Should Women Who Commit Murder Be Treated More Leniently - Research Paper Example

 Should Women Who Commit Murder Be Treated More Leniently? Introduction Based on worldwide trends and patterns of behavior, women who commit murder number less than men who commit the same crime. According to Steffensmeier and Allan (2010), gender is the most accurate predictor of criminal behavior: “men commit more crime, and women commit less”. This trend holds true historically, among all societies, among all groups, and for most crimes. It is this trend which has also brought the focus on males and their patterns of criminal activity. And more studies have been carried out on why men commit crimes and how such behavior can be controlled (Steffensmeier & Allan, 2010). Based on latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010), most perpetrators and victims are males, with 65.3% for male offenders/male victims, 22.7% for male offenders and female victims; and with 9.6% for female offenders/male victims and 2.4% for female offenders/female victims. In recent years victimization among males and females indicated a slight decline, but the offending rates still followed the same patterns with males 10 times more likely than females to commit murder (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). The patterns in sentencing also indicate that women are less likely than men to receive harsh sentences for committing murder (Mustard, 2001). An assessment of this pattern has been conducted by various authors and analysts and some of them have come up with various theories, including the chivalry thesis and the focal concerns theory to explain this pattern of behavior (Rodriguez, Curry, and Lee, 2006). Regardless of the theories involved in this criminal trend, the question remains: should women who commit murder be treated more leniently than men who commit the same crime? This paper shall consider the merits of both sides of this query, using scholarly and expert opinions on the subject matter. A logical and well-supported conclusion shall then be drawn from this discussion. This paper is being undertaken in order to comprehensively evaluate the current issue and to arrive at a more academic understanding of patterns and trends in criminal behavior and sentencing in the United States justice system. The figure below shows a trend on homicide offending based on gender, based on a 20 year pattern. In general, we see a higher rate of males offending, as compared to women offending throughout the years. This pattern has remained consistent throughout the years. (Source: Bureau of Statistics, 2010) Discussion The treatment and sentencing of women who commit murders have been discussed thoroughly by different theorists and sociologists. The work of Nagel and Weitzman in 1971 has since established that women seem to receive preferential treatment in their sentencing (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006). The chivalry and focal concerns theories are two of the main theories which have sought to explain this pattern of social behavior. The chivalry theory was first seen in the 1970s and is mainly based on the cultural stereotypes related to gender. In this case, this theory sets forth that women are fickle and childlike and therefore are not responsible for their criminal activities (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006). Women should therefore be protected by the men who should do everything in their power to reduce the pain and suffering that these women experience. In effect, this theory “suggests that society desires to treat women more leniently than men” (Heberle, 1999, p. 1107). This hesitation based on this theory refers its reasons to women’s status as mothers and vulnerable figures sexually. The focal concerns theory is yet another theory which sought to explain the seemingly preferential treatment of female criminals. This theory sets forth that due to the limited time that judges have on their cases, they often do not receive sufficient information on defendants and their cases. Consequently, in the course of their adjudication, their personal opinions and preferences can often significantly impact on the way they render sentences on defendants (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2007). In the end, these judges sometimes end up crediting attributes about a defendant’s liability and recidivism based on blameworthiness, dangerousness and practical constraints (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2007). In the process, they also end up crediting certain gender-based qualities to the offenders. They would likely view women to be less of a risk to the community and less likely to be a recidivist; and they would likely view male offenders to be at fault and therefore, more responsible for their crimes (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2007). This theory also sets forth that men are more capable of doing their time in prison as compared to females. Based on these credited attributes