Why Do Women Commit Far Fewer Crimes than Men - Essay Example

Gender and crime are two aspects which are to recent studies and researches in the filed of criminology in order to determine their relationship to each other. It may seem difficult to analyze and interpret these studies but give the data from crime statistics which may pave the way for establishing the correlation between crime and gender. There are several factors to consider as well as various perspectives that should be looked into. Gender differences may be due to biological factors as well as cultural and social factors. The nature of crime in relation to aggression and violence must be discussed too. People often view gender and crime issues using the usual stereotype of men being stronger than women and having higher tendencies to be more aggressive compared to women. This concept of masculinity and femininity requires careful scrutiny of facts and empirical data to support the idea. It has only been recently that criminologists and sociologists keenly looked into and considered studying about gender and crime. (Heidensohn, 1995). The topic has been discussed only in passing in various works such as Merton' theory of anomie and the deliquency of females are considered to be similar to those of men. A major reason for this inattention to females in crime and deviance is because of the perspective that female crime has somewhat been exclusively been dealt with by men, from regulating through to legislation, and that this has continued through into the theoretical approaches, quite often portraying what could be considered as a one-sided view, as Mannheim suggested Feminism and Criminology In Britain (Heidensohn, 1995). On the other hand, assertions have been created as justification for the invisibility of women in view of hypothetical views, for example: females have an '...apparently low level of offending' (Heidensohn, 1995); that they pose less of a social threat than their male counterparts; that their 'delinquencies tend to be of a relatively minor kind' Girls In The Youth Justice System (Heidensohn, 1995), but also because of the dread that adding women in investigative studies could intimidate or challenge theories, as Thrasher and Sutherland feared would take place with their investigations and studies. (Heidensohn, 1995). More hypotheses have been formulated, with numerous arguments adjoining the involvement and disregard of women within academic and speculative studies of crime, however, with contemporary approaches and progress in feminist studies and masculinity studies, and the claims of increases in recent years in female crime, especially that of violent crime more attention seems to be becoming of this topic. In terms of aggressiveness and given the common notion that people have for men and women, research show that females should not labeled as less aggressive than men. The degree of aggressiveness is may be similar for both genders however their means of expressing this aggressive trait are different. Males make use of physical violence to express their aggressiveness therefore it can be considered that they do it the more obvious means unlike women who express their aggressiveness in a covert and less physical means. [1] [2]. In opposition to what has been concluded in previous studies and by certain sections of the media, aggressive behaviour is not naturally evident in hypogondal men who have their testosterone replaced sufficiently to the normal range. In actuality, aggressive behaviour has been linked with hypogonadism and low testosterone levels, and it would seem as though supraphysiological, low levels of testosterone, and hypogonadism cause mood disorders and aggressive behaviour, with eugondal/normal testosterone levels being important for mental well-being. Testosterone depletion is a normal consequence of aging in men. One consequence of this is an increased risk for the development of Alzheimer's Disease. In other words, testosterone has a calming effect on men. Testosterone may not be associated with crime and aggressive behavior. The main foundations theories of criminality have been established from male subjects have been corroborated on male subjects, and concentrates on male victimisation. The theories have then been abridged to contain all criminals, defendants and prisoners, for example the facts about crime tend to be based on the sex of the offender and not the crime itself. This 'sexism' in criminology also affects the verdict, penalty, and incarceration of women who are not projected to be criminals and, if they are, they may be portrayed as 'mad not bad'. The ascription of madness to women comes out from the completely obsolete concept that women who are conventional are chaste, submissive daughters, wives and mothers who benefit the community and men. If they have the guts to contradict their inborn biological characteristics of 'passivity' and a 'weakness of compliance', they must be psychologically disabled: an archetypal male-centered view which has been considered by some academics in years. Feminism functions within the traditional social norms to scrutinize the social, political, and monetary understanding of women and to formulate lines of attack for accomplishing better impartiality (via inequality) in women's characters. This requires considering how women came to perform meek and