Discussion on the Treatment of the UK Female Offenders - Essay Example

Treatment of Female Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: Good, Bad, or Insane? Take to consider these facts: the number of women in prison has tripled in the past decade in the UK. Between 1992 and 2002, the number of women prisoners rose from around 1300 to well over 4000. There are now more women in prison than at any time since 1901. An estimated 8,000 children are affected each year as a result of their mother’s imprisonment (Page, 2003). As these statistics show, the situation of female offenders seems to be alarmingly bad. Thus, female offenders are recently in focus by the criminal justice system in terms of their misdemeanours and their various needs. For some time, many social scientists have ignored the diversity of the womens prison population and the differential treatment to which women of various backgrounds have been subjected. These omissions have affected the type of information available on women in the criminal justice system as it relates exclusively to the issue of gender. Largely, the study of criminology has treated female offenders with some measure of indifference. This is derived from tradition culture that have been conceived in maintain esteem for mens autonomy, intelligence and force of character while disdaining women for their weaknesses of compliance and passivity. In the essay of Kerry Brave entitled “Crime and Gender” (2003), she enthuses that women who conform as pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers benefit men and society (Feinman, 1994: 16). Those women who dont, that is are non-conforming, may simply be one who questions established beliefs or practices, or one who engages in activities associated with men, or one who commits a crime. These women are doubly damned and doubly deviant (Bottoms, 1996: 1). They are seen as mad not bad (Lloyd, 1995: 36). These behaviours frequently lead to interpretations of being mentally abnormal and unstable. Those doing the defining, by the very act, are never defined as other, but are the norm. As men are the norm, women are deviant. Women are defined in reference to men (Lloyd, 1995: xvii). In the words of Young (1990), sexual difference is one of the ways in which normal is marked out from deviant. So why do these differences exist within the criminal justice system and society as a whole? In order to understand why offending and punishment differs between genders it is important to acknowledge and analyse past perceptions, theories and perspectives from predominant sociologists and criminologists of that time towards women in society. Given the emergence of a psychology of women in the mainstream of research and practice, Miller and Trapani (1995) suggested that it is critical that correctional educational practices become responsive to adolescent females. While in the past, few research studies focused on the needs and characteristics of adolescent female offenders, there is some evidence from recent investigations suggesting that adolescent females have unique needs. Most correctional educational programs, assessment procedures, and curricula have been developed on a knowledge base obtained from studies conducted with adolescent male offenders. The profile of the adolescent female now emerging from psychological, educational and sociological research suggests that programmatic changes are necessary if we are to meet the special needs of these females. Although research on adolescent females is a relatively new area of study, much information is now available that points to differences between female and male adolescents. Research has revealed that adolescent females experience more episodes of depression throughout adolescence than do males (Rutter, 1986), attempt suicide more frequently (Rosenthal, 1981), and exhibit lower levels of resilience (Block, 1990). As adolescence progresses, females self-esteem becomes diminished, whereas young males self-concept and self-esteem improve (American Association of University Women, 1991). Adolescent females have been shown to develop a "different voice" from males in discussing and acting out their relationships with others (Gilligan, 1982). Some have observed that adolescent females seem to lose their sense of self and their personality during adolescence (Thompson, 1964). In research examining the types of knowledge that men and women use to understand their lives and relationships, adolescent females have been shown to have different "ways of knowing" from that of males (Belenky, et al., 1986). Gender differences in moral development and independence also have been found to appear during adolescence. The gender differences illuminated throughout research with "normally" developing adolescents need to be considered when programming for adolescent female offenders. In a study by DeBell (2001), he found some serious facts about the profiles of female offenders. He informed that female offenders typically enter the system unskilled with no significant work histories. This is a direct reflection on the relationships of female offenders prior to incarceration. Nearly 70 percent of the departments female offenders report coming from abusive relationships in which sexual, emotional or physical abuse was the norm. In relationships such as these, the controlling partners typically prohibit women from working. Moreover, DeBell estimated that the average education level of incoming female offenders is 8th grade. Female offenders are being incarcerated often with lower than basic literacy skills. This, along with a lack of life skills, such as interview skills, money management and the basic premises of being productive in the job market, poses a serious recidivism risk. Many of these female offenders have one or more dependent children. The largest psychological/emotional issue for incarcerated