“An increasing father absent, mother-involved family produces in men a personality that both corresponds to masculinity and male-dominance as these are currently constituted in the sex-gender system, and fits appropriately with participation in Capitalist relations of production. Men continue to enforce the sexual divisions of spheres as a defence against powerlessness in the labour market” (1978, pp 993:1).
Hagan et al (1979) (cited in Bates et al, 2003, pp 170:1) argue that parental positions in the workforce affect patriarchal attitudes in the household. Patriarchal attitudes, as defined earlier, in turn, result in different levels of control placed on boys and girls in these households. In other words, because of the greater levels of control placed on girls in patriarchal households, there are greater gender differences in delinquency in such households in that boys are more delinquent than girls. ‘Power-control’ theory argues that patriarchal attitudes affect delinquent behaviour (Hagan et al, 1990). Feeley and Little (1991) suggest that the strong social controls of women in the family, makes less necessary the use of the criminal justice system and when there is a decrease of these controls, women are more likely to be exposed to legal control. Those females that commit crime, especially crimes of a violent or sexual nature- arouse the greatest controversy and are seen as transgressing not only the law, but also sex-role norms (Wilson et al, 1998, pp 95:2). Obvious examples are the crimes of Myra Hindley and Rosemary West Myra, which are all more shocking because they are essentially female.
Feminism
Williams (2004, pp 470:1) suggests that the ‘women’s liberation’ movement or early second wave feminism of the 1960’s is one obvious source of a lessened control of females. The words feminism and feminist, in this sense, emerged in the late 19th century, what was once the women's emancipation movement became the feminist movement, also termed the ‘first-wave’, focused on the civil rights of females. More recently, in Britain during the 1960’s, women liberationists developed into a large social movement as a continuation of the ‘suffrage’ era. The second-wave renewed demands for equality, essentially concentrating on changing social, personal and cultural life which had been stifled by the male-domination within society and addressed other areas which had previously not been considered. Such as the political sphere, gender-roles, reproductive rights, violence and sexuality. During which, sociological theories began to be constructed to explain the specific experiences of women (Jones, 2003, pp 91:1).A core element essential to ‘libertarianism’ is ‘radical individualism’. They shared similar ideologies with other social movements in that they campaigned for justice, respect and democracy by consciousness-raising. In an attempt to redefine their roles within the family, the workplace and their place in society, they revolted against the mass oppression of women, facilitated through society’s male power structure, Murray (2001) suggests that “what has characterised the modern women’s movement has been its ability to put everything up for discussion” and in relation to their achievements, she comments, “In every arena, in every sphere women have attended to their own kind and made a difference”. Subsequently, this paved the way for the development of various strands of ‘feminist theories’ (see Appendix 1 for a more detailed account of the various strands of ‘feminist’ theories).
‘Opportunity’ thesis
Crime can only occur when the element of opportunity exists. Freda Adler (1970) (cited in Williams, 2004, pp 470:2) claimed that the increase in female criminality (although she assumed, rather than established, that there was an increase) was the proof of the success of the second- wave feminism. Adler (1975, p3) believed that through oppression, women lacked the power to obtain their goals by legitimate means and that the women’s movement brought about changes in status through the emancipation of women and they no longer had to conform to male definitions of femininity. Increased economic opportunities allowed women to be as crime-prone as men. Additionally, that liberation coincided with an upsurge in women’s criminal activity (ibid: 3). She comments “In the same way that women are demanding equal opportunity in fields of legitimate endeavor, a similar number of determined women are forcing their way into the world of major crimes” (ibid: p 83-84). Also, as women are 'climbing up the corporate business ladder', they are making use of their 'vocational liberation' to pursue careers in white-collar crime. A practical example of which can be seen in the high profile case of Joyti De-Laurey, Goldman Sachs secretary who stole £4.5m from her employer. She plundered her bosses' private bank accounts by forging their signatures and writing cheques to herself and spent it all on a lavish lifestyle of diamonds, designer labels and fast car.
