Typically female crimes such as shop lifting are less keel to be reported. For example property crime is less likely to be noticed or reported than the violent or sexual crimes committed by men. Similarly prostitution, committed by more women is more likely to go unreported. Even when women’s crimes are reported they’re less likely to be prosecuted or be let Off lightly. Another argument is called the “chivalry thesis”. The thesis argues that most criminal justice agents are men who are socialized to act In a chivalrous way towards women.
Otto Pollack (1950) argues men have a protective attitude towards women. The criminal justice system is thus more intent with women and thus their crimes are less likely to end up in official statistics. This in turn gives an invalid picture that exaggerates the extent of gender differences in crime. Evidence from self report studies show female offenders are treated more leniently. Women are also more likely to be cautioned than prosecuted and Roger Hood (1992) found women were a third less likely to be jailed than men for similar offences.
However there is evidence against the chivalry thesis. David Barrington (1983) found women were not sentenced more leniently for theft than males. Abigail Buckle (1984) observational study of shoplifting in a department store found men shoplifting twice as much as women despite offenders in official statistics being equal. If women appear to be treated more leniently it is because their offences are less serious. Steven Box (1981 ) found self report studies conclude women who commit serious offences are unlikely to be treated more leniently than men.
The lower rate of prosecutions may be due to offending not serious enough to go to trial. Women offenders are also more likely to show remorse thus they’re more likely to be cautioned than go to court. Many feminists argue that the criminal justice system is biased against them. Hedonism argues courts treat women more harshly than men when they deviate from gender norms. For example double standards; courts punish girls more for promiscuous sexual activity. Women who do not conform to accepted standards of monogamous heterosexuality and motherhood are punished more harshly.
Stewart (2006) found magistrates perceptions of female defendant’s characters were based on stereotypical gender roles. Pat Carlen (2007) puts forward a similar view in relation to custodial sentences. She argues when women are jailed it’s less for the rigorousness of their crime but more of the courts 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 females who live more conventional lives. Carlen found Scottish judges were more likely to jail women whose children were in care than women who saw them as good mothers.
Feminists argue these double standards exist because the criminal justice system is patriarchal. For example Carol Smart (1989) found judges making sexist, victim blaming remarks in rape cases. Similarly Sandra Wallet (1998) argues in rape cases it’s not the defendant on trial but the victim since she has to prove her respectability in order to have her evidence accepted. Adler (1987) argues women who are deemed to lack respectability, such as single parents, are less likely to have their testimonies believed by court. The first explanations of female crime were biological rather than sociological.
Limbos and Ferrier (1893) argued criminality is innate, but there are very few born female criminals. Recent psychological explanations have also argued biological factors such as higher testosterone in males can count for violent offending gender differences. However sociologists take the view that social rather than biological factors are the cause of gender differences in offending. Early sociological explanations of gender differences in crime focus on differences in solicitation of men and women. For example boys are encouraged to be tough meaning they’re more likely to partake in criminal violence.
Functionalist Tailcoat Parsons (1955) traces differences in crime and deviance to the gender roles in the conventional nuclear family. Men take the instrumental breadwinner role outside the home; women reform the expressive role in the home. While it gives girls access to an adult role model it means boys reject feminine models of behavior that express tenderness and emotion. Boys distance themselves from such role models by engaging in compensatory compulsory masculinity through aggression, which slips into acts of delinquency.
Because men have less of a socializing role than women in the conventional nuclear family, solicitation can be more difficult for boys than girls. Albert K. Cohen (1955) argues this lack of an adult male role model means boys are likely to turn to street gangs as a source of masculine identity. In these sub cultural group’s status is earned by delinquency. Similarly new right theorists argue the absence of a male role model in matricidal lone parent families leads to boys turning to criminal street gangs as a source of status and identity. Sandra Wallet (2003) criticizes sex role theory for its biological assumptions.
Wallet argues Parsons assumes that because women have biological capacity to bear children they’re best suited for the expressive role. Thus although the theory tries to explain gender differences in crime in terms of behavior learned through solicitation it is ultimately based on biological assumptions about ex differences. Recently feminists have put forward alternative explanations for women’s lower rates Of crime and deviance. Feminists locate their explanations in the patriarchal nature of society and women’s subordinate position in it. The two main feminist approaches are control theory and liberation thesis.
