Gender Crime And Justice Flashcards
Overview
There are striking gender differences in the patterns of recorded crime. Girls and women appear to commit fewer crimes than boys and men and, when they do offend, females tend to commit different kinds of crimes from males.
Traditionally, male-dominated criminology neglected female criminality, both because females were seen as committing less crime, and because their behaviour was seen as less in need of controlling. However, more recently, feminists have focused attention on the patterns and causes of female criminality.
Sociologists have also turned their attention to the causes of male criminality. In particular, there has been considerable interest in the relationship between masculinity and crime, and some sociologists have argued that crime is a way for some males to achieve and express their masculinity.
Gender patterns of recorded crime stats
Most crime appears to be committed by males. As Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) observe, gender differences are the most significant feature of recorded crime. For example, official statistics show that:
• Three out of four convicted offenders in England and
Wales are male.
• By the age of 40, 9% of females have a criminal conviction, as against 32% of males.
Gender patterns of official stats
Among offenders, there are some significant gender differences. For example, official statistics show that:
• A higher proportion of female than male offenders are convicted of property offences (except burglary).
A higher proportion of male than female offenders are convicted of violence or sexual offences.
• Males are more likely to be repeat offenders, to have longer criminal careers and to commit more serious crimes. For example, men are about 15 times more likely to be convicted of homicide.
Do women commit more crime?
Some sociologists and criminologists argue that the statistics underestimate the amount of female as against male offending. Two arguments have been put forward in support of this view.
• Typically ‘female’ crimes are less likely to be reported.
For example, shoplifting is less likely to be noticed or reported than the violent or sexual crimes more often committed by men. Similarly, prostitution - which females are much more likely than males to engage in - is unlikely to be reported by either party.
• Some claim that even when women’s crimes are detected or reported, they are less likely to be prosecuted or, if prosecuted, more likely to be let off relatively lightly.
Explaining female crime
Functionalist Sex Role Theory
Chivalry thesis
Patriarchal control
Liberation Thesis
Chivalry thesis sociologist
•Pollock (1950)
•Graham and Bowling (1995)
• Flood-Page et al (2000)
Chilvary thesis
The thesis argues that most criminal justice agents
- such as police officers, magistrates and judges - are men, and men are socialised to act in a ‘chivalrous’ way towards women.
For example, Otto Pollak (1950) argues that men have a protective attitude towards women. The criminal justice system is thus more lenient with women and so their crimes are less likely to end up in the official statistics. This in turn gives an invalid picture that exaggerates the extent of gender differences in rates of offending.
Chivalry thesis and self reported crime
For example, John Graham and Ben Bowling’s (1995) research on a sample of 1,721 14-25-year-olds found that although males were more likely to offend, the difference was smaller than that recorded in the official statistics.
They found that males were 2.33 times more likely to admit to having committed an offence in the previous twelve months - whereas the official statistics show males as four times more likely to offend. Similarly, Flood-Page et al (2000) found that, while only one in 11 female self-reported offenders had been cautioned or prosecuted, the figure for males was over one in seven self-reported offenders.
Official stats and chivalry thesis
court statistics appear to give some support to the chivalry thesis. For example: • Females are more likely than males to be released on bail rather than remanded in custody.
• Females are more likely than males to receive a fine or a community sentence, and less likely to be sent to prison.
Women on average receive shorter prison sentences.
Only one in nine female offenders receive a prison sentence for shoplifting, but one in five males.
Similarly, Roger Hood’s (1992) study of over 3,000 defendants found that women were about one-third less likely to be jailed in similar cases.
Evidence against chivalry thesis
Farrington and Alison
(1983) study of sentencing of 408 offences of theft in a magistrates’ court found that women were not sentenced more leniently for comparable offences.
Similarly, Buckle and Farrington’s (1984) observational study of shoplifting in a department store witnessed twice as many males shoplifting as females
- despite the fact that the numbers of male and female offenders in the official statistics are more or less equal. This small-scale study thus suggests that women shoplifters may be more likely to be prosecuted than their male counterparts.
Eval of self report studies and chivalry thesis
Self-report studies also provide evidence that males commit more offences. For example, young men are more likely than females to report binge drinking, taking illegal drugs or engaging in disorderly conduct. Hales et al (2009) found that they were significantly more likely to have been offenders in all major offence categories. Other studies suggest that the gender gap increases as the offences become more serious.
Underreporting male crimes against women
The chivalry thesis also ignores the fact that many male crimes do not get reported. For example, in 2012, only 8% of females who had been victims of a serious sexual assault reported it to the police, while Yearnshire (1997) found that a woman typically suffers 35 assaults before reporting domestic violence.
Crimes of the powerful are also under-represented in self-report and victim surveys, and these are also more likely to be committed by men by virtue of their more privileged position in the job market.
If women appear to be treated more leniently, it may simply be because their offences are less serious. For example, the lower rate of prosecutions of females as compared with their self-reported offending may be because the crimes they admit to are less serious and less likely to go to trial.
Women offenders also seem more likely to snow remorse, and this may help to explain why they are more likely to receive a caution instead of going to court.
Bias against women
Many feminists argue that, far from the criminal justice system being biased in favour of women, as the chivaly thesis claims, it is biased against them. As Heidensohn
(1996) argues, the courts treat females more harshly than males when they deviate from gender norms. For example.
