These theories, combined with the fact that working class males suffer from material deprivation, they are not given the same financial support as their working class counterparts, so therefore right from the start of their educational lives they are at a disadvantage, which eventually can lead to them become disillusioned from legitimate life, and forming a subculture. Cohen’s theory is good because it takes into account collective deviance, and non-utilitarian crime, something that Merton failed to account for. Cloward and Ohlin identify that subcultures are not only formed in attempt for material gain and there are distinctions between subcultures, although they do pigeonhole certain groups and fail to recognise overlap.
- Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the view that gender is the best predictor of crime.
Item A states that Maureen 1989 pointed out that ‘most criminals are, and always have been, men ‘. It continues to say that four out of five convinced offenders are male, that male offenders have longer criminal careers and typically commit more serious crimes, including 90% of all homicides.
Official statistics overwhelmingly show that men are the perpetrators in the majority of all crimes, Home Office 2003 stated over 80% of offenders were men, and this ratio is echoed in other Western countries and has remained remarkably similar over time. Self-report studies provide an alternative source of information for gender differences in offending also, the 1998 Youth Lifestyles survey based of 4849 12-30 year olds found that males were two-and-a-half times more likely to have offended in the last year than females (Home office 2003), although self-report studies can be subject to demand characteristics and experimenter bias.
The Sex role theory argues that because boys and girls are socialised differently, this results in boys being more likely to become delinquent. Sutherland 1949 said that girls were more likely to be closely supervised and be more strictly controlled, whereas boys are encouraged to take risks and act in an aggressive and tough manner, giving them a nurtured inclination to commit crime. Cohen adds a different perspective on the sex role theory saying that young boys often are without a male role model, thus experiencing anxiety about their identity as young men, this can lead to formation of street gangs were aspects of masculinity can be expressed and rewarded, and although this can cement masculine identity, it also encouraged delinquent behaviour.
On the other side of this view from the feminist Heidensohn 1996, 2002, drew on the control theory arguing that women have more to lose than men if they deviate from norms, because of the male dominance of society, the control of females discourages deviance from norms. Women are still largely confined to the house and the ‘mother’ role, this results in female reliance on the male to be a financial supporter, so things like domestic abuse upon a male for example would result in a lot more of a negative situation for a women then a man. Outside the home women are also confined, many are reluctant to go out after dark in fear of attack, or for being labelled as a harlot. Although this theory provides some explanation of reduced rates of female criminality, it also displays women as passive and simply accepting their situation, and she also makes sweeping generalisations about men and women and their subsequent roles.
Although gender is a somewhat accurate predictor of criminality to an extent, there are several problems with it. Firstly, the role of official statistics must always be questioned, as they are often subject to distortion. Pollak’s chivalry thesis states that women are often treated leniently by the police and justice services. He maintains that they are often let off for less serious crimes, or given warnings much more often than men, or even given much lighter prison sentences. This, he surmises, is because males often have a natural inclination to feel protective over females, and because of the abnormal idea of female criminality, they are more likely to let women off with warning or light sentences. Although this theory is somewhat sexist and makes huge generalisations about women offences, there may be some weight to the idea that women are treated leniently, to an extent, by the justice services, which leads to an under-recording of female offending, which could offer evidence toward the argument that gender may not be a completely fair indicator of criminality.
Although to counter the possibility of the ideas of the chivalry thesis being true, many self-report studies have been done, and in the vast majority of cases, males always come up as most likely to commit crime, but the interesting finding is that the gap between the likelihood of the offending is not as large as official statistics would have us believe.
Some police officers may also discriminate against certain groups, for instance moral panics have been created, with the working class male ‘ folk devils’ being subjected possibly to over policing, which could result in a distortion of the conviction statistics. We must always remember that the criminal statistics show us levels of arrests, convictions, warnings etc.; they do not in any way give a full view of actual offending in every area.
Other factors could also arguably be good indicators for criminality. Age, social class and living location are often combined to be a valuable judging factor, statistics tell us the proportionately, young working class males living in urban areas are the most criminal group. This could be due to many reasons, such as material deprivation, lack of opportunity structures and role models, and alienation from a middle class dominated society that disillusions this particular group from the majority and leads them to crime and deviance, often through deviant subcultures. Ethnicity is also arguably a good indicator of criminality, with Pakistani and Black people being over represented in criminal statistics, there are some theorists who believe these ethnicities have a natural inclination to be criminal through their heritage, but often this over representation can be down to over policing, discrimination and racism from police forces. For example, since the 9/11 attacks, stop and search rates for Pakistani men went up a huge amount, with their likelihood of being searched being nearly 8 times higher than that of a white man. These 2 ethnicities in particular have been made out to be folk devils, stimulated by the media and moral panics, which could lead to over policing in areas where people of this ethnicity reside, resulting in a disparity in statistics.
In conclusion, although official statistics possibly over represent men to some extent, it cannot be argued that men are less criminal than women, it is just the extent to how much more criminal they are that can be argued. Factors discussed earlier like class, age and ethnicity all provide valuable source for indication of criminality, gender is probably the most accurate, but it is also the least specific, although technically a male is more likely to be criminal than female, this does not mean a male will always be more criminal, so a combination of all the earlier discussed factors would be the most reliable indicator of criminality.