Frances Hedonism (1985) argues the striking feature of women’s behavior is conformity; they commit fewer crimes than men. She argues this is because patriarchal society imposes greater control over women and it reduces their opportunities to offend. Control in the home evolves around women’s domestic role, with its constant round of housework and childcare that imposes restrictions on their time and movement and confines them to the house for long periods, reducing opportunities to offend. Women who try and reject their domestic role find their partners impose it by force, through domestic violence.
Adobes and Adobes (1979) show many violent attacks result from men’s dissatisfaction with their wives domestic duties. Men exercise control through their financial power by denying women funds for leisure, increasing their time in the home. Daughters are also subject to patriarchal control. Girls are less likely to be allowed to stay out late. Thus they develop a bedroom culture; socializing at home with friends rather than in public spaces. Girls are required to do more housework than boys thus have less opportunity to engage in deviant behavior on the Streets.
Women are controlled in public by the threat Of male violence against them, especially sexual violence. For example Slotting Crime survey found 54% of women avoided going out after dark in fear of attack, as opposed to 14% of men. Hedonism notes sensationalist media reporting of rape adds to women’s fear. Distorted media portrayals of the happily rapist as a stranger who carries out random attacks causes women to stay indoors. Women are also controlled in public from fear of not being defined as respecTABLE. Dress, ways of speaking etc defined as inappropriate can give a woman a reputation.
For example women avoid going to pubs for fear of being labeled sexually loose. Sure Lees (1993) notes in school boys maintain control by sexualities verbal abuse if girls fail to conform to gender role expectations. Women’s behavior at work is controlled by male supervisors and managers. Sexual violence is widespread and keeps women in their place. Furthermore women’s subordination reduces their opportunities to engage in criminal activity. For example the glass ceiling prevents many women from rising to senior positions where there’s greater opportunity to commit fraud.
In general these patriarchal restrictions on women’s lives mean they have fewer opportunities to commit crime. However Hedonism also recognizes patriarchy can push women into crime. For example women are more likely to be poor and may turn to theft to gain a decent standard of living. Pat Carlen (1988) used unstructured interviews to study 15-46 year old working class women who were convicted of crimes. Although Carlen recognizes there are some middle class female offenders she argues most convicted serious female criminals are working class.
Carlen Uses a version of Travis Hirsch (1969) control theory to explain female crime. Hirsh argues humans act rationally and are controlled by being offered a deal; rewards in return for conforming to social norms. People will turn to crime if they don’t believe the rewards will be forthcoming and if the rewards of crime appear greater than the risk. Carlen argues working class women are generally led to conform through the promise of two types of rewards or deals. The class deal; women who work will be offered material rewards with a decent standard of living and leisure opportunities.
The gender deal; patriarchal ideology promises women material and emotional rewards from family life by conforming to the norms of a conventional domestic gender role. If these rewards are not availTABLE or not worth the effort crime becomes more likely. Carlen argues this was the case of women in her study. In terms of the class deal the women failed to find a legitimate way of earning a decent living and it left them feeling powerless, oppressed and victims of injustice. Many of the women in the study were in poverty, humiliated in claiming benefits and had problems keeping in employment.
As they gained no rewards from the class deal they felt they had nothing to lose by using crime to escape from poverty. In terms of the gender deal for conforming to patriarchal family norms most women either didn’t have the opportunity to make the deal or saw few rewards and many disadvantages in family life. Some were abused physically or sexually by fathers or partners, many spent time in care breaking family and friendship bonds and they found themselves poor or homeless. Many women reached the conclusion crime were the only route to a decent standard of living.
They had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Carlen concludes that for these women poverty and being brought up in care or an oppressive family life were the two main causes of their criminality. Drug and alcohol addiction and desire for excitement were contributory factors, but they stemmed from being brought up in poverty. Being criminals and jailed made the class deal less availTABLE and crime more attractive. Hedonism and Careen’s approaches to female crime are based on a combination of feminism and control theory. Hedonism shows the many patriarchal controls that help prevent women from deviating.
Carlen shows how the failure of patriarchal society to deliver the promised deals to some women removes the controls that prevent them from offending. However both control theory and feminism can be accused of seeing women’s behavior as determined by external forces such as patriarchal controls or gender deals. Critics argue this underplays the importance of free will and choice in offending. Furthermore Careen’s sample was small and may be unrepresentative, consisting as it did largely of working class and serious offenders.
