He related gender to this by arguing that the socialisation process controls boys less strictly, and within this process they are taught that boys should be tough, aggressive, active, and risk seekers. These characteristics could instigate involvement in the criminal world. As a result, boys are in situations which could lead to crime more frequently, even when both sexes grow up in the same economically deprived neighbourhoods.
Talcott Parsons was a functionalist theorist. He claimed that being part of a family is central to the development of sex roles. Women’s role is learnt to be expressive; to nurture, care, and keep the family unit running smoothly, whereas men connect the family to the larger world, through achievement, goal attainment and breadwinning in the instrumental role. However, problems arise with the assumption that because women are the childbearing sex, they are better suited for the nurturing role. Because of this role being primarily female, boys have less readily available role models. They learn at a young age that the female role of their mother is not acceptable for them to take on. As Cohen (1955) suggests, they are unsure how to “be good” without being feminine. Their reaction to this is ‘compensatory compulsory masculinity’ which involves rejecting all behaviour seen to be female. They avoid gentleness, tenderness, and expression of emotion as these are perceived to be female traits. Instead they take on traits which they perceive to be masculine; powerful, tough and rough. They want to avoid any doubt from themselves or others as to them being manly, and therefore engage in these traits, and behaviours associated with them, vigorously. This behaviour is more anti-social than female behaviour and can lead to delinquency.
There are, of course, criticisms with the sex-role theories of crime. Explanations like these place an emphasis on social expectations, therefore are more concerned with what should be the case rather than reality. There is no power basis to relationships discussed, gender is only looked at in terms of “fundamentally biologically determined individual adaptations to social expectations” (Walklate 2001: 61)
Many criminology theories have been criticised for concentrating too much on men, for being gender-blind. Women were usually dismissed or taken to be pathological. As far back as the 19th century, the penalty for female criminality was the label “fallen woman” or “witch”. The idea behind the notion of the fallen woman was that the woman had fallen from grace. Christianity teaches that everyone is fallen from grace, but this label suggests a decent much lower. It was associated with degradation and contamination. They were socially rejected by both men and women. This stigma caused them to be neglected in prison, and denied them access to economic and political power.
Historically, this attitude can be traced back to our ancestors. In classical Greece and Rome, and medieval Europe, women’s function was to provide heirs for her husband to continue his name and property line. This function was highly valued, and so adultery, which would lead to illegitimate heirs, was punished with execution. In 17th century England unmarried mothers were imprisoned because their children were dependent upon the parish, and in the late 1600s homeless women and those with several illegitimate children were sent to American colonies. These punishments served to reinforce the attitudes of how women should behave; those who didn’t adhere to these roles were subject to the “fallen woman” stigma.
Freedman (1981) identified a growing rate of women in prison between 1815 and 1860. This could be linked to social change, especially urbanisation. Behaviours such as drunkenness, idle and disorderly conduct and vagrancy increased for both sexes, but women were more likely to be convicted due to strict moral codes. There were fewer job opportunities and lower wages for women which lead to female economic marginalisation. Women who couldn’t afford to support their families often turned to prostitution.
Several theories attempt to explain the increase in female criminality. Lombroso (1900) suggested a theory of social Darwinism in the late 19th century. He believed that biology was a determining factor; a woman’s biology determines her characteristics, particularly aggression. He claimed that biologically, women are unfit for criminal activity and therefore women who do commit crime must be pathological. He suggested that for a woman to stray from the “normal” path of “maternity, piety and weakness… her wickedness must be enormous” (Lombroso 1900). This attitude helped perpetuate the stigma that woman who commit crime are “sick”. He based his work on the theory of atavism, that criminals are not as evolved as law abiding people, and this accounted for their uncivilised or aggressive behaviour. He looked at physical attributes such as cranium size, skin colour, hairiness, moles and tattoos as he believed that these were signs of degeneration. However he rarely found these in women so concluded that they had not evolved much from their origin. However, he did point out that lack of maternal instinct which he found in many female criminals was one strong sign.