passive roles, the disposition of male privilege, and the measures whereby the discussions that make up the influence of patriarchy can be used to change society. Gender role expectations maintain to describe conventional and customary behaviours and attitudes for females and males; digression from these expectations could lead in an array of societal restrictions ranging from verbal insults to hostility to imprisonment. These gender roles are a sturdy form of social jurisdiction sustained through informal and formal mechanisms. Heidensohn (1992, 2000) proposes a male-biased control theory: "a woman's place is in the home": a woman has fewer opportunities for criminal activity because the routine of domesticity keeps her in the home. In any event, women are more afraid to go out of the home after dark because they fear aggressive male behaviour. at work, men have a supervisory or managerial role (often characterised by women as harassment) which makes it more difficult for women to commit major crimes. Further, males, the dominant group and the standard of normality, have maintained inequality through control of the definition of deviance and of the institutions of social control. Women have been defined as different from men and, hence, inferior; that stigma has acted to deny them their full civil rights and access to societal resources (Naffine: 1996). Feminists waves may have brought greater liberation to women, it has not changed their pattern of crime. Women are still much less likely to commit crime, this includes both blue and white collar crime. Feminist criminology is conflict based calling for the downgrading of many dominant crime theories, as they were constructed without consideration for feminist viewpoints. Feminists' now call for the inclusion of women into criminological teaching, research, theory and publications.[3] Most criminological texts (from the Nineteenth Century) and discussions almost forget about women as they are afforded little attention as they are grouped with juvenile delinquents and the mentally insane. Smart argues this grouping with the more neglected members of the criminal world is a reflection of the females role in the community, women have always lacked "civil and legal status", therefore it is acceptable for women to be grouped with juvenile offenders and mentally challenged offenders.[4] Smart continues the study of criminology is always in reference to men, in reference to a male's rationality, motivation, alienation and his victim who is always male. The disqualification of women from the criminological field is evident in criminological text as it is assumed, the man can speak for her. In criminology, just as in society man is the centre of the universe and women are merely their complement. Later, Otto Pollak (1950) claimed that men are socialised to treat women in a fatherly and protective manner. Female offenders were like their mothers and wives, and the male judiciary could not imagine them behaving in a criminal way. Women were therefore protected: their criminal activity was less likely to be detected, reported, prosecuted, or sentenced harshly. Chivalry had only positive effects on women who were essentially more deceitful than men, and were the instigators rather than the perpetrators of crime. Where did this greater capacity for deceit come from From the 'passive' role which, according to Pollack, they have to assume during sexual intercourse. Less flatteringly, The Criminality of Women also claimed that women prefer professions like maids, nurses, teachers, and homemakers so that they can engage in undetectable crime. He also thought women were especially subject to certain mental diseases like kleptomania and nymphomania. The most investigated "difference" between the sexes was biological. Cesare Lombroso (1903) identified the female physiognomy thought most likely to determine criminal propensity. This was the new science of "criminal anthropology" matching the general fascination with Darwinism and physical anthropology, where scientists sought pathological and atavistic causes for criminal behaviour. While he credited criminal women as being stronger than men, the consequence was that prison would hardly affect them at all. Lombroso concluded true female criminals were rare and showed few signs of degeneration because they had "evolved less than men due to the inactive nature of their lives".[3] Lombroso argued it was the females' natural passivity that withheld them from breaking the law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal. Sigmund Freud theorised that all women experience penis envy and seek to compensate an inferiority complex by being exhibitionistic and narcissistic, focusing on irrational and trivial matters instead of being interested in building a just civilisation. William I. Thomas (1907) published Sex and Society in which he argued that men and women possessed essentially different personality traits. Men were more criminal because of their biologically determined active natures. Women were more passive and less criminally capable. In The Unadjusted Girl (1923) he argued that as women have a greater capacity to love than men they suffer more when they do not receive social approval and affection. The "unadjusted girls" are those who use their sexuality in a socially unacceptable way to get what they want from life. The female criminal forgoes the conventional rewards of domesticity by refusing to accept prevailing modes of sexuality and seeks excitement, wealth, and luxury: a pursuit that may conflict with the interests of the social group as it also exercises the freedom to pursue similar goals. Strain Theories are criticised by feminists as betraying a double standard. When male offenders commit a crime under certain conditions of opportunity blockage, their commission of crime is somehow seen as a "normal" or functional response. When women commit crime, Strain Theory views it as some sort of "weakness". Naffine (1987) probably represents the best example of this critique, but there are other critiques, such as the characterisation of females as "helpmates" or facilitators of crime in the Strain Theories of Albert K. Cohen, and Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin. The research methodology in Social Learning Theories, such as Edwin Sutherland's Differential Association Theory, is criticised for relying on male examples, using case studies of males only, and being a male-dominated perspective that glamorises the male criminal, or at least the sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic characteristics of the male criminal. Similarly, Social Control Theories, such as Hirschi's Social Bond Theory, focuses almost exclusively on social class at the expense of gender and race. Feminists therefore concluded that the failure of criminology to research the issue of female criminality fairly either reflected a male-dominated discourse in which men primarily research male issues, or betrayed the rigidity of male stereotypes which allowed men to justify their prejudices with pseudoscience. Criminology texts usually do not cover the broad possibilities that may account for female criminality. A criticism of criminological explanations of female crime is its insistence on presuming the nature of females and their predisposition away from crime. This determinate model of female criminality, Smart (1976:176) argues assumes an "inherent and natural distinction exists between the temperament, ability and conditionability of men and women". Further explained, females have a milder temperament, have a lesser ability to commit crime and are more easily conditioned towards abiding the law. Past studies of women have developed myths about female criminality, criminologists have explained female criminals as being more "cruel and sinister than that of the male. She is described as unnatural, masculine" (Burke 2001:162), and lacking the qualities that would make her a reserved and obedient female. This approach has been criticised as it assumes any female that varies from the traditional female role is criminal or likely criminal and it assumes that there is a large and significant difference between men and women. Smart argues that the differences that exist between males and females are of little importance in the study of crime as the factors that cause crime are "culturally determinate rather than a reflection of the natural qualities of the sexes" (1976:176). Feminists have levelled complaints at this angle of criminology that assumes females are controlled by their biology and are incapable of thinking for themselves, feminist point out that while criminological thinking has surpassed the gloomy days of biological determinism and the predetermined actor model of crime, criminological explanations of female crime has not. The study of female criminality is where the study of male criminality was in the 1870's. Some criminologists suggest a link between "hormonal changes in pregnancy, menstruation and female criminal behaviour" and crime (Burke 2001:164). Furthermore, in criminal cases women have used defences such as post-natal depression as the reason for infanticide and other crimes. The reliance upon biological reasons for a female's criminality has reinforced societal views of the biologically criminal female. Society therefore, neglects to account for other reasons such as social and economic for a female's criminal act. 1. Bjorkqvist, Kaj, Kirsti M. Lagerspetz, and Karin Osterman. "Sex Differences in Covert Aggression." Aggressive Behavior 202 (1994): 27-33. 6 Dec. 2006 2. Hines, Denise A., and Kimberly J. Saudino. "Gender Differences in Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Aggression Among College Students Using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales." Violence and Victims 18 (2003): 197-217. 7 Dec. 2006 3. Vito, G. and Holmes, R. (1994). Criminology. Theory, Research and Policy. International Thomson Publishing, California. 4. Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Willan Publishing, Devon. Heidensohn, Frances. (1992) Women in Control The Role of Women in Law Enforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heidensohn, Frances. (2000) Sexual Politics and Social Control. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Lombroso, Cesare. (1980) The Female Offender. Littleton, Colorado: Fred Rothman. Naffine, N. (1987). Female Crime: The Construction of Women in Criminology. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Thomas, William I. (1923). The Unadjusted Girl. With Cases and Standpoint for Behavioral Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1923. (reprinted (1967). N.Y.: Evanston; London: Harper & Row). Read More