1.2. Shoplifting Offences
From a sample consisting of 2,696 men and 1,067 women - the study revealed that the sentencing pattern for men and women shoplifters was generally similar to that revealed in Criminal Statistics . Women were generally more likely than men to be discharged or given a probation order, less likely to be fined and given a custodial sentence, even when previous convictions are considered (Hedderman et al, 1997, pp 11:2). Similar evidence was concluded after analysis of data concerning ‘first time shoplifters’, which found that men in general were more likely than women to receive a custodial sentence, as were male recidivists. For a first offence- 30% of males were discharged, compared with 43% of females. In relation to shoplifters with previous convictions, the study found that female recidivists were less likely than male recidivists, to be sentenced to imprisonment (Hedderman et al, 1997, pp12:3). These findings could be indicative of some level of ‘leniency’ towards women, in relation to first time offences.
1.3. Violent Offences
Only 450 offenders were female, in comparison to 6, 097 male offenders. Moore (1996, pp 165:3) expressed that apart from different levels of crime, there are significant differences in types of offences. For example, the male: female ratio in relation to ‘violence against the person’ is 10:1. 56% of females studied were appearing for the first time. Moore (1996, pp 165:4) suggested that women are both less serious and less frequent offenders than men, which creates a ‘differential crime pattern’. Again, data revealed women were less likely than comparable males to be given a prison sentence, community service, fine and were more likely to receive probation or discharge (Hedderman et al, 1997, pp 15:2).
The study revealed that for first-time violent offenders, there were no clear gender differences in the likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence (3% of men and 3%). This result conflicts with that of first–time shoplifters, where there were clear gender differences. Although, when the element of recidivism is included, the study found women were significantly less likely to receive a custodial sentence and they were more likely to receive a community penalty (Hedderman et al, 1997, pp 18:1).
1.4. Drug Offences
Similar disparities in the disposal of penalties were evident on analysis of drug offences. 3,338 men and 332 women were sampled. Analysis revealed that women were more likely to be first-time offenders, 53% opposed to 25% of male offenders and were less likely to receive custodial sentences. Although, female recidivists were as likely as men to receive a custodial sentence (Hedderman et al, 1997, pp 20:1). Analysis concluded that women are always more likely to get a discharge and men more likely to be fined, which Hedderman et al (1997, pp 20:3) suggests is consistent with the theory that sentencers are reluctant to fine women and this reluctance may result in women being given more severe non-custodial penalties (Hedderman et al, 1997, pp 21:3).
2. Key Influences on Decision- Making
What is the causation of the obvious differing disposal of penalties? Are women dealt with some level of ‘leniency’? Or is there evidence to suggest that female deviance is not treated with the same seriousness as male deviance and as a result, women are being treated differently. Can the differences in sentencing patterns be explained by factors such as; seriousness of offence? The second part of the study ‘Justice in the making: Key influences on decision-making’ (Gelsthorpe and Loucks, in Hedderman and Gelsthorpe, 1997) - involves analysis on approaches to sentencing of 189 lay magistrates and 8 stipendiaries. From the evidence derived from the interviews, magistrates described offenders in terms of whether they were ‘troubled’ or ‘troublesome’. Major factors that influenced decision making were motive, degree of provocation, drug/ alcohol abuse and mental state. Other factors were demeanour and appearance (Gelsthorpe et al, 1997, pp 25:1).
2.1. Sentencing
Magistrates were also of the opinion; differences in sentencing could be explained by ‘differing motives’. They were likely to view female offences as crimes of ‘survival’ or as a result of provocation or coercion (Gelsthorpe et al, 1997, pp 28:1) and portrayed male shoplifters as merely stealing out of greed (to support a habit)(Gelsthorpe et al, 1997, pp 26:3). Although, magistrates exercised less tolerance when sentencing female shoplifters who’s offences were planned and those who shared similarities to the stereotypical male shoplifter. This is supported by the opinion of McLaughlin et al (2002, pp 133:2) who defined the criminal justice systems treatment of women, as being discriminatory, sexist and that women are punished for breaching criminal law, but also traditional sex-role expectations. Research suggests a hidden element of discrimination against women who are thought to be failing in their traditional roles in society (Martin, 2002, pp 197:2).
2.2. Offenders Background
In relation to family background and possible history of abuse during childhood, reactions were varied. The majority would take such issues into consideration when deciding on a sentence. Despite this, some had no clear views on this matter (Gelsthorpe et al, 1997, pp 27:4). Magistrates were also more inclined to believe men used women in crimes on the strength they could possibly be treated more leniently (Gelsthorpe et al, 1997, pp 28:3), which may produce the disparity in sentencing of men and women facing the same charge. Stealing pension books, highlighted as one such crime. Some magistrates expressed that mitigation towards females would be granted with proof of some form of ‘mental illness’ and ‘hormonal problems’ (Gelsthorpe et al, 1997, pp 29:2).