Social Darwinism theories still exist; many people still believe that criminality is due to a fault in the criminal rather than in society or the way that they were brought up. However, other theories have been developed. The masculinity thesis suggests that women are becoming more liberated and so there roles are becoming similar to those of men. As a result their behaviour too becomes like that of a man, becoming aggressive, pushy and hard-headed. It is suggested that there is a link between increased criminality and women becoming ‘masculinised’. This is based on the long standing idea of women being incarcerated because they don’t adhere to the strict moral codes or social roles assigned to them.
Another thesis is related to opportunity. Women are reaching social positions similar to men, and it is suggested that their criminality will reach the same levels, with the nature of their criminality being relative to their social position. However, women do not have the same opportunities as men due to the metaphorical “glass ceiling”. The socialisation process through which women go is different to that which men go through so they wound not necessarily commit the same crimes. Also, crime statistics show that the rise in crime is not within the white collar workforce, in fact it is among young offenders, and the crimes which they commit are non-occupational.
Another way to explain female criminality is by looking at marginalisation. Lack of opportunities to make money can lead to women committing crime. Simon and Landis (1991) said that the bulk of female crime is petty property crime but this constitutes a rational response to poverty and economic insecurity.
It has been claimed (Simon and Landis 1991) that the criminal justice system has lessened their leniency to women who commit crimes. Messerschmidt (1986) suggests that this is as a punishment for the women’s movement.
However, Ann Lloyd (1995) points out that chivalry does exist, but it is limited to women who conform to female roles. On the other hand, according to a study by Eaton (1986) on justice for women, courts seem to place value on men’s employment record and women’s childcare and housewifely skills, using these to construct images of the defendant. If they can be shown to be responsible, reliable family members they are likely to be treated equally. This relies on being part of a family structure presumed to be ‘normal’ by wider society; a male and a female in a heterosexual relationship. However, it is when people do not fit this concept of normalcy that treatment becomes unequal. Allen (1987) argued that it’s twice as common for women to be dealt with using psychiatric means, regardless of their mental health. This phenomenon is clearly related to the fact that the criminal justice system is made up mostly of men. According to a Social Trends report in 1991 between 1981 and 1989 the number of females in the police force rose only from 8.6 % to 10.6%. In 1998 16 % of the police force was female and 26% of barristers were female (Home Office 1999).
In court, criminal responsibility is considered by looking at the wrongful deed (actus reus) and the wrongful mind (mens rea). Allen’s study shows that the weight placed on each of these differs between men and women. When looking at psychiatric reports, there is more emphasis placed on the mental life of females, whereas for men, the focus is in terms of what they do. Very little is written about women regarding initiation of intentional behaviour.
When diminished responsibility is sought, men are more likely to be classed as ‘monsters’ but at the same time be capable of intending their behaviour. This is because in court the focus for men is on what they do. However, women are seen to be less able to make rational decisions, things just happen to them. If rape trials are taken as an example, it becomes clear that women are examined through aspects of their character rather than details of the case. Barristers will try to establish whether she was respectable and worldly wise, in the hope of discrediting her as a witness and making her evidence invalid.
Adler suggests that single mothers, girls with punk hairstyles, mothers with children in care, women with a criminal record, and anyone living in a commune are perceived to be less respectable, and therefore treated as unlikely genuine victims. Men often give the defence that women don’t know what they want, and might be unconsciously asking for it. They often get away with it due to the attitude that women cannot make rational decisions and therefore it is reasonable that the decision is made for them.
However, demanding equality in the criminal justice system does not bring positive results. In America, in the mid 1980s, they introduced sentencing guidelines which were neutral with respect to offenders’ race, sex, national origin, creed, and socioeconomic status. They were looking for a move from making the punishment fit the criminal to the punishment fitting the crime. This was interpreted in court to mean that women’s sentencing should be identical to men’s in the respect that there’s no consideration to whether a man has children or not. However, women are more often the caretakers of children and so in a single parent family this causes disruption in a child’s life. The problem is that they were equating equality with justice. Gender neutrality in the criminal justice system will not remove gender bias as society is not gender neutral.
In conclusion, crime is unequal in terms of gender, and will be for as long as roles, stereotypes, and the circumstances in which people find themselves in remain different for either sex.
