A common feminist response to women's clear advantage in the criminal justice system is that their more lenient sentences are a result of male privilege and benevolent sexism (i.e., women are seen as having less agency and responsibility because they are not taken seriously).

However, it strikes me that responsibility-diminishing discourse more often accompanies privilege than the lack thereof. For example, Ethan Couch, the wealthy boy who drunkenly crashed into and killed four people, successfully avoided jail based on the "affluenza" defense, which, IIRC, was that his privilege meant he could not handle imprisonment. That defense would not have worked if society saw the privileged as more responsible rather than less responsible for their actions.

On the other hand, convicted juveniles belonging to marginalized racial groups or of low socioeconomic status are more likely to have been tried as adults (the vast majority of whom are male). Based on the feminist logic that women's lenient sentences are due to disprivilege, the demographics of juveniles most often tried as adults must be the most privileged, since their harsher sentences suggest that society sees them as having greater agency in, and more responsibility for, their alleged actions. However, I think it goes without saying that this is absurd.

Furthermore, it is not hard to find citations for the fact that rich people receive lighter sentences than poor people. Yet, I don't hear feminists talking about "poor privilege" or calling rich convicts victims of "benevolent classism."

TL/DR: The feminist argument that lighter sentences for female convicts is because of male privilege easily falls apart when it is applied to any other possible area of privilege (whether based on race, socioeconomic status, or anything else). Furthermore, I think analyzing the cracks in that argument really calls into question whether privilege and (the perception of) agency are as intertwined as feminists claim they are.