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
