In contrast, Pollock (1950) thought that female crime was in fact similar to that of males. He argued that official statistics on gender and crime were highly misleading. Because the police, magistrates and other law enforcement officials tend to be men, women were treated more leniently because of their stereotypical views about how a woman should behave. Therefore, they were more likely to escape conviction due to male chivalry, resulting in fewer women appearing in the statistics. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:434) Some self-report studies have also supported Pollack’s claim. Anne Campbell (1981) pointed out that female suspects were more likely than male suspects to be cautioned rather than prosecuted. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:435)
The Official Crime Statistics show that this still remains true. In 2000, the cautioning rate for women was 47% compared with 29% for men. It also showed that females had a higher cautioning rate than males for all age groups. (2001 Home Office Crime Statistics) Although the cautioning rate for men is low, it shows that men are more likely to be convicted rather than cautioned for their crimes.
Pollack’s second argument was that victims tend not to report female offenders to the police, and that consequently; female offenders are more likely to remain in the dark figure. (Morris; 1987:23) These dark figures represent those crimes that are not reported by observers to the police, and also those crimes not recorded by the police. Victimisation surveys provide a way of explaining the nature of that dark figure and also in assessing the extent of which official statistics are reliable. Hindelang (1979) examined American victimisation data and found that victims of female offenders did in fact report them to the police less often than was true for the victims of male offenders. (Morris; 1987:23)
However, none of these explanations give any serious consideration to gender issues such as female socialisation. The impact of differential socialisation cannot be ignored; this starts at birth when parents respond differently to babies depending on what sex they believe the child to be. Girls are encouraged to retain a strong identification with their mothers and to imitate their behaviour. They grow up with a more emotional and sensitive outlook than that of boys. (Chodorow; 1978 cited in Fulcher & Scott; 1999:142) Girls are given dolls, soft toys and miniature domestic objects and appliances to play with, encouraging them to rehearse their expected adult roles as mothers and housewives. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:590) Therefore, because females are socialised in this way and because they are socialised into being passive and well behaved, they commit less crime. Sutherland (1947) attributed the relative lack of female criminality to this socialisation into the feminine role, and because they are more closely supervised than boys, there is less chance of them being exposed to criminal behaviour. Nor are they taught to be tough aggressive risk-takers, attributes that Sutherland considered necessary for a successful criminal. (Jones; 2000:88)
Although similar to the socialisation theory, several writers have suggested that control theory may explain the lower level of female criminality. In contrast, this theory shifts the focus from asking why women commit crime to asking why women conform. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:442)
Hagan (1979) suggest that the strongest forms of control are the informal ones used at home, and that this could explain women’s lesser involvement in crime. (Jones; 2000:88) Frances Heidensohn (1996) suggests similar views. She argues that male-dominated patriarchal societies control women more effectively than they do men, making it more difficult for women to break the law. She also suggested that these controls operate not only in the home, but also in public and at work. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:442) At home, women are burdened with heavy responsibilities and demanding duties at domestic level. Dahl and Snare (1978) suggest ‘women are privately and domestically imprisoned within their home.’ Preoccupation with these tasks can, in itself, obviously act as a form of constraint. Burglary would seem impossible if one is encumbered with a pram and its contents. (Heidensohn; 1996:174) So the endless hours spent on housework and the constant monitoring of young children leave little time for women to engage in illegal activities. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:442) In public, women are controlled by the male use of force and violence; they often choose not to go out at night for fear of being attacked and tend to limit their behaviour in public places for fear of being labelled ‘unrespectable.’ Even at work, Heidensohn (1996) suggests that women are usually controlled by male superiors in the hierarchy, and workers’ own organisations, trade unions etc tend to be male dominated. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:442-3)
In summary, it seems clear that women do commit fewer crimes than men. Although their explanations differ, some are not without criticism. Lombroso and Ferrero (1895) looked at biology as an explanation. To them women lacked assertiveness and were seen as a lower form of evolution than males. Lombroso’s work has long been discredited. Heidensohn suggested his work was fanciful rather that scientific. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:438) In contrast, Pollack (1950) suggested women’s crime was in fact similar to that of men, and that they were more likely to escape conviction because of male chivalry. In criticism, most other researchers have not found support for this chivalry thesis. Steven Box reviewed data from self-report studies in Britain and the United States and found that some studies did indicate leniency towards women but the majority did not. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:436) However, there is evidence to support Pollack’s claim that female offenders are more likely to escape conviction than males, as official crime statistics have shown.
Other explanations for women’s lack of participation in criminal activities looked at gender issues. Their socialisation into the feminine role, and the way male-dominated patriarchal societies control women make it more difficult for women to break the law. Crime only becomes a possibility when the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages and are more appealing than the likely rewards of conformity. (Hirshi; 1969 cited in Haralambos & Holborn; 1995:441) Women are not specialists in crime but they commit almost all forms. Their potential for deviance may be as great as men’s, but their actual depredations far fewer, suggesting that it is gender-linked factors that intervene to curb and gentle the possibilities of female criminality. But however plausible some of these explanations are, there is no single or special theory to explain why there is comparatively few female criminals.
Bibliography
Caffrey, Susan (1995) The Sociology of Crime and Deviance: Selected Issues: Greenwich University Press: UK
Carlen, Pat & Anne Worrall (1987) Gender, Crime and Justice: Open University Press: England
Fulcher & Scott (1999) Sociology: Oxford University Press: UK
Giddens, A (1993) Sociology: Polity Press: UK
Haralambos & Holborn (1995) Sociology - Themes and Perspectives: Collins Educational: London
Heidensohn, F (1996) Women & Crime: Macmillan Press Ltd: London
Heidensohn, F (1989) Crime & Society: Macmillan Press Ltd: London
Jones, S (2000) Understanding Violent Crime: Open University Press: UK
Morris, A (1987) Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: Blackwell Publishers: Oxford
Reader, A (1996) Criminological Perspectives: Sage Publications: London
Walklate, S (2001) Gender, Crime & Criminal Justice: Willan Publishing: UK
Walklate, S (1998) Understanding Criminology: Open University Press: UK
Why
Are women
Less inclined towards Deviancy and
Crime than
Men?