and notions, females are more likely to be treated leniently during sentencing. In a discussion by Michels, et.al. (2009), the authors set forth that women are less likely than men to commit murder because the act of murdering someone, which may include knocking someone down, is very much related to the masculine identity. In instances when women do commit murder, there is often a mental illness involved. According to a criminal professor at the Northeastern University, female murderers are more likely to be afflicted with a serious mental disorder and male murderers are more likely afflicted with personality disorders which prevent them from empathizing with their victims (Michels, et.al., 2009). Criminal analysts cite the case of Andrea Yates who drowned her five children and was not found guilty by reason of insanity, particularly owing to her post-partum depression. A clinical psychologist with the Columbia University explains that “there is (sic) a number of different roads that lead to someone taking someone else’s life. In women, in my experience, it tends to be typically related to a history of abuse or psychosis” (as cited by Michels, et.al., 2009). In other words, women commit murder less likely because of a perverted or wholly malicious goal or need which they need to appease or satisfy; they commit murder more because they are not in their right mind or because they are retaliating from years of abuse. A deeper analysis of women’s behavior leading up to the commission of murder reveals that they are less likely to apply violent means in killing or to plan their murderous attack (Michels, et.al., 2009). Their method of killing is most often through poisoning, suffocation, and other similar means; they are less likely to be the “slasher” types or to inflict major bodily damage (Michels, et.al., 2009). Women see killing more as a last resort – as a means to defend themselves; men, on the other hand, see killing as an offensive move (Fox, as cited by Michels, et.al., 2009). For which reason, there seems to be less culpability involved among women who commit murder. Consequently, this is seen as a justifiable reason for women to be treated more leniently than men when they commit murder. In order to get a clearer picture of women who commit murder and their commensurate punishment as decided by the courts, the figure below is presented. Date of execution Name Race State Execution method Race of victim(s) Relationship of victim(s) 1. 11/2/84 Velma Barfield W NC Lethal injection 1/W Boyfriend 2. 2/3/98 Karla Faye Tucker W TX Lethal Injection 1/W stranger 3. 3/30/98 Judy Buenano W FL Electrocution 1/W Husband 4. 2/24/00 Betty Lou Beets W TX Lethal injection 1/W Husband 5. 5/2/00 Christina Riggs W AR Lethal injection 2/W Children 6. 1/11/01 Wanda Jean Allen B OK Lethal injection 1/B Significant other 7. 5/1/01 Marilyn Plantz W OK Lethal injection 1/W Husband 8. 12/4/01 Lois Nadean Smith W OK Lethal injection 1/W Son’s ex-girlfriend 9. 5/10/02 Lynda Lyon Block W AL Electrocution 1/W Stranger 10. 10/9/02 Aileen Wuornos W FL Lethal injection 1/W Stranger 11. 9/15/05 Frances Newton B TX Lethal injection 3/B Children and husband 12. 9/23/10 Teresa Lewis W VA Lethal injection 2/B Husband and stepson (Source: Death Penalty Information Center, 2010) Based on research on the characteristics of women convicted of violent offences in North America, patterns of female offending often manifests with a history of family problems and abuse (Batchelor, 2005). Studies on the background of these women also reveal that more than majority of the young women grew up in broken homes and they also experienced major disruptions and changes in their main caregivers (Batchelor, 2005). Most of the women also had a history of involvement with social workers and other local authorities. Two-fifths of women offenders also reported having had a history of sexual abuse, often by a family member. To aggravate matters, their home life was also rife with violence – either as witness to or as victims of physical abuse (Batchelor, 2005). Due to their experiences during their childhood and their early adolescent years, some young women experienced unresolved feelings of rage and grief and such feelings largely contributed to their criminal act. Based on the above prevalent patterns among women who commit murder, there is a strong belief in the need for a more lenient treatment of their case. It is also important to note how a great majority of women who commit murder commit it against someone known to them – a relative, a partner, or a husband. In such instances, the battered wife syndrome defense seems to play a crucial role in the analysis of patterns of behavior. The battered wife syndrome is a “symptom complex of physical and psychologic abuse of a woman by her husband…Such women often present with vague somatic complaints, such as headache, insomnia and abdominal pain” (Swanson, 1984). In this case, the woman already has a psychological reaction to the abuse perpetuated on her by her husband or her