Asses the arguments and evidence which suggest women commit much less crime than men

Asses the arguments and evidence which suggest

women commit much less crime than men

The sociology gender of has mostly been focused on women and femininity, but over the recent years men and masculinity has also been studied. Some sociologists believe that gender can be identified as male and female through their organs that produce sex cells and their hormones, enabling women to bear children but not men. There is also the difference of men being physically strong and women being weak. The biological differences in men and women are determined through their behaviour and their roles played in society. For example, men’s role is to go out and provide for the family, they’re seen as the ‘breadwinners’, and men are seen as ‘housewives’, producing children, cooking and cleaning. This may lead to the large-scale view that women commit less crime than men because women are assumed to not having the time and motive to commit crime and men having both. In this essay views from different writers and sociologists will be discussed on gender and crime. For what reasons are women stereotyped and assumed to commit less crime? Can sociological situations affect the crime committed by gender? If so, how and why?

Frances Heidensohn (1985), a famous feminist, believes that women do commit less crime than men. She looked at women and social control, saying that it was difficult for women to commit a crime in a male dominant society; a patriarchal society. She believed that women spend all their time in housework and do not have enough time to get involved in crime. If women tried to get out, the ‘man’ of the house would force them to stay in. Heidensohn has also said that women are scared to go out in public in fear of being attacked or raped; especially after the dark as shown in the Islington crime survey (1986) where 54 per cent were women and 14 per cent were men. At work most women are supervised by men and in some situations may experience sexual harassment towards them, which in effect may increase criminality. Heidensohn has defined women as being as being vulnerable and has said that women may only turn to crime if they lose the support of a man, possibly through prostitution. This suggests that women do not get a chance to commit crime and when they do it is due to the irresponsibility of men.

Carol smart (1977) is a writer who studied feminist approaches towards gender and crime and came to a similar conclusion as Heidensohn’s; “In comparison with the massive documentation on all aspects of male delinquency and criminality, the amount of work carried out on the area of women and crime is extremely limited.” Smart, p52. This quote shows that Smart believed that female offenders were not seen as a big problem, and were not interesting enough to research. Her research showed that women were more to just be cautioned for the offences of which they were found guilty as opposed to men. In 1996, males were 64 times more likely to be found guilty and cautioned than women. Smart also said that the criminal justice system is biased towards women, especially in sex related offences, supporting this view with quotes by judges in rape cases, “Women who do not always say no do not always mean no. It is not a question of how she says it, how she shows it and makes it clear. If she doesn’t want it she only has to keep her legs shut.” Judge Wilde, p.412.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Although these views have been disregarded by Otto Pollack (1950), which is discussed later, it has been supported by Sandra Walkate (1995), who believed that instead of the male offender, it was the female victim whom ended up on trial. She has said that rape cases are looked at from ‘a male point of view’. She has stated that the police were reluctant to make arrests in cases of violence against women, but since the Dobash and Dobash study (1979), they have started taking such cases more seriously. Writers such as Heidensohn, Smart and Walkate have all said that women ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Pat Carlen (1997) has also supported this view saying that courts do not sentence women on the seriousness of the crime, but if a woman is single or divorced, she is more likely to end up in prison than a woman living a more ‘conventional’ life.

Otto Pollack (1950) argued that Smart’s and Heidensohn’s views, with a theory of the ‘masked female offender’. (Horlombos and Holborn). He used a few examples in an attempt to prove his point, firstly saying that most crime committed by women went unreported. Pollack’s assumption was that nearly all shoplifting crimes were carried out by women, but were overlooked by authorities. Prostitution was another crime that Pollack believed to have been under reported, and that male clients were not seen to have broke the law. He also believed that women could hide their crimes through their domestic roles using child abuse as an n example. This contradicts Heidensohn’s views; where she has said that women have fewer opportunities to commit crime due to being busy in their domestic roles.

Pollack also argues that courts were chivalrous; with mostly males being leaders and was therefore lenient towards women. He has also gone on to say that women were cunning and were good at hiding their crimes. He has applied the female biology theory to this view saying that women can deceive men during sex, by faking orgasms, whereas men could not hide their sexual pleasures, for example, an erection.

Although Heidensohn has disregarded Pollack’s work, saying he has stereotyped women, there is a possibility that courts are more lenient towards women. Pollack’s work has triggered off self-report studies, which have supported his view that males are more likely to be convicted in courts than females.

James Messerschmidt (1993) has rejected the view that male and female crime is related to their social position. From looking at the relationship between masculinity and crime, he believes that different types of masculinities lead to different types of social behaviour and crimes; coming up with the theory of ‘doing gender’. “Masculinity is accomplished; it is not something done to men or settled beforehand. And masculinity is never static, never a finished product. Rather men construct masculinities in specific social situations (although not in circumstances of their own choosing); in doing so men reproduce (and sometimes change) social structures.” Messerschmidt, p.80. He is basically saying that men playing sports, or doing business deals are trying to accomplish masculinity. He has said that masculinity may vary each individual and are determined by someone’s class, race and sexual preference.

