Distinctive Feminist Criminology - Essay Example

Distinctive Feminist Criminology Introduction Crime is irrefutably pervasive in any society and affects virtually every person inone way or another, irrespective of their age, gender, sexuality and social status, among other distinguishing attributes. Consequently, its comprehensive study, also referred to as criminology, is pertinent to understanding the vice and its constituent moral weaknesses, as well as, to formulating effective mitigation strategies. Despite the crucial nature of criminology to society, it is still one of the most masculinity-oriented sociology disciplines. This scientific study of crime, criminal behavior and law enforcement is among the last scholarly subjects, in which researchers restrict their investigation to criminal habits and activities of men extensively, without experiencing the compulsion to account for their tendency (Britton, 2000). This, almost exclusive masculine perspective on criminology is partially attributable to the statistical facts, showing that men have a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal activities than women. This paper seeks to provide insight into the history and progression of criminology, from a feminism perspective. In addition, the article upholds the ideas that, it is imperative to have distinctively feminist criminology. Nonetheless, the distinctive feminist criminology must take into account other relevant inequalities, in order to be fully comprehensive and effective. Inclusive feminism criminology that not only focuses on gender disparity, but also on inequalities like religion, age, nationality, physical ability, class and race, will be better in understanding females’ criminal tendencies or deviant behavior. Background Historical analysis of feminism, coupled with development of feminist criminology is split into three waves or periods. The initial era or feminism started in America, with the inception of the women’s suffrage and abolitionist campaigns. These movements were particularly vibrant starting from the mid to late 19th century. Criminology, as a sociological discipline of interest was developing at the time, with researchers in Europe like Durkheim and Lombroso, as well as, others in America like Kellor progressively theorized about people’s adherence to crime and deviant behavior adoption (Britton, 2000). Approximately a century later in the period ranging from the 1960s to 1970s, the second wave of feminism came into being. It is during this period that movements like those advocating for civil rights and women’s liberation spread their campaign throughout the nation. The call for women’s inclusion and civil rights for all traversed the globe, clearly making a dynamic wave of feminism. Another significant milestone in the course of this duration of time was the emergence of feminism in criminology. It is during this era that feminism made its appearance in criminology. From a conceptual or theoretical view, feminist criminology came about because feminist scholars, primarily the liberals, were strongly opposed to the failure of other scholars to account for gender disparities while carrying out criminological evaluations. This is an exclusion that appeared especially glaring, since gender acts as a potent predictor of deviance or criminal behaviour (Britton, 2000). Gender also seemed to play a crucial role in determining the arrest or sentencing outcomes of offenders, whether male or female; an aspect that aggravated the feminist scholars’ concerns regarding its lack of inclusion in mainstream criminology studies (Thalia and Cunneen, 2008). These researchers were also not satisfied with failure of conventional criminology not only to acknowledge gender inequality, but also to account for the link between such disparity and criminal behavior, beyond the restricted realm of economic differences. As a result, early feminists presented their demands, asking conventional criminologist to account for gender disparity in manner that had previously not been achieved. These feminist criminologists further condemned and discredited mainstream scholars that failed to include women in their studies on deviant behavior, instead opting to exclusively conduct their research on male subjects. The early feminist protested these studies, arguing that they were used to develop emergent crime theories used to predict criminal behavior patterns, yet they were based solely on the examination of males. Since its advent, feminist criminology has continued to survive emerging challenges and though not comprehensively, it has grown into a theoretical field worthy of continued research and transformation toward a higher level of maturity. This significant development can be largely accredited to the revolutionary feminists of the 19th to 20th century, who persistently campaigned for academic research into women’s deviant behavior. Contemporary feminists further show why it is necessary to have distinctive feminist criminology, through analysis of women as offenders, victims and even workers in the system of criminal justice. Major Feminist Criminology Perspectives In addition to understanding the historical progression of feminist criminology, it is imperative to take into account the primary perspectives of feminist theory. This forms a better basis for understanding why it is important to have distinctive yet inclusive feminist criminology. Conventionally, feminist theory is split into five principal perspectives. The first is liberal feminism, which posits that the main source of women’s subjugation is gender socialization of societal roles. This means that social roles ascribed to men, such as aggression and competitiveness, are all accorded higher social power and status, than roles characteristic of women like being passive and nurturing. As a result, liberal feminists insist that women should be equal to men regarding economic, social, political and legal matters. In criminology, these liberal feminists also uphold the notion that women’s deviance can be deemed a function of socialization of gender roles. According to liberal feminists, therefore, women tend to commit crime at a lower rate because; roles ingrained in them by society present them with limited chances of being deviant (Thalia and Cunneen, 2008). The second perspective is referred to as radical feminism. Just like the name suggests, this feminist theory suggests that male dominance or patriarchy is responsible for oppression of women. Put differently, women encounter discrimination in different areas of society, because social interactions and relations are forged by privilege and power wielded by men. Taking criminology into account, radical feminists usually focus on portrayal of male dominance in crimes committed against women, like sexual harassment, rape and domestic violence. This category of feminists also believe that offenses carried out by women often stem from their victimization by men. The third category of feminist theory is known as Marxist feminism. The latter ascribes oppression of women to their low ranking status within society, and especially in capitalist environments. Ultimately, the