4.4 - Gender & Crime Flashcards
Gender Patterns in Recorded Crime
> M + likely to do crime > W & repeat offenders w/ criminal careers.
> F + likely to do crime e.g. theft, fraud, prostitution
> M + likely to do crime e.g. violent crime, rape, CC etc.
Do Women do more crime?
> OS underestimate F criminality as they’re - likely to be reported
> e.g. F theft - likely to be reported > M violence
> Even when reported - likely to be prosecuted
Gender Patterns in Crime (KS)
> Pollack (Chivalry Thesis)
Graham & Bowling (Self Report Studies)
> Farrington & Morris & Box (Evidence vs CT)
Buckle & Farrington (Evidence vs CT)
> Heidensohn (Bias v Women)
Carlen (Bias v Women)
Walkate (Bias v Women)
Pollack - Chivalry Thesis
> CJS made up of M socialised to have protective attitude to F, unwilling to arrest & convict them - be chivalrous to them
> Crimes - likely to end up in OS, gives inaccurate pic underreps F crime
2 Forms of Evidence for CT
> OS
> Self-Report Studies
Self Report Studies - Graham & Bowling (Evidence for CT)
> Young M 2x + likely than F to commit offence in prev yr,
> But OS shows M 4x + likely to offend
> Also F + likely to be cautioned > prosecuted
OS - Evidence for CT
> F + likely to get fines - likely to go prison
> F + to get bail > remanded in custody
Farrington & Morris & Box - Evidence vs CT
> F not sentenced + leniently for = offences
> F doing serious offences not treated + favourably > men
Buckle & Farrington - Evidence vs CT
> Saw 2x + M shoplifting > women, despite NO of M&F offenders in OS =
> Shows F shoplifters + likely to be prosecuted.
General Criticisms of CT
>
- F in CJS disregards CT
> F treated + lenient as crimes are - serious
> F face 2x deviancy in CJS, especially when crimes go vs gender norms
Heidensohn - Bias v Women
> 2x standards of courts punishing F not M for promiscuous sexual activity
> e.g. 7/11 F referred for support as they were sexual active, but 0/44 M.
> e.g. F not conforming to accepted standards of heterosexuality & motherhood punished + harshly
Carlen - Bias v Women
> When F jailed - for seriousness of crime, but courts assesment of them as wives & daughters
>
- likely to jail F w/ kids in care > F seen as good mums
Walkate - Bias v Women
> For rape cases V’s on trial not D, as she’s got to prove respectability to have evidence accepted
> Single mom’s find it hard to have testimony accepted.
Reasons F do less crime
> Biological Factors > Functionalist Sex Role Theory > Patriarchal Control > Gender & Class Deal > Liberation Thesis (Actually + crime)
Reasons F do less crime (KS)
> Lombroso & Ferrero (Biological Factors)
> Parsons (FSRT)
Cohen (FRST)
RR (FRST)
> Heidensohn’s (Patriarchal Control)
Hirschi’s (Control Theory)
Carlen (Class & Gender Deals)
> Adler (LT)
Denscombe (LT)
Lombroso & Ferrero - Biological Factors
> Criminality is innate, - F born criminals
> Higher levels of testosterone leads to + lvls of offending
Parsons - FSRT
> M reject F models of behaviour expressing emotion, distance themselves from this
> Engaging in compensatory compulsory masculinity e.g. ASB, risk-taking & aggression
> As M have breadwinner role @ wrk, socialisation’s difficult for boys
.
Cohen - FSRT
> Lack of M role model, so boys turn to all street gangs for source of masculine identity
> Gain status through delinquency.
RR - FSRT
Absence of M role model in LPF leads boys to street gangs as source of identity.
Walkate - Criticisms of FSRT
> F have biological capacity for kids don’t mean they’re best suited to expressive role.
Heidensohn - General View on Control & F Crime
> F - crimes as patriarchal society puts + control over F so - chances to offend
Heidensohn’s 3 Areas of Patriarchal Control
> Home
Public
Work
Home - Heidensohn
> F usually homemakers, keeps them busy & so - time to do crime
> M impose this role on F through threat of DV.
> F stopped from going out, restricted to bedroom culture, help mums w/ housework, so - chance to do crime
Work - Heidensohn
> Glass ceiling stops F getting top positions w/+ chance of WCC
> Sexual harassment keep F in their place
Public - Heidensohn
> Feel they can’t go out alone @ night, threat of rape - so stay inside
> Don’t go into pubs (sites of criminal behaviour) - fear being seen as sexually loose
Criticisms of Heidensohn
> Patriarchal control pushes ppl into crime > stopping it
> EOP reduce patriarchal control
Hirschi’s Control Theory
> We are controlled by being offered a deal e.g. rewards for conforming to norms
> Crime occurs if ppl don’t think they’ll get rewards or rewards of crime are + > risks
Carlen - Class & Gender Deals
WC F led to conform through promise of 2 types of deals e.g. Class Deal & Gender Deal
Class Deal - Carlen
Working F will be offered material rewards w/ decent standard of living & leisure opportunities.
