Lombroso’s theory may have been a popular explanation of female crime in the 19th Century, but I found that it is not a valid theory that can be applied to female criminality of the present 21st Century as it is out of date and not really valid. Heidensohn (1985) said that Lombroso’s work was ‘fanciful rather than scientific’ which gives the impression that his work is not reliable or plausible.
Another study that is relevant to my chosen area of female crime is by Freda Adler, who did a study called the ‘New Female Criminal’ (1975).
Adler rejected biological theories that suggested that there was a direct link between hormones, aggression and criminality. She argued that the differences in the behaviour of males and females are socially determined, and that changes in society have led to changes in that behaviour.
Adler quoted statistics, which appear to show increasing female involvement in crime, particularly in some crimes that have traditionally been committed by men. She said that in the USA, between 1960 and 1972, robberies by women went up 227%, for men it was only 169%. Embezzlement by women rose by 280% in the same time period, whereas for men the figures rose by only 50%.
Adler found that basically, female rates for crime were rising 3 times as fast as those for men. She believed that the reason for this was that, women were taking on male social roles in both legitimate and illegitimate areas of activity.
These findings by Adler have helped me answer my objective of finding out WHY women commit crime. She argues that the change of behaviour of females is due to changes in society and that women are taking on roles which are traditionally linked with men, which in turn is the reason why they commit crime.
From Adler’s study, possible questions to ask in my questionnaire have risen. Questions such as, asking both males and females what sort of activities do they participate in during their free time and why. This would test whether females are taking on male roles, or whether there are no longer male or female roles.
Although Adler has brought up the issue of changes in society and male roles being the reason for female criminality, it is debatable to whether it is relevant as it is out of date. The study is not entirely reliable either, as she has used official statistics as the basis of her research, which only counts for recorded crime. I personally think that despite the criticisms, that she does offer a reasonable and plausible explanation for why women commit crime.
In 1985 Pat Carlen conducted a study of 39 women aged between 15 and 46 who had been convicted of one or more crimes.
She carried out in-depth unstructured tapes interviews with each of he women. The women were from the London area and 20 were in a prison or youth custody centre at the time of the interviews.
Most of women were working-class (as are most women with criminal convictions) and they had committed various offences. 26 had convictions for theft or handling stolen goods, 16 for fraud, 15 for burglary, 14 for violence, 8 for arson, 6 for drugs offences and 4 for prostitution- related crime.
Carlen argued that the working-class background of most of her sample is fairly typical of female offenders convicted of more serious crimes, but she was also aware that ‘white-collar’ female criminals might be escaping conviction for their crimes. She said that when women do break the law, those from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to be branded a criminal than women who commit the same crime who are middle-class. Of the women that Carlen interviewed, 32 had always been poor, 4 were unemployed at the time and only 2 had good jobs, also the majority of the women (22) had spent parts of their lives in care.
In Carlen’s study she adopted ‘control theory’ as her theoretical approach. The control theory starts with the assumption that humans are neither naturally bad nor prone to conformity. Instead, humans are rational and only turn to crime when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and are more appealing than the likely rewards of conformity.
Carlen’s study has allowed me to answer 2 of my objectives: WHAT crimes women commit and WHY they commit crime. The most popular crimes amongst the women she interviewed were theft and fraud, and the reason as to why they committed the crimes is because of poverty as they are working-class and also more likely to get convicted than the middle-class.
From this study, I have found that questions about socio-economic groups could be possible on my questionnaire, as it will allow me to determine myself whether female criminality is a class issue. Carlen only interviewed convicted women, who were working-class, I aim to avoid that in my own research as I feel that it will only make generalisations about the working- class without looking at the middle-class.
The problem with Carlen’s study is the same as with the other 2 study’s, which is that it is out of date. She used a small sample of working-class women involved in quite serious crimes, so therefore generalistions are hard to make from her findings, making it less valid as it can not be applied to women who commit less serious offences. On the positive side, it is a detailed piece of research that provides a strong support for the view that criminal behaviour becomes more likely when social control breaks down in society. It is a plausible study that highlights the criminality of working-class women.
Words: 1168
