nothing, listen, it is more likely that the car from the morgue comes to pick me up than my family, you understand me? So those are things that one observes and reflects upon. (Interview female gang member in prison, Honduras)

Other challenges consist of specific needs of the girls and women in prison. First, regarding the physical health of the girls and women in prison, there is a need for access to (potable) water and protection from mosquitoes and therefore from mosquito-borne diseases (such as dengue, malaria, and Zika virus). Second, regarding mental health, the women’s adult prison in Honduras is adjacent to the boys’ juvenile prison, and boys can jump the fences, posing a significant threat and constant stress to the women. This also limits the gang members’ rehabilitation opportunities because the gang boys spy on the women 24/7 and can report suspected “unacceptable” behavior to the male gang leaders. Third, regarding family visits and childcare, women inmates, as opposed to men inmates, are denied conjugal visits, for fear of the women becoming pregnant (a violation of Rule 27 of the Bangkok rules). Mothers with children up to the age of 4 are housed in a separate section (Casa Cuna), where they receive workshops on maternity and visits of religious groups. However, this section is also connected to the common spaces and is not sufficiently adapted to mothers and children. The underaged girls, while some of them do have children, are not allowed to have their children with them. Fourth, regarding safety, Barrio 18 and MS-13 members are housed in separate sections but can access each other through common spaces, posing risks, especially for the minority gang. One example of this are the prison riots in 2020 and 2023, whereby, respectively, 6 and 46 women were killed, mostly MS-13 gang members (Dittmar, 2020, 2023)

Moreover, even though, according to official sources (InfoSegura, 2022), 610 people participated in rehabilitation programs, it is unclear how many of them were women, gang members, and what these programs were like. In order to comply with the Bangkok Rules, as well as the Beijing Rules, gender-specific programming is needed. Prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration programs for prisoners in El Salvador and Honduras are not gender-specific, meaning they are designed for men and do not address the specific needs of women. Scientific research is needed to study these specific needs and formulate evidence-based policy recommendations.

Furthermore, gender and socio-economic discrimination can also be identified in the digital pathways study (US). All practitioners spoke about sexting in their interviews. Within the US, there were clear routes to divert girls away from adjudication outside of VOP. For sexting station house adjustments and referrals out of court were made for girls who had no prior involvement with the courts. Practitioners identified the sexting program, developed within family services, as having a positive effect on young people. This is a good example of a community-based specialized program created to meet the needs of young people as recommended by Rule l.6 of the Riyadh Guideline (1990). However, none of the girls in this study were offered or took part in sexting education courses offered by the court. The program coordinator for sexting education explained that it was more readily offered to “girls from the suburbs . . . girls from the city are already in programs because of their other involvement in the system. I’m sure the other programs for justice girls talk to them about sexting.” There seems to be a biased message implied through this statement, that the girls from the city could not benefit from intervention and diversion. Rather, place-based stigma gets attached to their probation and these city girls must be punished for their part in sexting because they were involved in other deviant behavior or needed support through other programming. Sexting for suburban girls, who were more likely white and of a higher economic status, would be identified as an isolated event from which they could be discouraged through education. When Black and Brown girls in this study engaged in sexting, they were identified as being at risk of sex trafficking. Practitioners often commented that girls in this study “didn’t know what they were doing, they didn’t realize that the picture could go right into the hands of sex traffickers.”

Also, knowledge of sexts by probation officers were used as a part of developing cases on girls for violating probation and were used to inform sex trafficking risk assessments. This is concerning as the pictures that these cases are based on are those made visible without the girls’ consent, constituting image-based abuse or exploitation, a clear demonstration of a form of violence in online spaces gestured to by the “Towards Beijing+30 – UNiTE to end violence against women and girls” (UN Women, 2024). The context of the picture being made available was not considered. Instead, the girls would be blamed for making the image, which also reflects a form of “moral deviance” that the Bangkok Rules (2010) is trying to protect against in relation to gender-based discrimination. Officials did not act to find or charge the sharer who had in fact distributed image-based abuse; in the majority of cases, the distributors were male. The girls were therefore punished for being victimized online and males were not being held accountable. As other scholars have pointed out, concern around online sexual behaviors including sexting is not gender-neutral and often girls are those punished for their role in even consensual sexting behaviors (O’Brien, 2024). Globally, responses that criminalize such behavior disproportionately affect and harm girls (Hasinoff, 2015; O’Brien, 2024).