Task 2
3. Criminological Theories
A major factor in relation to theories of crime and delinquency is failure to address the issue of gender inequalities. Heidensohn (1985) suggests sociological approaches to crime and delinquency have seriously neglected gender variables and in effect, have produced explanations of ‘male’ behaviour opposed to behaviour generally. The concept of ‘Gender’ is defined as distinguishing between ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’, being culturally determined and highly variable. Patterns of socialisation within society encourage females to become ‘feminine’ and males to become ‘masculine’ and that ‘gender roles’ are socially constructed.
3.1. Recorded Crime
Figure 1 (Home Office, 2000, Pg 10), illustrates rates of male and female offenders found guilty, or cautioned for specific indictable offences. It’s clear that women feature far less than men in the vast majority of offences. However, statistics reveal that for the offence of ‘theft and handling’, women clearly outnumber male offenders. This highlights a clear disparity in offending and conflicts with the findings of Heddermann et al (1997, pp 11:2), who found that for a similar definition of offence, women were generally more likely than men to be discharged, given a probation order, fined or given a custodial sentence, even when previous convictions were considered.
High rates of theft by females could be explained through use of ‘Labelling theory’, originated by Howard Becker (1963). It assumes that no act is intrinsically deviant. Instead, people in powerful positions define what is deviant. Once someone is labelled a criminal after her primary deviation, she will accept the label, which will result in a secondary deviation
Figure 1: Persons found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable offences, 1999: Source (Home Office Publication: Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System, 2000, Pg 10).
4. Chivalry Hypothesis
Pollak (1950) was of the opinion that police and magistrates tended to be more ‘chivalrous’ and ‘lenient’ towards female offenders, resulting in sentence disparities. Evaluating the ‘chivalry’ thesis was attempted by Farrington and Morris (1983) (Harralambos et al, 1995, pp 436:3), which involved a study of ‘sentencing’ in Magistrates courts. They discovered in 1979, 6.6% of men, but only 2% of women found guilty of indictable offences were imprisoned. Although men received more severe sentences than women, the research found the differences disappeared when the severity of offences was taken into account.
In contrast to these findings, NACRO (1980) found only 11% of males imprisoned had never been to prison before, in comparison to 33% of women prisoners (Martin, 2002, pp 196:7). Steven Box et al (1983) also found evidence against the ‘chivalry’ thesis. From his review of ‘self- report studies’, he concluded ‘the weight of evidence on women committing serious offences does not give clear support to the view that they receive differential and more favourable treatment from members of the public, police or judges’ (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995, pp 436: 2) .
4.1. Control Theory
The same study found most female prisoners were there for minor, non-violent offences. This could be explained through the use of Frances Heidensohns’ (1980) ‘Control Theory’, which questions why the vast majority of females are non deviant. She argues “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 these controls operate not only in the home, but also in public and at work. (Haralambos & Holborn; 1995, pp 442:3).
A number of studies show females are more closely supervised; more willing to accept conventional values and less likely to be involved with delinquent groups resulting from ‘patriarchy’, limiting the opportunity to commit crime. Hartmann (1982, Pg 447) defines ‘patriarchy’ as “a set of hierarchical relations which has a material base in which there are hierarchical relations between men, and solidarity amongst them, which enables them to control women”. Research regarding ‘child-rearing patterns’, by Newson and Newson (1976) found, mothers were more likely to fetch their daughters from school and less likely to permit their daughters to play in the street. Also, this protectiveness appears to extend into adolescence (Sharpe, 1976, Pg 213-214). Moore (1996, pp 170:3) suggests “the effect of these ideological expectations, is to lock women into a narrow, family- centred role, controlled to a large extent by men’’.
4.2. Sexual Violence and Social Control
Studies on gender and crime by Frances Heidensohn (1985, p182:2) concluded male and female offenders are treated differently, but not always to the detriment of women. Especially when they deviate from social norms, which Smart (1976) believed was particularly the case within rape trials. She argues such trials ‘celebrate the notions of male sexual needs and female sexual capriciousness’ (Harralambos et al, 1995, pp 436: 4). A study of ‘domestic violence’ conducted by Dobash and Dobash (1980) found the police were ‘very unlikely to make an arrest when the offender has used violence against his wife’.