partner. This is not to say that her symptoms are not real, but they are triggered by the violence or the threat of violence. Feminists point out that more often than not, women kill their husbands in retaliation of violence inflicted on them; and husbands, often end up killing their wives as a culmination of violence they inflict on their wives (Currie, 1995). Unfortunately, in most territories, similar defenses apply to both husbands and wives who kill their spouses. Currie (1995) cites the case of R v. Kina where an aboriginal woman who killed her husband was not allowed to use mitigating circumstances to have her sentence or culpability reduced. Nevertheless, in the US, the battered wife syndrome has found its way in most states. In the legal sense, the battered wife syndrome is “a species of self-defense to manslaughter or murder in which, expert evidence is led to demonstrate that a female defendant in an abusive relationship comes to believe that to save herself, she must kill her husband first” (Duhaime, n.d). The important consideration in the use of the battered woman defense is that the act of murder does not strictly comply with the considerations involved in self-defense. There is no imminent danger to the life of the accused, or in this case, the woman – murderer. But her act of murdering her husband or partner is still very much in response to an imminent threat to her life – a defense against a potential violent act which, time and time again, in her experience has proven to be real. In effect, the battered wife syndrome lends further credence to the position that women who commit murder should be treated more leniently than men who commit the same crime. While there seems to be strong support for a more lenient treatment of women who commit murders, it is important to also consider the other side of the coin. In the purest and most basic application of justice, women who commit murder should not be treated more leniently compared to men who commit the same crime. Criminal analysts point out that women are capable of being as violent as men; and that they are also very much capable of carrying out murder and other criminal activities (Esmay, 2010). It is therefore not justified for them to get a more lenient treatment compared to their male counterparts. In the crime of murder, the women’s position should be largely based on a clinical and technical application of the elements of murder – which is the intentional killing of another person. As the deeper psychosis of men in committing their crimes is often not made to impact on their culpability, this same principle should also be applied to women. This is justice applied in its strictest and most basic form. For which reason, a woman who commits murder should not be treated leniently. In considering the post partum depression (PPD), mental illness, or the insanity plea, analysts are also quick to point out that the insanity defense seems to be too convenient a defense or an excuse in the commission of a violent act. Analysts consider this a convenient excuse because PPD is one of the most difficult illnesses and conditions to prove in court. It is especially difficult because it is often used as an immediate excuse, even with the parent-murderer not having a history of such disease (Connell, 2002). Family members sometimes cannot testify to the presence of symptoms confirming a diagnosis of PPD because this disease can sometimes be ignored and undiagnosed. Even medical practitioners believe that when the mother is exhibiting sadness or “blues” soon after delivery, they often ignore it and believe that the mother’s mood would soon improve once she and her baby goes home to more familiar surroundings (Connell, 2002). There are major holes and issues with the use of PPD as a defense in committing murder. These holes and issues therefore should not be ignored and instead should be resolved before they can be used in the courts as a justification for violent and dastardly acts. Other analysts are also quick to point out that biological explanations for crimes create a wrong solution for crime; instead of incarceration, offenders are treated for their “disorder.” The act is not seen as an imposition of power over another; and when a person commits murder, they are seen as mentally ill, having anger problems, or being unable to deal with their environment (Roberts, 1994). Defenses for women in relation to PMS or PPD can create a risk of misdiagnosis on the actual causes of these crimes. In fact, some women may actually suffer a graver mental condition which can actually mitigate their criminal liability (Roberts, 1994). In considering the female offenders, defining their behavior based on their biology places them in a subordinate position in society. In effect, they are being labeled and stereotyped as ill or illogical based on their hormonal and biological processes (Roberts, 1994). The opportunity to express to the rest of the world the actual burdens that women bear and the emotional toll that such burdens