Another example of discrimination in the digital pathways research (US), as mentioned in a previous section, is when girls are being put into digital lockdown, having their phones removed and being banned from social media. Boys were not put into digital lockdown. Digital lockdown had detrimental impacts on girls’ feelings of physical safety, curtailing social and emotional support further isolating girls (Lyttle Storrod, 2022). Girls in the criminal justice system are some of the most marginalized from society. Digital lockdown reinforced marginalization, making it difficult for girls to fully participate in social life. This is far from the equality for girls that the UN strives for, in particular in relation to Rule 26.4 (Beijing Rules) providing young female offenders’ special attention, elimination of discrimination.

Discussion

The findings in this article are taken from qualitative studies with girls and women involved with the criminal justice system, whereby we used our data as complementary forms of evidence, to demonstrate that UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Section C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) are not effectively applied to them, nor equitably as opposed to boys and men. Using examples of how these specific UN Standards and Norms are not being adhered to in studies from El Salvador, Honduras, and the United States, we show how women and girls are being discriminated against and punished often in gender-biased ways. These findings are particularly pertinent as the studies featured here are based on newer phenomena that the UN Standards and Norms have yet to fully integrate, that is, women in and around gangs and girls involved in digital offenses. The UN Standards and Norms are applicable to new phenomena; however, this comparative study shows how old patriarchal attitudes and standards are internationally sustained through the treatment of girls and women in the criminal justice system. At a time where more women and girls are being incarcerated, this article is also making a scientific contribution to remind member states of their pledge in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) “to guarantee equal access to justice for all and to establish legal frameworks that promote, enforce and monitor equality and non-discrimination” (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2026: 2), which is strongly rooted in the CEDAW (1979).

In our research, we observed that the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Section C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) is perhaps one of the most significant violations of the UN Standards and Norms, demonstrated by the overuse of incarceration. In Honduras, more girls and women end up in prison for longer periods of time due to harsh hand drug and organized crime policies, disproportionately affecting women gang members. In the United States, violations of probation are considered a status offense, which the UN rules suggest is not grounds for detainment; however, the US study shows girls were consistently placed in detention for violations connected to the digital world. Often, violations did not include new criminal charges but instead were used to keep girls “safe” or were a last resort due to lack of programming for girls in the community. The lack of programming is not a new issue and has been identified as a reason why girls go to detention in other studies (Lopez, 2017) and demonstrates an additional violation of Rule 28.2 (Beijing Rules, 1985), which states that girls should “receive support by the community” (p. 16).

Similar to other regional evaluations (ILANUD, 2025), this study also provides examples of how the countries in our studies are out of compliance with the UN Standards and Norms regarding the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1). Girls and women in the criminal justice system are still suffering from unequal treatment in relation to being offered the same legal penalties as boys (US); girls are being discriminated against as boys are not having digital VOP, nor are they incarcerated for VOP at the same rate. Moreover, in line with previous critiques, we observe that the Bangkok Rules still do not guarantee gender equality nor equity in prison, for example, as related to healthcare, conjugal visits, education, vocational programs, mothering, prevention of incarceration (crime prevention and punitive policies), and the position of women offenders (Barberet and Jackson, 2017; ILANUD, 2025).

Recommendations

There are several priority areas to which additional resources and efforts should be directed to continue making progress in the implementation of the BPfA, the Bangkok Rules, and the Beijing Rules. First, at the level of prevention, most women end up in prison due to precarious and violent living situations that could have been avoided if they had received the help they needed before ending up in prison. Second, related to due process, only women who truly pose a threat to others or society should be sent to prison, and prison should always be the last resort after all other alternative sanctions have been evaluated. However, currently in the United States as well as in Honduras, women who are perceived to need protection from the main prison population, for example, transgender women (Smith et al., 2023) or girls and women belonging to minority gangs (cf. supra), are placed in solitary confinement for more than 15 days, which is in direct violation with the Nelson Mandela Rules (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). If new prisons are built, preference should be given to small-scale detention centers, such as the RESCALED project (Caccia, 2025).