shaping of classes by capitalism and the resultant disparate gender relations put women at a disadvantage, since they tend to occupy lower social levels. In regard to the study of crime and deviant behavior, Marxist feminists put forth the theory that women’s low ranking status may prompt them to carry out a criminal activity, in order to support themselves and their dependants financially (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). The fourth feminist criminology theory is founded upon socialist feminism. This category combines the Marxist and radical perspective, thus suggesting that women’s subjugation is as a result of male dominance and inequality based on economic class. This is a potent suggestion that, financial status and patriarchy work in unison to structure an environment and make it unfavorable to women. Taking criminology into consideration, socialist feminists evaluate crime causes within the context of gender power and class disparities. The final feminism perspective on criminology is based on postmodern feminism. This conceptual idea differs significantly from the preceding theoretical ideas, since it examines multiple elements likely to contribute to oppression of women. Therefore, other than examining one principal cause of oppression or consequent crime, postmodern feminists investigate social constructs of these elements. This includes examining deviance, justice and crime, as social societal conceptions. All these feminist theories on criminology provide insight into the potential and extant disparity between men and women. Accordingly, they provide a basis for arguing that males and females are not only different, but are also propelled by varying factors to adopt deviant behavior or commit crime (Thalia and Cunneen, 2008). Women as Offenders Research shows that women are not extensively represented, as offenders. For instance, the primary source of crime data, that is, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides detailed statistical data indicating that men and women, although similar in regard to the crimes they commit, their percentages of committing crime differ significantly. This implies that women and men all commit crimes deemed petty like larceny-theft and driving under influence (DUI), among others. However, the rate at which either gender commits these petty crimes is strikingly different. For example, in the case of larceny-theft, women account for approximately 16 percent of the total arrests made. On the other hand, men make up about 2.5 times of this percentage, which is manifestly higher. Similar disparity exists in the case of violent or capital offenses. For instance, in the year 1997, women only made up 16 percent of the total individuals arrested for offenses like aggravated assault, robbery, rape and homicide. Contrastingly, men accounted for the greater bulk of these arrests (Thalia and Cunneen, 2008). These disparate statistical ratios clearly show one of the principal challenges encountered by mainstream criminologists. The ratios further provide a justifiable basis for development of distinctive feminist criminology. The distinct feminist criminology would aid in better comprehension of the acute difference in representation of women offenders. In addition to examining the dissimilarity between the levels of females’ and males’ criminal offending, feminist criminology would delve deeper into understanding the actual causes of this difference. The proposed feminist criminology would also go a long way toward proving or disproving the popular stereotype that women often benefit from chivalry exhibited by individuals in different areas of the criminal justice system, whether in the hands of law enforcers, in courts, or even in correctional facilities. Women as Victims In women’s case as offenders they are always under­represented as victims in any form of crime. This has been determined by victimization measurement statistics that is mostly utilized by criminologists. Feminist criminology should perhaps be allowed to make huge impact on the mainstream criminology when women are considered as victims. It is evident that women criminology has not focused fully on offences conducted by women. This is because the main focus of women’s criminology is focused on offences where women are the victims. For instance, rape has been one of the principal issues that women criminology has focused on. However, it has not taken into account that women can also be the perpetrator of such crimes. According to Thalia and Cunneen (2008), research indicates that despite the fact that women levels of violence is low compared to men, the severity of their crimes is personal. Little information is provided as to how people should handle issue of crimes that have been conducted by women. Feminist criminology has not fully considered gendered violence and that is why numerous crimes perpetrated by women do not have specific solving outcomes. This therefore, depicts the huge differences between women and men as victims. Women are always taken seriously in cases where they are victims. On the other hand, men face huge challenges on diverse aspects where they are considered victims. This is why, consideration to have distinctive feminist criminology should be considered. Mainstream Criminology Focuses More on Male Offenders It is evident that there is little focus on women criminology and this is why; it is perhaps natural for conventional criminologists to put their principal focus on the male subjects. This is due to the fact that males have always comprised the majority of offenders across the world. On the other hand, feminist critics argue that much can be learned from the numerous causes of crime by further studying the low-rate and high-rate offenders. Criminologists should therefore focus on investigating where there are fewer females capable of than breaking the law as compared to men. Additionally, focusing fully on feminists has led to theories that only focus on males despite the fact that theorists in criminology claim to be general ally unbiased. For instance, , Hirschi Travis, when formulating the well recognized control theory of delinquency, intentionally debarred female subjects despite the fact that they were in the original materials provided. This shows that numerous theorists have not focused fully of feminist criminology. The mainstream criminology focuses more on male offenders since they are the ones with the highest propensity to commit crimes. However, it is also imperative to consider that in the convectional world, women have also become perpetrators of crimes. This means that a distinctive feminist criminology should be considered necessary. This will not only assist in curbing crimes but also it will bridge the gap that has been introduced in the justice system that women are always the victims. Mainstream Criminology Interpretations and Understandings of Crime There are extremely very few things to consider or admire in the work of the few criminologists who have focused more on feminist criminology. This is because of the fact that the principal focus on female lawbreakers is always viewed