can place on them is not actually considered. For feminists everywhere, this could have been a perfect opportunity to express that the burdens of raising children and other traditional female responsibilities can actually cause women to commit crimes (Roberts, 1994). The opportunity therefore to change and make adjustments in such roles can be implemented in order to reduce criminality among women. It is therefore important for insanity and mental illness to not be used as a defense in cases of women who commit murder because it reduces women to mentally unstable and hormonally-governed individuals. Those who claim that women who commit murder should not be treated leniently based on the battered women defense point out that the syndrome associated with the defense has not been fully proved as an accurate and legitimate disorder (Dixon, 2007). The syndrome has not been fully supported by all legal territories in the US, mainly because there is still limited scientific evidence supporting such a defense. Analysts contend that it “appears to be the product of political advocacy, and not science. BWS seems to owe its very existence to the desire of women’s rights advocates to bring attention to the epidemic of spousal abuse and battering that occurs in this country” (Dixon, 2007). In this case, BWS seems to be another convenient excuse in decreasing criminal liability for murder. Conclusion After considering the above considerations, I believe that women who commit murder should not be treated more leniently than men who commit the same crime. Men and women should be on equal grounds when it comes to the implementation of justice. As they stand equal before the courts, the merits and the demerits of their case should be assessed and considered also on equal grounds. When all the possible causes, motives, and circumstances surrounding the crime are duly considered, the adjudication process should be based on the merits of their case, and not on feminine or masculine attributes. Using feminine or masculine attributes to determine criminal liability is a fickle and illogical process. It is also unstable and prone to various interpretations. However, if such attributes were to be discarded in favor of more logical and legally based premises and grounds, a more justifiable application of the laws can be achieved for the general population – regardless of race, religion, age, or gender. Works Cited Batchelor, S. (2005) Prove me the bam!: Victimization and agency in the lives of young women who commit violent offences. Probation Journal, volume 52 (4). pp. 358-375. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/5093/1/Batchelor5093.pdf Battered Woman Syndrome definition. (2010) Duhaime. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/BatteredWomanSyndrome.aspx Connell, M. (2002) The Postpartum Psychosis Defense and Feminism: More or Less Justice for Women? Case Western Reserve Law Review, volume 53, pp. 143-169 Currie, S. (1995) Justice for Women who Kill in Self-Defence? Social Alternatives, volume 14, number 1, pp. 31-35. Dixon, J. (2007) An Essay on Battered Woman Syndrome. Psychology and Law. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/BWS%20Essay%20.htm Esmay, D. (2010) Double Standards for Female Criminals. Dean’s World. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://deanesmay.com/2010/09/21/double-standards-for-female-criminals/ Heberle, Renee (1999). Disciplining Gender: Or Are Women Getting Away with Murder? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, volume 24, number 4, pp. 1103-1112 Homicide Trends in the U.S (2010) Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm Michels, S., Netter, S., Marquez, L. & Ghebremedhin, S. (2009) Why Do Some Women Kill? Criminologists: Female Murder Suspects' Backgrounds and Motivations Differ From Males. ABC News. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7326555&page=1 Mustard, D. (2001) Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the US Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, volume XLIV. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://time.dufe.edu.cn/jingjiwencong/waiwenziliao1/004109.web.pdf Roberts, D. (1994) Symposium: Gender Issues and the Criminal Law. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, volume 85, number 1, pp. 1-15 Rodriguez, S., Curry, T., & Lee, G. (2006) Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses? Social Science Quarterly, volume 87, Number 2. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=gang_lee Steffensmeier, D. & Allan, E. (2010) Gender and Crime - Similarities In Male And Female Offending Rates And Patterns, Differences Between Male And Female Offending Patterns. Swanson, R. (1984) Battered Wife Syndrome. Canadian Medical Association Journal, volume 130(6): pp. 709–712. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1875950/ Women and the Death Penalty (2010) Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved 01 November 2010 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty Read More