Furthermore, when it comes to empirical research, very little is known about women involved in the criminal justice system. Accurate and up-to-date statistics are needed to understand the exact population and the different vulnerable groups within this population. Specifically, qualitative, in-depth, and longitudinal research is necessary to understand the situation and needs of women, as well as the implementation of the BPfA, the Bangkok Rules, and the Beijing Rules and how it can be improved. Similarly, little is known about the role of women and girls in emerging criminogenic and/or victim-related phenomena. New phenomena provide researchers and criminal justice systems opportunities to engage with women and girls early to inform policy responses and supportive services. We recommend that researchers and policymakers seize the opportunity to work with women and girls to ensure they are better understood, and their needs are catered for within criminal justice systems that are developing responses to new issues rather than relying on outdated gender-based assumptions or research based on men’s experiences.

Finally, the need for training of penitentiary personnel in relation to the specific needs of girls and women in prison (cf. Bangkok Rules 29–35 and Beijing Rule 22), remains an ongoing issue (ILANUD, 2025). Indeed, within both case studies, the need to meet Rule 22 of the Beijing Rules (1985), the “need for professionalism and training” (p. 13), and Rule 85 of the Havana Rules (1990) that “personnel should maintain and improve their knowledge and professional capacity” (p. 10) seems obvious. Not knowing what to do with girls and women in gangs or digitally facilitated risk or harms should not result in incarceration or discrimination. In this regard, both authors have provided training to gatekeepers and interested parties within their research sites.

Conclusion

In conclusion, using data from feminist qualitative studies of women and girls in the criminal justice systems in El Salvador, Honduras, and the United States, this article demonstrates that UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Section C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) are not effectively applied. Our collective findings show that patriarchal systems and views of women and girls continue to affect how criminal justice systems treat women and girls in light of new phenomena involving women and girls in gangs and girls involved in digital deviance. Despite the UN Standards and Norms that should provide support in reducing inequality that women and girls experience in each criminal justice system, the lived experience of women and girls featured here instead demonstrates violence by this system. A more in-depth understanding of how the UN Standards and Norms are applied to new phenomena across the world is needed to ensure that the standard of equality is met for women and girls in the criminal justice system, and, therefore, comply with the aim to “advance the goals of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere in the interest of all humanity,” as set out in the BPfA (1995: 2).

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ellen Van Damme

Michelle Lyttle Storrod

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biographies

Ellen Van Damme is a research fellow at the Leuven Institute of Criminology. As a researcher and consultant, her work focuses on gangs, gender, post-incarceration, and migration in Central America and beyond. She is the founder of Lidwina, a nonprofit organization that provides support to women in contact with the criminal legal system. Through her consultancy business, Field Research Coaching, she trains and coaches academics and professionals working on sensitive topics and in challenging environments.

Michelle Lyttle Storrod is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Widener University and a SAFElab affiliate at UPenn. Her research explores the intersection of youth, social media, crime and violence. With a decade of gang intervention experience, her work is cited in UK policy and has been presented at the House of Lords. In the US she focuses on supporting girls and examines the role of women in community violence intervention.

References

Barberet

Jackson

(2017) UN rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial sanctions for women offenders (the Bangkok rules): A gendered critique’ papers. Papers: Revista de Sociología 102(2): 215–230. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/papers.2336

Barr

(2019) Desisting Sisters. Springer International Publishing.

Braun

Clarke

(2022) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications.

Butti

Ziosi

Van Damme

, et al (2026) Gangs and organized crime in Colombia and Honduras: Boundaries, intersections, and policy. In: Carson

Urbanik

Reid

(eds) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Gangs: Findings from the Eurogang Program of Research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.167–196.

Caccia

(2025) Women in detention: Challenges and new approaches. RESCALED, 15 May. Available at: https://www.rescaled.org/2025/05/15/women-in-detention-challenges-and-new-approaches/

Carranza

(2006) Del asistencialismo a la incidencia y el cabildeo: Las diversas respuestas de la sociedad civil organizada al fenómeno de las pandillas en Honduras. In: Cruz

(ed.) Maras y pandillas en Centroamérica: Las respuestas de la sociedad civil organizada (Volumen IV). UCA, pp.235–328.

CEDAW (2016) Concluding observations on the combined seventh and eighth periodic reports of Honduras (CEDAW/C/HND/CO/7-8). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/HND/8

CEDAW (2017) Concluding observations on the combined eighth and ninth periodic reports of El Salvador (CEDAW/C/SLV/8-9). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/SLV/8

CEDAW (2022) Concluding observations on the ninth periodic report of Honduras (CEDAW/C/HND/9). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/HND/9

10.

CEDAW (2026) Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of El Salvador (CEDAW/C/SLV/10). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/SLV/10

11.