If patriarchal society exercises control over women to prevent them from deviating then it would seem logical to assume that if society becomes less patriarchal and more equal, women’s crime rates will become similar to men’s. This is the liberation thesis argued by Freed Adler (1975). Adler argues that as women become liberated from patriarchy, their crimes will become as frequent and as serious as men. Women’s liberation has led to a new type of female criminal and a rise in the female crime rate.
Adler argues that changes in the structure of society have led to changes in women’s offending behavior. As patriarchal controls and discrimination have lessened, and opportunities in education become more equal women have adopted traditional male roles in legitimate activity e. G. Work and illegitimate activity e. G. Crime. As a result women no longer commit traditional female crime such as prostitution. They now commit male offences such as violence. This is because of women’s greater confidence and assertiveness and the fact they have more opportunities in the legitimate structure.
For example there are more women in senior positions at work and gives them the opportunity to commit white collar offences such as fraud. There is evidence to support this view, for example overall female offending and female share of offending has increased. Adler argues the pattern of crime has shifted; she cites studies showing women participating in traditionally male crimes such as armed robbery. Martin Denseness (2001) found increase in girl gangs with members gaining status by delinquency. However critics reject Idler’s thesis on several grounds.
The female crime rate began rising in the ass, before the women’s liberation movement which emerged in the late ass. Most female criminals were working class; the group least likely o be influences by women’s liberation, which has benefited middle class women more. Cheney-Lind (1997) found in the USA poor and marginal’s women are more likely to be than liberated women to be criminals. Cheney- Lind found evidence foemen branching into male offences such as drugs, however this is because of their link with prostitution; an unalienTABLE female offence.
There is little evidence the illegitimate opportunity structure of professional crime has opened up to women. Ladder and Hunt (2001) found female gang members in LASS were expected to conform to conventional gender roles, the same as non deviant girls. However Idler’s thesis does draw our attention to investigating the relationship between changes in women’s position and changes in patterns of female offending. However it can be argued she over estimates the extent to which women have become liberated and the extent to which they’re now TABLE to engage in serious crime.
Feminists argue that although “millstream” non feminist theories of crime have only focused on males, these theories have assumed they were explaining all crime rather than solely male crime. Maureen Cain (1989) argues men have not been subject to the criminological gaze, but that most criminals are men. Thus until recently sociologists have not asked what t is about being male that leads men to offend. However, influenced by recent feminist and post modernist ideas, sociologists have begun to take an into in why men are more likely to commit crime. Their attention has focused the concept of masculinity.
James Misdirected (1993) argues masculine a social construct and men have to constantly work at constructing and presenting it to others. In doing so some men have more resources than others to draw upon. Misdirected argues that different masculinity coexist within society but that one of this hegemonic masculinity is the nominate, prestigious form that most men wish to accomplish. However some men have subordinated masculinity. These include gay men who no desire to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, and well as lower class al some ethnic minority men, who lack the resources to do so.
Mesmeric sees crime and deviance as resources that different men may use for accomplishing masculinity. For example class and ethnic differences ammo youths lead to different forms or rule breaking to demonstrate masculinity White middle class youths have to subordinate themselves to teachers in order to achieve middle class status, leading to accommodating masculine school. Outside school their masculinity takes an oppositional form, for example through vandalism. White working class youths have less chance educational success so their masculinity is oppositional both in and out 0′ school.
It is constructed around sexist attitudes, being tough and opposing teachers authority. Black lower working class youths may have few expectations of a reasonTABLE job and may use gang membership and viol to express their masculinity, or turn to serious property crime to achieve material success. Misdirected acknowledges that middle class men rum also use crime. The difference lies in the type of crime, while middle class ales commit white collar and corporate crime to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, poorer groups may use street robbery to achieve subordinate masculinity. Sever criticisms have been made of Misdirected.
He is in danger of a circular argument; masculinity explains male crimes e. G. Viol because they are crimes committed by males, who have violent characteristics. He also doesn’t explain why not all men use crime to accomplish masculinity. He over works the concept of masculinity to expel virtually all male crime. Recently globalization has led to a shift from mod industrial society to a late modern or post modern administrTABLE socio This has led to the loss of many traditional manual labor jobs through working class men could express masculinity by physical labor and prop for their families.