An argument pursued by Smart and Smart (1978) and by Hanmer and Saunders (1984) suggests rape and other forms of aggression against women, act as implicit forms of social control, which Bilton et al (1987, Pg 185:1) believes results in women learning to behave in ways that minimise the chances of sexual assault. The crucial point being, these protective techniques involve a greater degree of restriction on the freedom of women than on the freedom of men.
Conclusion
The results of Task 1, suggests overall, women were more likely to receive less severe sentences, than men. Even when previous convictions were considered. In relation to the complexity of sentencing, the study found many influential factors are gender related, such as, family circumstances, status and appearance. The study also concluded magistrates are less inclined to fine women, possibly because of the fear of ‘marginalisation’. In relation to other sentences, where men may receive a custodial sentence, women were likely to receive either a discharge or community sentence more frequently. These results may be a conjunction of several factors such as, different practices in different courts. Task 2, endeavoured to explore and discuss criminological ideas, aimed at understanding the disparities between male and female ‘sentencing’. Finding the majority of mainstream theories failed to adequately research female delinquency and therefore explaining ‘sentence disparities’ proved inherently difficult. In relation to the ‘chivalry factor’, many studies concluded sentencing disparities disappeared when the severity of the offence was taken into account. This supports the view women are treated harsher when they deviate from societal norms and female ‘sex-role’ expectations. There’s support for the view, women who are single, divorced or who have children in care are more likely to receive a custodial sentence than women who have a stable home life. Especially in the case of violent offenders, which the first part of the study revealed, women are just as likely as men to receive custodial sentences.
Bibliography
Task 1
Flood-Page, C. and Mackie, A. (1998) Sentencing practice: an examination of decisions in magistrates’ courts and in the Crown Court in the mid-1990s, Home Office Research Study 180, London: Home Office.
Gelsthorpe, L & Loucks, N (1997) ‘Magistrates’ explanations of sentencing decisions’, in Hedderman, C & Gelsthorpe, L. (eds) Understanding the Sentencing of Women, Home Office Research Study 170, London, Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.
Hedderman, C & Gelsthorpe, L. (eds) (1997). Understanding the Sentencing of Women, Home Office Research Study 170, London, Home Office.
Home Office Prison Statistics for England and Wales, 2001
Kalven, H Zaesel, H Callahan, T and Ennis, P (1966). The American Jury, Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
McLaughlin, E and Muncie, J (2002). Controlling Crime: Crime, Order and Social Control. Second Edition. The Open University.
Moore, S (1996). Investigating Crime and Deviance. Second Edition. Sociology in Action: Collins Educational.
White, P (1999). The Prison Population in 1998: A Statistical Overview, London: HMSO
Task 2
Becker, H. S (1963). ‘Outsiders’, The Free Press: New York
Bilton, T, Bonnett, K, Jones, P, Stanworth, M, Sheard, K, Webster, A (1987). Introduction to Sociology. 2nd Edition: MacMillan Education
Box, S & Hale, C (1983). ‘Liberation and female Criminality in England and Wales’. British Journal of Criminology. Vol 23, no 1.
Dobash, R & Dobash, R (1980). Violence Against Wives, London, Open Books. Equal Opportunities Commision (1985) Ninth Annual Report 1984, Manchester, EOC.
Farrington, D.P & Morris, A.M (1983). ‘Sex, Sentencing and Reconviction’: British Journal of Criminology. Vol 23, no 3.
Hanmer, J & Saunders, S (1984). Well-Founded Fear, London: Hutchinson.
Haralambos & Holborn (1995). Sociology, Themes and Perspectives. 4th Edition: Collins Education.
Hartmann, H (1982). ‘Capitalism, Patriarchy and Job Segregation by Sex’, in Giddens, A & Held, D (eds), Classes, Power and Conflict: Basingstoke, MacMillan.
Heidensohn, F (1985). ‘Women and Crime,’ London: Palgrave: Macmillan.
Heidensohn, F (1994). ‘Gender and Crime’ in Maguire, M, Morgan, R and Reiner, R. (1994). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (1997) Women in Prison: A Thematic Review by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Home Office.
Kalven, H Zaesel, H Callahan, T and Ennis, P (1966). The American Jury, Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Newson, J & Newson, E (1976). Seven Years Old in the Home Environment, London: Allen & Unwin.
Moore, S (1996). Investigating Crime and Deviance. Second Edition. Sociology in Action: Collins Educational.
National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (1980). Women in the Penal System. London: NACRO
Pollak, O (1950). The Criminality of Women: University of Philadelphia Press: Philadelphia.
Sharpe, S (1976). Just Like a Girl, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Smart, C (1984). The Ties That Bind: Law, Marriage and the Reproduction of Patriarchal Relations, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Smart, C & Smart, B (eds) (1978). Women, Sexuality and Social Control, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