from a patriarchal consideration. In many cases, feminist criminologists focus on issues in cultural stereotypes and works of other scholars that have discussed female crime tendencies. This puts women in two categories namely bad or good women and this has left very diminutive room for ordinary mortals. Feminist criminology defines law-abiding female as chaste, passive and obedient, while it describes criminal woman as defiant, aggressive and unbecomingly. This depicts that the stereotypes have very little consideration for actual females as criminals. Instead, they are treated objectively instead of being considered as criminals. People always have a reason for justifying every criminal activity that a woman takes part in. This is not the way men are considered and it is extremely unfair for the justice system to show bias in sentencing just because of gender differences (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). A crime should be considered in accordance to the severity of the actions instead of objectifying people’s actions. Feminist criminology uses prostitution in exemplifying how sexualized the female crime activities are but do not consider the triggers of these actions. It is unorthodox for criminologists to consider prostitution as nymphomania. The main reason why women take part in such inconsiderate activities is because of the fact that there are economic hardships and not because of a disorder. Disadvantaged women are likely to take part in such criminal activities. However, mainstream criminology argues that such actions are perpetrated by a man and woman and in most cases the man is the initiator. Other condemns men and says that they are the people that bring sexually transmitted diseases to women but not the other way round. This shows that men are always on the receiving end even for women’s mistakes. In this case, women sexual offenders are still considered the victims since as stated earlier the women are considered to take part in such crimes because of an abnormality. However, the males taking part in this kind of crimes are considered evil and are treated more harshly than women, this clearly shows that there it is necessary to have a distinctively feminist criminology in order to ensure that the right punishment is accorded to the offenders. Evidently, the main reason why criminology in any feminist aspect has failed is because of interpreting women’s crimes from a perspective of a male. To illustrate the point above, the 1971 Menachem Amirs case study was utilized. As indicated from the case, the men that were accused of raping the women had consent to have sexual intercourse with them but still they were considered as rape offenders. The percentage of the people that had used physical aggression was only 13% (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). This shows that the numerous sexual offenders were wrongly convicted. Additionally, incest cases reported were interpreted by mainstream criminology from a male offender point of view. This shows that the mainstream criminology does not consider that a woman can take part in such criminal activities and that only men are capable of taking part in such activities. Therefore, it is evident that men have always been considered as the initiators and perpetrators of any criminal activity. On the other hand, women have always been considered as the victims of rape cases and not the vices versa. Presently, there has been a lot of change in the criminal activities of this nature being experienced all over the world, where women have taken the fore front in these activities. Mainstream Criminology pays little Consideration to Crime Victims One of the principal feminist complaints that have been raised in hindering traditional criminology is the relative disinterest in victimization. This has been depicted in the tendency, when discussing crime activities where women are the key victims, and blame is laid upon them. Domestic violence has been considered as a big issue where the wife is considered to be the person that was on the wrong instead of being taken as the victim. In the case of incest it is usually taken as a case of a seductive daughter or sister instead of considering the innocence of the victim. Instead of considering this as a case of power imbalances in the family or as a consideration where the males view women as sexual property, there is no such consideration (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Additionally, some rape cases portray the women as the instigator of such crimes. This is because, women are usually considered to provoke strangers by wearing clothes and tight sweaters while drinking alone in restaurants. This clearly shows that the mainstream criminology has failed women in such issues. The women in this case should be considered the victim and not the instigator or perpetrator. Mainstream Criminology Ignores Sex Difference Feminists have also faulted mainstream criminology with underestimating or ignoring the impact of gender during processing. In many cases the male norm is taken for granted, where conventional criminologists assume that people are treated with no bias in the justice system. There has been not study or research done to identify whether the criminal justice treats people equally or that there is a disparity in the way people are treated (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Mainstream Criminology Disregards Dynamics of Gender and Power Mainstream criminology fails in investigating the relationship of female and male power, economic reliance, s well as abusive dynamics. The mainstream criminology usually has hidden agendas for achieving male power and this has affected women all over the world. It is evident that the justice system serves to reinforce the status quo as well as ensuring that female subordination is continued (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Conclusion Judging from the discussed theoretical criminology perspectives, and described causes of male-female disparity, women should be examined differently from men, which necessitates development of distinctive female criminology. It would not be effective to use general crime theories to predict patterns of women’s deviant or criminal tendency, since they are dissimilar to men. For even higher efficacy, this feminist criminology must evaluate the link between diverse inequalities encountered by women whether religious, sexuality-based, among others, and crime. This would not only advance comprehension of gender-based crimes, but also enhance understanding of justice delivery and universal relevance of the criminal justice system. Therefore, for contemporary feminist criminology, there is need to build on a foundation that will advance distinctive feminist criminology which will embraces all aspects of justice without placing priority on gender. Bibliography Thalia, A., and Cunneen, C. (Eds.) (2008). The critical criminology companion. Sydney: Federation Press. Britton, M. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571(1), pp. 57-76. Dobash, P. and Dobash, R. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324-349. Read More