Cerezo

(2017) Women in prison in Spain: The implementation of Bangkok Rules to the Spanish prison legislation. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 23(2): 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9323-0

12.

Chitsawang

(2017) Implementation of the Bangkok Rules in Thai prisons. In: Van Kempen

Krabbe

(eds) Women in Prison: The Bangkok Rules and beyond. Intersentia, pp.153–160.

13.

Cobbina-Dungy

(2022) Bringing the “invisible population” to light: Justice for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Violence against Women 28(8): 1809–1823. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221085995

14.

Código Penal, Art. 133 (1997) El Salvador. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/es/leg/legis/pleg/1997/es/125128

15.

Derluyn

Vandenhole

Parmentier

, et al. (2015) Victims and/or perpetrators? Towards an interdisciplinary dialogue on child soldiers. BMC International Health and Human Rights 15: 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-015-0068-5

16.

Dittmar

(2020) El caos también se apodera de cárcel de mujeres en Honduras. Insight Crime, 17 June. Available at: https://insightcrime.org/es/noticias/caos-carcel-pandilleras-honduras/

17.

Dittmar

(2023) Masacre en penal femenino de Honduras: Una tragedia anunciada. Insight Crime, 21 June. Available at: https://insightcrime.org/es/noticias/masacre-penal-femenino-honduras-tragedia-anunciada/

18.

Fair

Walmsley

(2025) World Female Imprisonment List, Sixth Edition: Women and Girls in Penal Institutions, Including Pre-Trial Detainees/Remand Prisoners. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. Available at: https://www.prisonstudies.org/

19.

García Basalo

(2017) The design of women’s prisons: An architectural perspective on gender-specific needs and realities of female prisoners and main requirements for improvement. In: Van Kempen

Krabbe

(eds) Women in Prison: The Bangkok Rules and beyond. Intersentia, pp.161–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780684994.012

20.

Gutiérrez Rivera

LDC

(2011) Security policies from a spatial perspective: The case of Honduras. Iberoamericana 11(41): 143–158.

21.

Hasinoff

(2015) Sexting Panic: Rethinking Criminalization, Privacy, and Consent. University of Illinois Press.

22.

InfoSegura (2022) Análisis Sobre la Situación de la Población Penitenciaria: Honduras 2022. Available at: https://infosegura.org/honduras/analisis-sobre-la-situacion-de-la-poblacion-penitenciaria-honduras-2022

23.

Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research (2025) World prison brief: Honduras. Available at: https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/honduras

24.

Instituto Latinoamericano de las Naciones Unidas para la Prevención del Delito y el Tratamiento del Delincuente (ILANUD) (2025) Reporte de la Reunión Consultiva Regional de América Latina y el Caribe para avanzar en la aplicación de las Reglas de las Naciones Unidas para el tratamiento de las reclusas y medidas no privativas de la libertad para las mujeres delincuentes (Reglas de Bangkok), realizada en San José, Costa Rica, del 25 al 27 de noviembre de 2024 (A/CONF.241/RPM.2/CRP.1). UNODC. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crimecongress/regional/latin-america.html

25.

James

Glaze

(2006) Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (NCJ 213600). Bureau of Justice Statistics.

26.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) (2018) Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 34 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. Available at: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/JJDPA-of-1974-as-Amended-12-21-18.pdf

27.

Kilkelly

Pleysier

(2023) Rights of the child in the child justice system. Youth Justice 23(2): 135–139.

28.

La Fors-Owczynik

(2015) Minor protection or major injustice? Children’s rights and digital preventions directed at youth in the Dutch justice system. Computer Law & Security Review 31(5): 651–667.

29.

Labantu

(2021) Beijing +25 consultative forumGeneration Equality: Realising Women’s Rights for an Equal Future. Agenda 35(2): 157–165. DOI: 10.1080/10130950.2021.1930884.

30.

Ley Nacer con Cariño (2021) Ley Nacer con Cariño para un Parto Respetado y un Cuidado Cariñoso y Sensible para el Recién Nacido [Caring births act for a respected birth affectionate sensitive care for the newborn], Decreto N. 123. Available at: https://crecerjuntos.gob.sv/dist/documents/Ley_nacer_con_carino.pdf

31.

Lopez

(2017) Complicated Lives: Girls, Parents, Drugs, and Juvenile Justice. Rutgers University Press.

32.

Lyttle Storrod

(2022) Ecological ruptures and strain: Girls, juvenile justice, and phone removal. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 11(1): 120–134. DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.2188.