Gender Deal - Carlen
F conforming to TDDOL will get material & emotional rewards of family life
Implications of Unavailability of Deals - Carlen
> F couldn’t get jobs & in poverty & can’t get benefits, feel V’s of injustice (CD)
> F faced DV & had generally poor family lifes (GD)
> As they’d gained nothing from GD/CD, crime was only route to decent life - w/ nothing to lose & everything to gain.
Criticisms of Carlen
> See F behaviour controlled by ext factors & ignores FW & choice
> C’s sample was unrep only WC & serious offenders
LT - Adler
> F + liberated from patriarchy so will be + crime & w/ + severity due to = opp & assertiveness
> F adopt traditional M roles @ wrk & in illegitimate spheres
> No longer do crimes e.g. theft & prostitution, breaking of GC so do WCC.
LT - Denscombe
> F = M teens engaging in risk-taking behaviour & G’s adopting M stances
> e.g. desire 4 control/looking hard.
Lind - Criticisms of LT
> Most F criminals are WC & uninfluenced by LT
> F doing M crimes e.g. drugs, but due to link w/ prostitution unliberating
Ladler & Hunt - Criticisms of LT
> No evidence of structure of prof crime opening to F
> F gang members in US expected to conform to TGR like non-deviant F
General Criticisms of LT
F crime rate growing in 50’s before LT
Evidence supporting + in violent F crime
From 2000-2008, OS + by avg of 17% each yr.
General evidence against + in F violent crime
+ in OS not matched by victim surveys & SRS showing no + trend in F criminality.
Increase in Female Crime (KS)
> Schwartz (Net Widening)
> Sharpe (Net Widening & Moral Panic)
> Worrall (Net Widening)
Schwartz - Net Widening
No change in F’s involvement in violent crime, + is due to CJS widening net prosecuting F for - serious violence > b4.
Sharpe - Net Widening
>
- trend for prosecuting F’s for low lvl physical altercations even playground fights
> Most convictions don’t involve weapons
Worrall - Net Widening
F’s misbehaviour previously seen as welfare issue, now re-labelled as criminality.
Moral Panic & Increase in F Criminality
+ convictions due to media-inspired MP about young F’s being out of control
Sharpe - Moral Panic
CJS professionals influenced by media stereotypes of violent ‘’ladettes’’ believed F’s behaviour was getting worse.
Effects of Moral Panic on F Crime
> Creates DAS, courts take tougher stance,
> Resulting in + convictions leading to neg media coverage.
Gender & Victimisation
>
- M > F are V’s of violence/homicide + F > M V’s of DV
> Lots + F faced sexual assault, but little reported to police
> F have + of crime, but CSEW shows they’re @ less risk, but local surveys found opposite.
Reasons for Male Crime (KS)
> Messerschmidt (View on Masculinity, Hegemonic & Subordinated Masculinity, MC Men)
> Winlow Postmodernity, Masculinity & Crime & Botdily Capital)
Messerschmidt - View on Masculinity
> Social construction M have to wrk @ presenting/projecting
> Some M have more resources > others they can rely on
> Deviance is a resource they rely on to accomplish HM
2 Types of Masculinity - Messerschmidt
> Hegemonic (HM)
> Subordinated (SM)
Hegemonic Masculinity - Messerschmidt
> Dominant form & most M work to accomplish revolves around paid labour & ability to subordinate F
> Uncontrollable heterosexuality
Subordinated Masculinity - Messerschmidt
> Homosexual M, no desire to achieve HM, incl. WC & EM who lack resources 4 it
> So turn to crime e.g. street robberies
MC Men Masculinity & Crime - Messerschmidt
MC M use crime to achieve HM, but WCC or CC
Criticisms of Messerschmidt
> Description of offenders not explanation.
> Why don’t M all use crime to achieve HM
> Overworked to fit all crimes e.g. joyriding to embezzlement
Winlow: Postmodernity, Masculinity & Crime
> Globalisation led 2 - of manual jobs & + service sector e.g. pubs etc.
> Working as bouncers gave M paid work & chance for illegal business ventures in drugs etc
> & opportunity to show masculinity through violence
Winlow: Bodily Capital (BC)
> Maintaining ‘’hardman’’ image essential for success in night economy
> Made body-building career necessity w/ need to prove strength & rep
> Acts as form of intimidation, discourages competitors from challenging them
> New crim chances for M creating conditions for + organised criminal subculture
Criticisms of Winlow
> BC not only reserved for M w/ over ⅓ of door supervisors in UK are F & + in F bodybuilding
