Although much evidence has been put forward which indicates that the chivalry thesis plays a big role in the criminal justice system, evidence against the theory has also been presented. Steven Box’s self-report study in both Britain and the USA suggest that there is no such thing as the chivalry thesis, he argues that “it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the relative contribution females make to serious crime is fairly accurately reflected in official statistics,” in fact the triviality of an offence may bear on differential rates in arrests and convictions.
Feminists further argue that the chivalry thesis is rarely in place, they claim that there is in fact a biased against women within the criminal justice system. Heidensohn argues that the courts treat females more harshly than males when they deviate against gender norms. Double standards exist whereby courts punish females, but not males, for promiscuous sexual activity, typically being put into care without committing an offence, in addition women who do not conform to traditional monogamous heterosexuality are punished more harshly, Stewart found that magistrates’ perceptions of female defendants’ characters were based on stereotypical gender roles. Pat Carlen agrees, claiming that women who receive custodial sentences are jailed, not because of the seriousness of their offence, but the courts’ assessment of them as traditional females. This is particularly in the case of rape trials. Many examples of male judges have been put forward where they make sexist and insensitive remarks, for example Judge Wild was quoted as saying, women who say no do not always mean no. It is not just a question of how she says it, how she shows and makes it clear. If she doesn’t want it she only has to keep her legs shut” and similarly Judge Sutcliffe concluded in a rape trial he presided over that “it is well known that women in particular… are likely to be untruthful and invent stories”. Sandra Walklate argues that women, not men, end up on trial and must prove their respectability to chauvinistic male authoritarians. Social commentary by various sources has supported Walklate’s argument, feminist punk band Aus-Rotten refer to this process as ‘The Second Rape’, in a song with the same title, they cite that “every forty-five seconds a woman is raped… one in three women will be raped” (USA) and argue that the rape case is an act set up to criminalize and interrogate the victim brought on by a “sexist culture” which “conditions men to be rapists and our indifference perpetuates it”. Adler comments that this witch-trial is emphasized by a ‘lack of respectability’ which is often attributed to single mothers, punks and peace protestors. In addition to this injustice, Dobash and Dobash found that it is unlikely for males to be convicted of domestic violence as the male-dominated police force and courts want to stay out of such private matters and therefore act leniently on male offenders. This theory against the chivalry thesis goes against the statement, it suggests that women are not treated leniently within the criminal justice system, regardless of female crime rates.
However, the arguments against chivalry thesis do not explain why female crime rates are greatly under-estimated in official statistics, they simply contradict the thesis. Although proponents of the chivalry thesis state their case and explain these low crime rates, other sociologists argue that low crime rates amongst women is not the result of leniency in the criminal justice system, instead a number of sociologists have put forward ideas and theories to explain these crime rates disregarding chivalry. Talcott Parsons puts forward his functionalist sex role theory, which points out that women are innately caring, compassionate and passive and so are socialized to enhance these qualities, resulting in less crime as it is atypical due to their qualities, in contrast males tend to shy away from feminine expressiveness and, as A.K. Cohen argues, turn to delinquency and subcultural crime in order to express a compulsory masculinity. However, Parsons is criticized for his view as it is based mainly on biological assumptions of women’s characteristics, such as passivity and nurturing. Feminists disagree with Parsons and instead put forward alternative explanations for these low crime rates amongst women, based more so on the patriarchal nature of society. Heidensohn argues that the conformity forced upon women by a male-dominated society is the reason for low crime rates, as well as the control imposed upon them by their male counterparts, at home through the traditional female domestic role and subordinate position of daughter, in public both by fear of harm (as in the case of sensationalized media reports of rape) and their susceptibility to being deemed unrespectable through dress etc., and also at work where they are the subordinates to male superiors and supervisors, many argue that there is a glass-ceiling for women at work and it is widely known that sexual harassment against women in the workplace is widespread in many industries. Heidensohn argues that this control restricts women in regards to the opportunities they will have and so views low rates of female crime not as the result of agencies of control not seeing women as criminals, but as a result of the opportunities in which they cannot obtain.
Furthermore Carlen puts forward the concept of control theory which highlights two types of deals made to females, particularly those of the working-class, which encouraged them to conform: the class deal offers women a decent standard of living if they work and the gender deals offers them emotional and material rewards for conforming to family life and traditional femininity. Carlen’s study of 39 15-46 year old working-class female criminals found that 32/39 had always been in poverty and the qualifications women had gained during their prison were of no help when they left, resulting in their failure to achieve the class deal. Likewise, the gender deal seemed riddled with more disadvantages than rewards to them or had suffered at the hands of such subordination, for example some had been physically or sexually abused by partners or fathers. Their failure to compensate from these deals lead to them thinking that they’re best option was to turn to crime to achieve. Heidensohn’s and Carlen’s theories effectively explain low rates of female criminality, despite contradicting the statement, but they have also been criticized as Carlen’s study was small-scale and therefore most likely unrepresentative and the study did not span over all classes, simply the working-class.
Low female crime rates can easily be seen as a male-dominated criminal justice system chivalrously turning a blind eye on women in the criminal sphere, as proponents of the chivalry thesis argue, however it is important to note that many females are treated harshly when it comes to crimes. Opponents of the chivalry thesis and feminists argue that there is a bias against women, however this does not explain the low rates of female criminality, instead this should indicate that there are high rates of female crime. Freda Adler’s liberation thesis seems to conclude well the pattern and explanation of female criminality. She argues that as women have become more free through their liberation and increased rights, their crime rates have increased. The liberation of women correlates directly to their crime rates, which would therefore indicate some accuracy in the statement, as men become less lenient and more open-minded towards women and their crimes, female crime rates rise. Despite this, Adler has also been criticized as female crime rates have been rising since the 1950s, prior to the women’s liberation movement, and most female crime is committed by the working-class who are least likely to be influences by said movement.