• Double standards - courts punish girls but not boys for. premature or ‘promiscuous’ sexual activity. Such girls can end up in care without ever having committed an offence. Sharpe (2009) found from her analysis of 55 youth worker records, that seven out of 11 girls were referred for support because they were sexually active, but none out of 44 boys.
Custodial sentences and bias against women
Pat Carlen (1997) puts forward a similar view in relation to custodial sentences. She argues that when women are jailed, it is less for ‘the seriousness of their crimes and more according to the court’s assessment of them as wives, mothers and daughters’. Girls whose parents believe them to be beyond control are more likely to receive custodial sentences than girls who live more ‘conventional’ lives.
Carlen found that Scottish judges were much more likely to jail women whose children were in care than women who they saw as good mothers.
Why do double standards exist in the CJS
Feminists argue that these double standards exist because the criminal justice system is patriarchal. Nowhere is this more evident than in the way the system deals with rape cases. There have been numerous cases of male judges making sexist, victim-blaming remarks. Similarly, as Sandra Walklate (1998) argues, in rape cases it is not the defendant who is on trial but the victim, since she has to prove her respectability in order to have her evidence accepted.
Explaining female crime
However, sociologists take the view that social rather than biological factors are the cause of gender differences in offending. Sociologists have put forward three main explanations of gender differences in crime: sex role theory, control theory and the liberation thesis.
Sociologist behind functional sex role theory
Parsons
Cohen
Functional sex role theory
The functionalist Talcott Parsons (1955) traces differences in crime and deviance to the gender roles in the conventional nuclear family. While men take the instrumental, breadwinner role, performed largely outside the home, women perform the expressive role in the home, where they take the main responsibility for socialising the children.
While this gives girls access to an adult role model, Parsons argues, it tends to mean that boys reject feminine models of behaviour that express tenderness, gentleness and emotion.
Instead, boys seek to distance themselves from such models by engaging in ‘compensatory compulsory masculinity’ through aggression and anti-social behaviour, which can slip over into acts of delinquency.
Because men have much less of a socialising role than women in the conventional nuclear family, socialisation can be more difficult for boys than for girls. According to Albert K. Cohen
(1955), this relative lack of an adult male role model means boys are more likely to turn to all-male street gangs as a source of masculine identity. in these subcultural groups, status is earned by acts of toughness, risk-taking and delinquency.
New right and functional sex role theory
Similarly, New Right theorists argue that the absence of a male role model in matrifocal lone parent families leads to boys turning to criminal street gangs as a source of status and identity.
criticisms of functionalist sex role theory sociologists
walklate
heidensohn
Criticisms of functional sex role theory
Sandra Walklate (2003) criticises sex role theory for its biological assumptions. According to Walklate, Parsons assumes that because women have the biological capacity to bear children, they are best suited to the expressive role.
Thus, although the theory tries to explain gender differences in crime in terms of behaviour learned through socialisation, it is ultimately based on untested biological assumptions about sex differences.
Feminists locate their explanations in the patriarchal (male-dominated) nature of society and women’s subordinate position in it.
Heidensohn
• Parsons ignores the role of power and control on shaping
socialisation and the expectations placed on women’s
behaviour
Sociologist behind patriarchal control
Heidensohn
Dobash and Dobash (1979)
Patriarchal control
Frances Heidensohn (1996) argues that the most striking thing about women’s behaviour is how conformist it is - they commit fewer and less serious crimes than men. In her view, this is because patriarchal society imposes greater control over women and this reduces their opportunities to offend. This patriarchal control operates at home, in public spaces and at work.
Control at home
Women’s domestic role, with its constant round of housework and childcare, imposes severe restrictions on their time and movement and confines them to the house for long periods, reducing their opportunities to offend.
Women who try to reject their domestic role may find that their partners seek to impose it by force, through domestic violence.
As Dobash and Dobash (1979) show, many violent attacks result from men’s dissatisfaction with their wives’ performance of domestic duties. Men also exercise control through their financial power, for example by denying women sufficient funds for leisure activities, thereby restricting their time outside the home.
Daughters too are subject to patriarchal control. Girls are less likely to be allowed to come and go as they please or to stay out late. As a result, they develop a ‘bedroom culture’, socialising at home with friends rather than in public spaces.
As a result, they have less opportunity to engage in deviant behaviour on the streets.
Control in public
Women are controlled in public places by the threat or fear of male violence against them, especially sexual violence. For example, the Islington Crime Survey found that 54% of women avoided going out after dark for fear of being victims of crime, as against only 14% of men.
Heidensohn notes that sensationalist media reporting of rapes adds to women’s fear. Distorted media portrayals of the typical rapist as a stranger who carries out random attacks frightens women into staying indoors.
Similarly, Sue Lees (1993) notes that in school, boys maintain control through sexualised verbal abuse, for example labelling girls as ‘slags’ if they fail to conform to gender role expectations.
Control at work
Women’s behaviour at work is controlled by male supervisors and managers. Sexual harassment is widespread and helps keep women ‘in their place’.
Furthermore, women’s subordinate position reduces their opportunities to engage in major criminal activity at work.
For example, the ‘glass ceiling’ prevents many women from rising to senior positions where there is greater opportunity to commit fraud. As a result, they are less likely to be involved in white collar crime.
In general, these patriarchal restrictions on women’s lives mean they have fewer opportunities for crime. However, Heidensohn recognises that patriarchy can also push some women into crime. For example, women are more likely to be poor (for example, as a result of gender inequalities in the labour market) and may turn to theft or prostitution to gain a decent standard of living.
Class and gender deals sociologist
Carlen