women is the concern for the care of their children. Only 22 percent of women who went to prison in Florida could depend on their childrens fathers for their care. Care often was left to the maternal grandmother, or worse, foster care. With figures as high as 70 percent, female offenders enter the system with very low self-esteem, often so severely damaged as children that the adult offenders manifest this in inappropriate or even criminal behaviours, i.e., drug use, prostitution, eating disorders, etc. Again, staff can further perpetuate this problem with inappropriate, unprofessional behaviour and interactions. In a recent report by Her Majestys Prison Service of Great Britain, the Home Office outlined a strategy to address the issue of women in the justice system. The report called for: a commitment to researching why women offend, a package of initiatives that could help deal with the causes of crime, programs that try to tackle early antisocial behaviour among young people -- particularly girls -- improved bail information and use of bail hostels for women offenders, monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of sentences on women offenders, new initiatives to encourage community sentencing when appropriate, and a targeted policy group dedicated to a reduction of re-offending by women offenders. In 2001, magistrates served prison sentences in 15% of cases, twice as many as ten years ago. Crown courts sent 64% of offenders to prison compared to 43% in the early 1990’s. Average sentence lengths have gone up too. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf has said “There is a continuous upward pressure and very rarely any downward pressure on the level of sentences. The upward pressure comes from public opinion and the media, the government of the day and Parliament.” The last ten years has seen a raft of tough legislation which has led to automatic life sentences for some sex and violent offenders, and a mandatory three years for a third burglary conviction (Page, 2003). In the 1970s and 1980s a number of British studies attempted to examine the question of why men and women appear to have such different sentencing patterns. Some of these studies focused on interactional aspects of the magistrates’ court process. They were not concerned with measuring differences between male and female defendants in terms of factors such as their past or present offending, but in how differences in the way they behaved and how they were perceived affected the decision-making process. Of particular note here is work which draws attention to the impact of appearance and demeanour in the courtroom, though as Hedderman (1990) points out, having carried out a systematic observational study in an English magistrates’ court in 1985, the relationship between how magistrates appear to react to defendants and how they actually sentence people is by no means clear. Hedderman concluded that some of the differences between the sentences imposed on men and women could be accounted for by the way they behave in the court room, with women receiving more lenient sentences than men because they are more nervous and act more respectfully and deferentially to the court (Hedderman and Gelsthorpe, 1997). Furthermore, Hedderman and Gelsthorpe (1997) asserted that magistrates found it hard to compare the way they sentenced men and women because they dealt with women offenders far less frequently. However, they broadly distinguished between ‘troubled’ and ‘troublesome’ offenders, and tended to locate most women in the former category. In part this was because women tended to be first offenders, facing less serious charges than men and because they behaved more respectfully in court. In addition, magistrates tended to ascribe different motives to them. On the other hand, proof of some form of mental illness is an acceptable form of mitigation. A further factor mentioned was ‘hormonal problems’ for older women. Male magistrates in particular tended to mention ‘the Change’ as an explanation of offending, especially shop theft. This perceived ‘illness’ generated sympathy rather than censure. In the US, the National Institute of Corrections has sponsored a workshop titled "Critical Issues in Managing Women Offenders," (DeCostanzo, 1998). Participants are invited to consider the question: "Why is it important to address separately the issues of women offenders?" Here are some of their observations: Womens needs are different from mens. While parity instructs us to provide equal access to programs, different needs require us to tailor those programs accordingly. Women offenders represent different challenges in supervision than do men; good operational practice acknowledges that difference. Women typically comprise a minuscule part of any agencys facility-based population. Therefore, we need a systematic way of responding to female offenders so that they do not become an afterthought in a primarily male system. Women offenders proportionately have much higher physical and mental health care needs than men, an issue that is sometimes overlooked in correctional planning. Women typically are the primary caregivers to their children. As womens time served increases, the implications for child care intensify. Sexual misconduct issues continue to arise in most jurisdictions and, while not restricted to female offenders, they tend to be more prevalent in relation to women. Women offenders represent a microcosm of the correctional system. We can pilot with them many programs and services based on differential needs. Correctional planners have a wide array of research-based programs available to them today. In the larger community, research on substance abuse, domestic violence, health care and parenting leads the way to the development of gender-responsive services (DeCostanzo, 1998). It is a known fact that we should no longer