33.

Lyttle Storrod

(forthcoming) Girls Digital Pathways to the Juvenile Justice System.

34.

Lyttle Storrod

Van Damme (2025) Mothers and gang intervention: A cross-national account. International Criminology 5: 517–530. DOI: 10.1007/s43576-025-00176-2.

35.

Martínez D’Aubuisson

(2015) Ver, oír y callar: Un año con la Mara Salvatrucha 13. Pepitas de calabaza.

36.

Méndez

(2019) The violence work of transnational gangs in Central America. Third World Quarterly 40(2): 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1533786

37.

Molyneux

Razavi

(2005) Beijing plus ten: An ambivalent record on gender justice. Development and Change 36(6): 983–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00446.x

38.

O’Brien

(2024) Criminalisation: The legal and ethical complexities of criminalising children for emergent, digitally-enabled crimes. In: O’Brien

(ed.) Children’s Rights and Criminal Justice in the Digital Age. Springer Nature. pp.105–133.

39.

Smith

Ingel

Rudes

(2023) “Like an animal”: The well‑being of women living in restricted housing units. Health & Justice 11: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-023-00215-y

40.

Sparks

Stephens

Trendell

(2023) Image-based sexual abuse: Victim-perpetrator overlap and risk-related correlates of coerced sexting, non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, and cyberflashing. Computers in Human Behavior 148: 107879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107879

41.

UN Women (2024) Call to action: Towards Beijing+30 – UNiTE to end violence against women and girls. Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/statement/2024/11/statement-call-to-action-towards-beijing-plus-30-unite-to-end-violence-against-women-and-girls

42.

UN Women (2025) CSW69 / Beijing+30 (2025). Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/commission-on-the-status-of-women/csw69-2025

43.

United Nations (1979) Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (Resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979). Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm

44.

United Nations (1989) United Nations convention on the rights of the child, November 20, 1989. Available at: https://www.unicef.org.au/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child

45.

United Nations (1995) Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women (The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, A/CONF.177/20/Rev.1). United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/fwcwn.html

46.

United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981

47.

United Nations Economic and Social Council (2026) 70th session of the commission on the status of women (E/CN.6/2026/3). Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/commission-on-the-status-of-women/csw70-2026/official-documents

48.

United Nations General Assembly (1985) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules, A/RES/40/33). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/1985/10533

49.

United Nations General Assembly (1990a) Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines, A/RES/45/112). United Nations General Assembly.

50.

United Nations General Assembly (1990b) United Nations rules for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty (The Havana Rules, A/RES/45/113). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/105555

51.

United Nations General Assembly (2010) United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (The Bangkok Rules, A/C.3/65/L.5). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/reference/themreport/unga/2010/79245

52.

United Nations General Assembly (2015) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules). United Nations General Assembly. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5698a3a44.html

53.

United Nations Specialised Conferences (1955) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/legal/otherinstr/un/1955/108625

54.

Van Damme

(2019) When overt research feels covert: Researching women and gangs in a context of silence and fear. Journal of Extreme Anthropology 3(1): 121–134. DOI: 10.5617/jea.6696.

55.

Van Damme

(2020) The Ecology of Violence and Silence: The Position and Role of Women in and Around Gangs in Honduras (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). KU Leuven, Belgium.

56.

Van Damme

(2021) Corruption, impunity and mistrust: moving beyond police gatekeepers for researching gangs. Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research 13(2/3), 125–135. DOI: 10.1108/JACPR-01-2021-0572.

57.

Van Damme

(2026) Jennifer: The first female Honduran gang leader. In Rodgers

(Ed.), Gang Lives: Global Portraits from the Streets and Beyond. London: Bloomsbury, pp.65–81.

58.

Van Hout

Wessels

(2022) Human rights and the invisible nature of incarcerated women in post-apartheid South Africa: Prison system progress in adopting the Bangkok Rules. International Journal of Prisoner Health 18(3): 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-05-2021-0045

59.

Van Hout

Fleißner

Stöver

(2023) ‘Women’s right to health in detention’: United Nations committee observations since the adoption of the United Nations rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial measures for women offenders (Bangkok Rules). Journal of Human Rights Practice 15(1): 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac058

60.

Weber

(2021) Defying the victim-perpetrator binary: Female ex-combatants in Colombia and Guatemala as complex political perpetrators. The International Journal of Transitional Justice 15(2): 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijab006