The Positivist Schools of Criminology and Feminist Criminology - Essay Example

Positivist School of Criminology vs Feminist Criminology Introduction This research paper conducts a comparative analysis of positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology. The positivist school of criminology was founded during the 19th century and rejected the classical criminologist hedonistic view of crime, emphasizing free will. The positivist school of criminology sought multiple explanations for criminal behavior and insisted on scientific evidence. In this regard, the positivist view held that while there were biological differences between criminals and non-criminals, there were external factors that also contributed to criminal behavior Lilly, Cullen, and Ball, 17-18). Feminist criminology rejects criminological explanations for offending on the basis that these theories have been informed by masculine perspectives and do not take account of women who commit crimes. Feminist criminologists therefore focus attention to gender roles as a means of attempting to understand criminal behavior. Feminist criminologist look to empirical evidence of the treatment of males and females in the criminal justice system and the patriarchal institutions emphasizing gender distinction and male dominance (Daly and Chesney-Lind, 498). Feminists criminologists are especially at odds with the omission of women in the positivist school of criminology and where they are considered, the misrepresentation of female criminality. In conducting a comparative analysis of feminist criminology and the positivist school of criminology, this paper is divided into two main parts. The first part of this paper provides an overview of feminist criminology and the positivist school of criminology. The second part of this paper compares and contrasts the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology. The Positivist School of Criminology and Feminist Criminology: An Overview The Positivist School of Criminology Positivism is prefaced by the concept that all truths are observable and measurable, otherwise purported facts are nothing more than conjecture. In this regard, any social process is a result of ‘the measurable interaction between relationships and events’ (Siegel, 141). Human conduct is thus influenced by a number of factors including social factors including income and status, politics, history, and conditions which might include drought or way. However, other factors are individualistic such as psychological and/or biological factors. Any one or more of each of these factors influences human behavior. In this regard, human beings are not born ‘good’ or ‘bad’, they are shaped by individual and external factors after birth (Siegel, 141). Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, often referred to as the father of modern criminology had a slightly different view. Influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, Lombroso was of the view that while all criminals were not born bad, many were. This category of criminals were possessed of physical traits that distinguished them as criminals and suggested a replication of primitive man with primitive instincts. Some of the physical traits included ‘protruding jaws, drooping eyes, large ears, twisted and flatish noses, long arms relative to the lower limbs, sloping shoulders’ and so on (Walsh and Ellis, 60). Lombroso also contended that there was scientific evidence that female offenders had different cranial features than non-criminal females suggesting that female offenders were not normal females (Baez, 567). Lombroso conceded however, that biological or physical traits only accounted for between 35% and 40% of crime. Regardless, this assumption earned Lombroso a reputation as a ‘biological determinist’ (Walsh and Ellis, 60). Lombroso argued that a majority of crime was due to multiple causative factors. Positivists that followed Lombroso carried on the tradition of measuring a variety of psychological, economic, social and physical factors as a means of understanding ‘crime and criminality’ (Walsh and Ellis, 61). Today, the positivist school of criminology is described as grounded in a scientific approach to criminality. The focus is on the criminal rather than the crime. Human nature is perceived as influenced or determined by reference to biological, psychological and social factors, thus obscuring moral blame. Thus the criminal justice system should be centered round rehabilitation and treatment/curing of the criminal (Carrabine, Cox, Lee, South, Plummer, and Turton, 63). Feminist Criminology When feminist criminology emerged, its main focus was on women and crime as opposed to the ‘maleness of crime’ (Walklate, 84). Carol Smart led the way in 1977 for the development of feminist criminology which sought to explain females as both criminal offenders and victims, and to shed light on male criminality on the grounds of gender differences and to increase awareness of females in criminological contexts (Walklate, 84). The problem with these earlier feminist criminological theories was that they tended to treat the issue of females in criminality and crime as a distinct area of study and served to inadvertently promote the maleness observed in other criminological concepts (Walklate, 84). Subsequent feminism criminological theories have contributed to the study of criminology. For example liberal feminism insist on including women in criminological studies as researchers and including women in samples under investigation. Radical and social feminism are concerned with the power structure within society which effectively subordinates women to men. This subordination renders women vulnerable to victimization (Walklate, 85). Essentially, feminist criminology evolved as a ‘body of criminological research and theory that situates the study of crime and criminal justice’ in a ‘complex understanding’ of a ‘social world’ which is ‘systematically shaped by relations of sex and gender’ (Griffin, 215). Feminist criminology starts out from the perspective that female criminality in terms of female offending and female victims of crime have been largely neglected or when studied, wholly ‘misrepresented’ by criminology theory (Griffin, 215). Different feminist theories such as radical and social feminism examine a broad range of factors that contribute to or exemplify the oppression of women in society. For example, social feminism examines inequality, discrimination and its impact on economic and educational opportunities which leave women dependent on men and thus renders women vulnerable to both victimization and criminal offending. Feminist Criminology Compared to the Positivist School of Criminology Feminist criminology takes issue with conventional criminology in general and claims that conventional criminology quite often omitted women, and focused narrowly on male criminality (Naffine, 1). Feminist criminology argue that when traditional criminology did in fact consider females in criminology studies, it was limited to explanations about sexual deviance. For example, the positivist school of criminology, and in particular, Lombroso, suggested that women were entirely primitive in nature and tied to needs that were ‘biological and physiological’ in nature (Heidensohn, 112). Feminist criminologists thus reject the positivist school of criminology’s concept that the female prostitute was a manifestation of the fact that female offenders were deviating from normal female behavior. Although, Lombroso’s assumptions about female offending was largely rejected, much of Lombroso’s assumptions about the biological and psychological factors influencing criminality impacted subsequent positivists (Downes and Rock, 260). Regardless, feminist criminology have taken particular objection to Lombroso’s and thus the positivist school of criminology’s view of female criminality. In this regard, Lombroso and Ferrero’s The Female Offender made a number of claims that offended feminist criminologists. For example, Lombroso and Ferrero claimed that females criminality was more likely to be a form of sexual deviance as manifested through prostitution. A study of the physical attributes of female prostitutes revealed a number of primitive traits suggesting abnormality. Women however were closer to their animal origins than men were. However, women were not as superior as men in their development and evolution and thus their ability to and opportunities for criminal behavior were limited compared to men. This would explain why women offended less often than men. Lombroso and Ferrero claimed that ‘rarely is a women wicked’, but when she is wicked, she is more wicked than men (149). Female offenders are therefore more dangerous than male offenders because they possess the physical attributes of men and are all the undesirable attributes of females in terms of cunning and being irrational (Lombroso and Ferrero, 150). Feminist criminologists Smart however, takes issue with these findings by leading positivists Lombroso and Ferrero and argues that by taking this approach, Lombroso and Ferrero basically get away with the unsubstantiated claim that women are inferior to men (32). Subsequent positivist criminologists heightened the claim that female offenders were sexual deviants. For example, W.I. Thomas claimed that female offences were usually prostitution and similar forms of deviance. Moreover, the female offender was cold, without morals and cunning and had ultimately deviated from their ascribed feminine roles. When women deviated from their ascribed roles this caused difficulties adjusting in and to society and led to female offending (Downes and Rock, 263; Newburn, 302). Feminists criminologist Heidensohn argued that Thomas’s approach was entirely flawed as it had consequences for the way in which women are treated by social welfare programs and the criminal justice system. Rather than focusing on the societal injustices and social restraints that contributed to criminal offending, the focus was on the individual (117). Moreover, Downes and Rock suggested that the work of positivist criminologists such as Thomas seemed to suggest that equality and freedom for females was tantamount to turning women into criminals (302). Thus the positivist school of criminology’s implied suggestion that the suppression of women contained female offending is unequivocally at odds with feminist criminological thought. Feminist criminologists argue that in fact, the constraints on women manifested in inequality and discrimination leads to marginalization and economic hardship for women which in turn leads to criminality and victimization of women (Gelsthorpe, 22). In other words, restraints on female behavior as opposed to liberalizing females were far more likely to account for female criminality and the victimization of women. This is in direct opposition to the positivist school of criminology which suggest that women who deviated from the norm were more likely to commit crimes. The positivist school of criminology as manifested by the work of Otto Pollak takes the female criminality even further suggesting that female criminality was a larger problem than the evidence revealed. Female criminality was neglected by society and institutions and thus female offenders were not prosecuted to the extent that male offenders were prosecuted. Pollak went further to state that biologically women were deceitful and driven by a desire for revenge and because men were inherently chivalric, women were enabled in their victimization (Heidensohn, 119). As evidence of female deceit, Pollak claims that women are able to participate in sexual intercourse passively and this demonstrates their ability to deceive (Downes and Rock, 262). Moreover, female criminals were predisposed to prostitution and poisoning, all manifestations of deceit (Downes and Rock, 262). Feminists criminologist Smart argues that Pollak’s view is particularly chivalric and exposes rational and logical flaws. According to Smart, the contention that males accord females favorable treatment leading to women getting away with criminal behavior is not supported by the evidence. Contrary to the beliefs espoused by the positivists school of criminology that males enable female offending because of favorable treatment, the opposite is true. Men dominate the criminal justice system and use it as a means of punishing women for deviating from their ascribed gender roles as domestic caregivers (Smart, 52). In refuting the claim that women were enabled by men, a study conducted in Cambridge on the sentencing of female offenders compared to male offenders was cited. The study found that where women received more lenient sentences than men, it was due to the fact that women had no antecedents whereas men were recidivists (Downes and Rock, 267). Hiedensohn argues further that there are several instances in which men receive greater leniency in sentencing with respect to crimes in which females are victims including domestic violence and sexual offences. In fact, there are instances in which the prosecution decides not to prosecute men. Moreover, in cases of white collar crime, women have a greater chance of facing prosecution than men do (Heidensohn, 57). Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer and South argue further than the mere fact that women come into contact with the criminal justice system less frequently than men is a reason for more unfavorable treatment, contrary to the positivist school of criminology’s contention (87). The positivist school of criminology suggest that women’s less frequent contact with the criminal justice system is a reflection of men’s enabling of females getting away with crime. However, Carrabine, et al., argue that since females have less contact with the criminal justice system they are held to a higher standard of behavior and are subjected to discriminatory treatment in that they are punished for both the crime committed and their departure from normative gender roles (87). Feminist criminologists also criticized the positivist school of criminology’s neglect of male sexual deviance and violence against females. In this regard, feminist criminologists draw attention away from the positivist school of criminology’s propensity for examining male criminality in light of the male’s public role. Women were looked at primarily in light of domestic roles. In this regard, the private sphere where domestic violence and sexual offences were largely committed hardly drew much attention by the positivist school of criminology. Feminist criminologists drew attention to the private sphere and in this regard, domestic violence and sexual crimes in which women are the predominant victims and males are the predominant offender. According to Smart, contrary to the positivist school of criminology, criminology could not explain criminality by simply looking at women as confined to the domestic sphere and men as confined to the public sphere (p. 95). According to Smart, the positivist school of criminology largely left one with the impression that women who were victims of violence and/or rape were usually assaulted by a stranger. In fact, women who were victims of violence and/or rape were most likely to be assaulted by someone they knew and in the privacy of their homes (Smart, 95). Feminist criminologist also opened up a new way of looking at male criminality that had not previously been considered by the positivist school of criminology: what motivated men to commit crimes of violence and sexual offences against females. The positivist school of criminology invited consideration of a number of psychological and social factors in considering male criminality in general. Male crimes against women in terms of sexual and violent offences were predominantly explained as emanating from sexual goals or the need to satisfy a sexual desire against the will of the female victim. However, feminist criminologists took an entirely different view and argued that male sexual and violent offences against women were motivated by a desire to express male dominance over women and to enforce the subjugation of women (Newburn, 314). In the final analysis, it can be argued that the primary differences between the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminologists is the treatment of women in explaining and understanding criminality. Feminist criminologists’ arguments emanate from the perception that female criminality and victimization was left of out the positivist school of criminology. However, a similar argument can be made with respect to the feminist criminological thought. Feminist criminologists have largely left out the male perspective and therefore like, the positivist school of criminology have examined criminality from a purely gendered lens. Therefore, if there are any unequivocal similarities between feminist criminology and the positivist school of criminology it is both their propensities to consider criminality from a purely gendered perspective. Another similarity between the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminologist is their tendency to consider social and other external environmental factors, thus allowing for a multi-disciplinary view of criminality. In this regard, both the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology draw attention to economic, social, cultural, normative and demographic factors that contribute to criminality and victimization. As a result, both theoretical perspectives open up opportunities for further research into the causes of criminality and victimization and thus appropriate measures for controlling crime and treating criminals. A major difference between the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology is the treatment of gender in criminology research and reasoning. This impacts the way both theoretical approaches deal with the interpretation of the external social factors that contribute to criminality and explains victimization. Thus, although, the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology may agree that the external social environment interacts with the individual to explain crime, they are still divided in principal. Conclusion Given that feminist criminology and the positivist school of criminology are positioned on opposite sides of the gender debate, it is very difficult to find common ground between the two with respect to the causes of criminality and victimization. The only certainty in similarities between the two is that both are committed to viewing criminology from a gender specific perspective. The positivist school of criminology is concerned primarily with a male perspective, while feminist criminologists are more concerned with a female perspective. Thus, even where both the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology take into account the vast array of social factors that contribute to criminality, their respective gender specific lenses influence the way these factors are interpreted. The positivist school of criminology still perceive that female offenders are inherently more dangerous than male offenders and feminist criminologists perceive that male offenders are inherently more dangerous than female offenders. Despite the great divide between the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology, there is one common theme that emerges. Both the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminology draw attention to the offender and his or her specific conditions and thus represent a move away from examining the crime itself. In other words, even by drawing attention toward male and female differences and laying blame on male and females in different ways, both feminist criminologists and the positivist school of criminology recognize that the causes of crime are within the individual and its interaction with the external world. While these worlds are constructed and understood differently by the positivist school of criminology and feminist criminologists, they focus attention toward a person-centered criminal justice system and response to criminality. Moreover, in sorting through the different perspectives on male and female offending, criminologist researchers can attempt to find common ground for further exploring the causes of crime and victimization and might consider removing the gender lens and thinking strictly in terms of social, economic and psychological factors. Works Cited Baez, H. Lombroso, Cesare: The Female Offender. In Cullen, F. and Wilcox, P. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2010, pp. 566-569. Carrabine, Eamonn; Cox, Pamela; Lee, Maggy; South, Nigel; Plummer, Ken and Turton, Jackie. Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2014. Carrabine, E.; Iganski, P.; Lee, M.; Plummer, K. and South, N. Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2004. Daly, K. and Chesney-Lind, M. Feminism and Criminology. Justice Quarterly, (1988) Vol. 5(4): 497-538. Downes, D. and Rock, P. Understanding Deviance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. Gelsthrope, L. Feminism and Criminology. In Maguire, M.; Morgan, R. ad Reiner, R. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002. Heidensohn, F. Women and Crime. London, UK: MacMillan Publishers, Ltd. 1985. Lilly, J. Robert; Cullen, Francis, T. and Ball, Richard, A. Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2007. Lombroso, Cesare and Ferrero, William. The Female Offender. New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1909. Naffine, N. Feminism and Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Polity Press, 1996. Newburn, T. Criminology. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2007. Siegel, Larry. Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2012. Smart, C. Women, Crime and Criminology. London, UK: Routledge, 1977. Walklate, Sandra. Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates. Berkshire, England: Open University Press, 2007. Walsh, A. and Ellis, L. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2007. Read More