wonder if women have different needs than men. It is time that we acknowledge and respond to those differences every day in our personal and professional relationships with family, friends and colleagues. In a book by Earlene Festervan (2003) entitled Women Probationers: Supervision and Success, she basically enumerated the needs assessment has been done regarding female offenders -- relationships, children/pregnancy, employment and education, physical and mental health, and substance abuse. With the information Festervan obtained, she provided tips on how to provide gender-responsive services for each of those specific need. As she noted, women are almost universally undervalued and often oppressed people, however, they can do good things when given the opportunities through gender-responsive principles and strategies. Festervan strongly suggests that the "reasonable taxpayer" principle, which is a measure used to denote acceptability, should guide program design. It is based upon the premise that a taxpayer would be willing to fund/support the initiative. What is it that correctional practitioners and the community want the female offender to do? The justice system should aim to make female offenders legally self-sufficient, take care of her children properly, maintain good physical and mental health, be drug free, be in a healthy relationship if in one, etc. Festervan emphasizes that when developing a program, we must remember that women are "women first." By providing adequate/needed support services to address her needs, we afford her the opportunity to become a responsible person instead of a victim. The Third Annual Criminal Justice Conference in Indiana on October 28, 2005 will discuss issues regarding female offenders in the criminal justice system (Ivy Tech Website). It has been suggested by many prominent criminologists that women receive differential treatment in the processing of criminal cases. Consistent with sex-role stereotypes found in the larger society, the criminal justice system often treats female offenders “like women” when they should not be, and “like men” when they should. A gender-oriented approach to criminology seeks to expose the unconscious and institutionalized assumptions of a largely male-dominated criminal justice system operating within, and on behalf of, a patriarchal society. Some key issues include: • The double standard by which female offenses are prejudicially sexualized while male offenses are not • The intent and use of various laws to control female behavior by criminalizing certain offenses as gender specific • The lack of treatment programs for women in prison, and for those released from correctional confinement • Policies that do not address many crimes committed by women and many that are committed against them • The disparate treatment of minority females in both the adult and juvenile systems Thus, the current problems experienced by women in the criminal justice system, particularly at sentencing, provide better outlook about the system’s overall failure to recognize and adjust for many other important differences in offenders. After so many centuries of oppression and inequality against women, these changes cannot be expected to happen over night. Women have to be treated good in criminal justice systems and the society should also be well informed in the quest for justice. Creating a framework that is truly equitable requires a proper understanding of life beyond the courtroom door. Unless authorities would design new programs that would cater to the needs of female offenders, these women will continually be insanely marginalized. References American Association of University Women (1991). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America. Washington, DC: Author. Belenkey, M.F, Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Womans ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. Block, J. (1990). Ego resilience through time: Antecedents and ramifications. In Resilience and psychological health. Boston: Symposium of Boston Psychologists. Bottoms, A. (1996). Sexism and the Female Offender, Gower Publishing, Sydney. Brave, K. (2003). Crime and gender.Acquired online last October 10, 2005 at http://www.keltawebconcepts.com.au/ecrgend1.htm DeBell, J. (2001, February). The female offender: different, not difficult. Corrections Today, vol. 63, no.1. DeConstanzo, E.T. (1998, December). Why women offenders? Corrections Today, vol. 60, no. 7 Feinman, C. (1994). Women ion the Criminal Justice System, Praeger Publishers, Westport. Festervan, E. (2003). Women Probationers: Supervision and Success, American Correctional Association, 132 pp. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hedderman and Gelsthorpe (1997, eds.). Understanding the sentencing of women. Home Office Research Study 170. Acquired online last October 10, 2005 at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf Lloyd, A. (1995). Doubly Deviant, Doubly Damned, Penguin, Sydney. Miller, D. and Trapani, C. (1995, Summer). Adolescent female offenders: unique considerations. Adolescence, vol. 30, no. 118. Page, N. (2003). What you really need to know about criminal justice. Rethinking Crime & Punishment Website. Acquired online last October 10, 2005 at http://www.rethinking.org.uk Rosenthal, M. J. (1981). Sexual differences in the suicidal behavior of young people. Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 422-442 Rutter, M. (1986). The developmental psychopathology of depression: Issues and perspectives. In M. Rutter, C. Issard, & P. Road (Eds.), Depression in young people: Developmental and clinical perspectives. New York: Guildford. Third Annual Criminal Justice Conference. Ivy Tech Website. Acquired online last October 10, 2005 at http://www.ivytech.edu/southbend/regionalinfo/criminal Young, A. (1990). Femininity in Dessent, Routledge, London. Read More