In his study of female criminality in the latter half of the nineteenth century, Lombroso held that all the data on criminology illustrated that “women are much less criminal than men” (Lombroso 1968), and that women turn to criminality at a later age than men do. For Lombroso, sexuality and a woman’s ability to be attractive to a man, plays an important role here. We see that for all classes of crimes female criminality reaches its highest point, as compared with that of men, at the most advanced age; that is to say, when the special characteristics of sex have been effaced by age, and when prostitution no longer offers a career.
Despite Lombroso later modifying his theory to allow for external factors, his formula for the causes of crime has more or less been abandoned for more socio-economic attributions; the methodology that Lombroso used has also been criticised heavily. Eaton (1985), for one, regards this foundation of criminology as having a part to play in the perpetuation of pathological theories as to female criminality; to quote: “Female criminality has been explained by female biology and female psychology which accounted for the acceptable behaviour of the ‘good’ woman and the ‘unacceptable’ behaviour of the bad woman.” By linking behaviour to ‘nature’ such theorists ignored the social construction of gender roles. Morris discusses further the theories, which link female criminality and areas of biology, including the many articles, which have been written on the link between female crime and menstruation from Lombroso and Ferrero in the nineteenth century through to Pollak writing in the 1960s. Again, this use of biological determinism as the only cause for criminality negates the existence of other socio- economic reasons generally accepted for male criminality. Explanations of female crimes have usually been given in terms of the failure of individual women to adapt themselves to their supposedly natural biological and/or socio- sexual destinies. The implication has repeatedly been that it is the individual women who should change - rather than the social formations, which impose restrictive and exploitative roles upon all women. As a result, criminal women have always been presented as being ‘Other’.
Women, after all, experience the same deprivations; family structures and so on that men do. Theories of crime should be able to take account of both men’s and women’s behaviour and to highlight those factors which operate differently on men and women. Whether or not a particular theory helps us to understand women’s crime better is of fundamental, not marginal importance for criminology.” (Gelsthorpe & Morris 1988)
Carlen, in her book, confronts the myth that women who break the law “rather than being serious and intentional criminals, are nothing more than deviants from what are supposed to be their natural, biologically-determined socio-sexual roles and destinies.” (Carlen 1985; Kennedy 1992). A ‘criminal woman’, then, is considered to be a worse character than a ‘criminal man’ as she has not only broken the law of the land, but also broken the unwritten law of what is right and proper behaviour for a woman.
Women were ignored in mainstream criminology is combined with the actuality that male-based research findings are then applied to all; what is good for the gander must, then, be good for the goose. Datesman and Scarpitti (1980) add to the debate in stating that because male crime, is perceived as being more serious than female crime research into the former will invariably take priority over crimes committed by women. It is also recognised that the male dominated field of social research and its funding bodies is another contributory factor to a lack of research in this area.
Datesman & Scarpitti argue in their chapter on the aetiology of crime that criminologists continue to confine themselves to the physical and psychological theories when discussing female criminality, despite the progress that has been made in ‘mainstream’ criminology beyond these arguments to more socio-economic ones. “While there has been an evolution in theories of male criminality from Lombrosian positivism to the newer conflict and critical theories, this evolution has been largely absent in theories of female criminality. Most theorists have emphasised the biological and psychological aspects of female criminality. There has also been a tendency to regard male criminality as a much more complex phenomenon than female criminality.” Datesman & Scarpitti (1985:)
Freda Adler in her chapter in Datesman & Scarpitti discusses the argument regarding the correlation between women’s liberation and rising criminality - While accepting that the liberation movement and various pieces of legislation to promote equality have been followed by an increased participation in legitimate and illegitimate activities by women, it is worth noting that while women’s salaries have not yet equalised that of men, the various expenses in the home to do with, for example, childcare, will invariably be the responsibility of the female partner Chadwick and Little (1987). They state that “both traditional and early critical criminology failed to look at the contrasting social worlds and experiences of women and men. They did not address, let alone provide answers as to why, first, women’s criminal careers are different to those of men, and second, why women are treated differently within the criminal justice process. Discussions and analysis traditionally have focused on male behaviour and male criminality. Theoretical criminology has largely been about, for, and written by men... the invisibility of women within academic criminology merely reflects a strong patriarchal tradition within the social sciences in general with women’s history, experience culture, and politics being peripheral to the ‘real issues’ prioritised for research, teaching and publication.
The treatment of women within the criminal justice system cannot be seen to be equitable to that received by men. The reasons may be different according to which judge passes sentence on a female defendant - from a belief in Lombroso’s theories on female criminality to a feminist ideology on female oppression and that lack of economic power due to patriarchy being the driving force behind the female defendant’s criminality - a harsh sentence or a more lenient sentence because of the gender of the defendant will continue to confound the very principles underlying this criminal justice system.
In conclusion academics, criminologists, feminists, the judiciary and the general public will all have thoughts and notions on female criminality, just as they do on male criminality; the difference in gender, however, should not be an acceptable excuse to apply arbitrary sentences to the female of the species.
Reference
LOMBROSO Cesare (1968) Crime: Its causes and Remedies, Patterson
Smith Reprint series in Criminology, Law Enforcement and Social
Problems New Jersey: Patterson Smith
WORRALL Anne (1990) Offending Women - Female Lawbreakers and the
Criminal Justice System, London: Routledge
ADLER F, SIMON R (1979) The Criminology of Deviant Women, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company
CAIN Maureen (ed.) (1989) Growing up Good - Policing the behaviour of
girls in Europe, London: Sage Publications CARLEN Pat (ed.)
(1985) Criminal Women, Cambridge
CHADWICK K, LITTLE C (1987) 'The Criminalization of Women', in P Scraton
Law Order and the Authoritarian State, Milton Keynes: Open University
DATESMAN S, Scarpitti F (1980) Women, Crime and Justice, Oxford:
Oxford University Press DE BEAVOIR
EATON Mary (1986) Justice for Women? Family, Court and Social Control
Milton Keynes: Open University
GELSTHORPE L, MORRIS A (1988) 'Feminism and Criminology in Britain'
British Journal of Criminology
MORRIS Allison (1987) Women, Crime and Criminal Justice, Oxford:
Basil Blackwell
NACRO (1991) Women in Prison - NACRO Briefing 33, London: NACRO
May 1991
PRISON REFORM TRUST (1991) The Identikit Prisoner - Characteristics
of the Prison Population, London: Prison Reform Trust December
1991