Messerschmidt broke down masculinity into two main groups; hegemonic and subordinated masculinities. Hegemonic being dominant and subordinated being homosexuals and Afro-Americans. He believed that hegemonic men could express more power over women whereas other can, but with difficulty. He therefore made an assumption that men commit crime to ‘prove’ their masculinity. He started off by looking at looking at masculinity and crime in youth groups, breaking them into three groups; white middle-class boys, white working-class boys, and lower working-class ethnic minority boys.

He expressed that white middle-class boys did not have enough opportunities to express masculinity as they were in school most of the time, and would show this masculinity outside school hours by disturbing social norms through minor thefts, excessive drinking and vandalism.

White working-class boys cannot express their masculinity through educational accomplishment according to Messerschmidt, and therefore show it through physical aggression. This aggression may be towards teachers and violence towards non-whites and gay men, or even anyone else who they do not see as ‘tough’ as themselves. He has used Paul Willis’s study (1984) as an example to support this, which was based on youth subcultures at school.

The third group were lower working-class, ethnic minority boys whom had low paid jobs. They had no expectations of becoming a ‘breadwinner’ in order to show their masculinity and with no money either, these young people would turn to crime and violence, which is what Messerschmidt believed. He found from many studies that robberies made young people feel more masculine and in some cases they may even turn to rape to build up their power.

Messerschmidt also thought that family was another example where men showed their masculinity by wife beating, brutal rape and in some cases murder, where a man feels endangered of being controlled by a woman. His work shows a relative link between crime and masculinity and why men may commit more crime than women, although it has been argued by Tony Jefferson (1997) that masculinity on its own cannot verify this.

Farrington and Morris’s study (1983) found that a sex offenders sex did not have a direct influence on court sentencing decisions, though they did notice a difference in the sentencing of married women as opposed to unmarried and divorced women. They applied the theory that these women were not fulfilling their social responsibility in the normal family life and were becoming to be seen as the ‘breadwinner’ of the family. They concluded that ‘there was no independent effect of sex on sentence severity’. Farrington and Morris, p.411. This has also been supported by Roger Hood’s study carried out in 1989.

However, Freda Adler 1975, an American writer, totally rejected the theory of biological differences determining male or female crime. She believes that men and women change their behaviour according to the changing society. She says that there has been a change in the nature of crime; the crime that was traditionally committed by men is now being committed by women. She looked at different statistics and her examination of the American scene concluded that the number of women committing crime and in prison was rising faster than the number of men. Her view intertwines with the findings of Farrington and Morris saying that women were now taking the male dominant role in society by entering the labour force and criminal careers. Adler’s theory was of the ‘new female criminal’.

Even though the Home Office has found a ratio of 6:1 as the males being known as offenders, 1999’s self report studies have shown that females tend no to admit to committing a crime as much as males do. Although statistics for female crime seem to have increased between 1975 and 1999, the ratio has gone down from 7:1 in 1950, and 6:1 in 1999 for Britain, there has been an increase of drug offences for women between 1989 and 1999.

In the British Crime Survey 2000, domestic violence had a result of 99 per cent reported by women and 95 per cent against men committed by women, but none of these men saw it as a crime and 39 per cent of women did. This shows that female crime is increasing in the family. In 1999, 60 per cent women were found guilty for theft and handling and 48 per cent of men which may have lead writers such as Pollack to believe that Criminal Justice System is lenient towards women. It also showed that women had a higher percentage of fraud and forgery than men again supporting Pollack’s view that women can hide crime and are deceitful. However writers like Heidonsohn can use such figures to come to the conclusion that women commit such crimes only when they are in financial difficulty and lose the support of men.

From looking at the arguments from different writers about gender and crime, I have come to conclude that the statement ‘women commit much less crime than men’ is true to some extent. Writers such as Messerschmidt have given men a lea way, saying that men are biologically aggressive and that their masculinities lead them to commit more crime and Pollack has said that the courts are lenient towards women. This view has been contradicted by Smart saying that the courts ere harsh on women. The argument that may come across as strong and accurate is of Heidonsohn, saying that women only commit crimes such as shoplifting and prostitution and the reason being the loss of financial support of men. Statistics reflect on this, where the theft percentages and ratios for female crime have been high over the years. However the view of Adler conflicts the above argument saying that women are now getting more involved in crime, by taking the traditional roles of men in society. Most of the studies carried out by these writers are based on home office statistics, though the validation and accuracy of such figures can be looked at in greater depth.

References

Haralambos, M. Holbron, M. (2000), Sociology, Fifth edition, London, Harper Collins Publications Limited.

Maguire, M. Morgan, R. Reiner, R. (2002), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Third edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Morris, A. (1987), Women, Crime and Criminal Justice, USA, Basil Blackwell Inc.

Pond, R. (1999), Introduction to Criminology, Winchester, Waterside Press.

Smart, C. (1995), Law, Crime and Sexuality: Essays on Feminism, London, Sage Publications.

Adler, F. (1975)

In: Pond, R. (1999), Introduction to Criminology, Winchester, Waterside Press.

Box, S. Hale, C. (1983): Crime and Deviance