Adler in a later study commented, “Women would naturally wish to emulate male patterns in criminality and would adopt masculine roles to do so” (Adler, 1977). She discovered that in the United States, between 1960 and 1972, robberies committed by women rose by 277%, in comparison to a 169% increase in male robberies, embezzlement by women rose by 280%, whereas for men the figure rose by 50%. Overall, arrest rates for females were rising three times as fast as those for males and particularly quickly amongst female delinquents (cited in Harralambos et al, 1995, pp 438:5). The statistical support for Adler’s theory was based on a comparison of rates of offending among genders for the period 1960 to 1972 using U.S. Uniform Crime Report (UCR) arrest data (Adler, 1975, pp 15-16). . But what evidence exists to support the ‘liberation thesis? As crime is generally linked to ‘poverty’, and that “Women are the poorest of all in our society” (Booth, 1985: 9), would ‘feminism’ not lead to less crime being committed by women, as the options for employment increase? Another criticism is her over reliance on official criminal statistics which are notoriously problematic. Recorded crime statistics only include those offences dealt with by the criminal justice system. Many offences are never reported to the police, especially ‘white-collar’ crimes which remain largely hidden, of those that are, a substantial proportion are not cleared up. Smart (1976) (cited in Haralambos et al, 1995, pp 439:2) critically responded to Adler’s argument, through use of official crime figures for England and Wales. She highlighted that although female crime did increase during the years of 1965 to 1975, it had increased more rapidly from 1935 to 1946 and from 1955 to 1965, before the women’s liberation movement had made significant progress. Also, that it is only middle-class professional or clerical worker
as exampled earlier) whose employment opportunities have been improved through ‘women’s liberation.
‘Marginalisation’
The opposite assumption of the ‘opportunity thesis’ is that women commit crimes due to the lack of opportunities to make money. The proponents of the marginalization thesis contend that: It is suggested that economic marginality is in part a consequence of liberation, where the expectation of women’s independence may not be consistent with their actual social circumstances. Box and Hale (1983) were of the opinion that the majority of women who commit serious crimes tend to be from lower-class backgrounds and are unlikely to be enfranchised through emancipation. Their research revealed that during 1951-1979, in England and Wales, there had been an increase in female crime but that male crime was also increasing at the same rate. However, statistical analysis revealed that property crimes by females had increased by 9%. Concluding on the discourse about the causal link between ‘liberation’ and female crime, Box commented “as women become economically worse off, largely through unemployment and inadequate compensatory levels of welfare benefits, so they are less able and willing to resist the temptations to engage in property offences as a way of helping to solve their financial difficulties”. Female conviction rates are significantly affected by male employment status, indicating that social conditions that are linked to female crime are a function of the economic and social position of both sexes.
Alternative Explanations
Chesney-Lind (1980, p 15) suggests that’ the invention of the ‘liberation movement’ has forced women to bear the brunt of the hostility towards the women’s movement. Real problems within the criminal justice system appear to have been obscured and such deflection may have provided those opposed to the women's movement with scientific evidence of the 'dark side of liberation' (Chesney-Lind, 1980: 16-17). Simon (et al, 1991, p. 12) suggests that in response to the women's movement, the criminal justice system has lessened their chivalry towards women who commit crimes, "creating the 'if it's equality they want, it's equality they'll get' mentality. Other feminist writers such as Brown (1986: 374) have expressed that feminism has made female crime more visible through increased reporting, policing, essentially through targeting and sentencing of female offenders. This can be observed through ‘target hardening’ a specific crime. Roger Matthews (2005, pp 877:1) points out that during the 1970’s and 1980’s, a number of vice squads emerged in different locations in England and Wales to respond to the growing public concern about street prostitution. “They adopted an essentially enforcement approach which was aimed predominantly at female prostitutes”. Additionally, the degree of sentencing would be a more acceptable index of increases in offences among women rather than statistical measures as adopted by Adler. To prove or disprove this hypothesis, we will consider current prison population statistics to verify any indication of an increased use of incarceration for female offenders. Figure 2 exhibits a collation of female prison population data in England and Wales during the period between 1990- 2004.
Between 1993 and 1998, the average population of women in prison increased by nearly 100% while the average population of men in prison increased by 45%.There were 450 young female offenders (aged under 21) in the population at the end of June 1998, 24% more than in June 1997. A study by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (1990), found that 33% of female prisoners had never been to prison before, in comparison to 11% of male prisoners. This could suggest that all females, whether adult or juvenile are contemporarily being increasingly sentenced by the criminal justice system. Contrary to this evidence, a study titled ‘Understanding the sentencing of Women’ conducted by Hedderman and Dowds (in Hedderman and Gelsthorpe, 1997), concluded that overall, women were more likely to receive less severe sentences, than men. Even when previous convictions were considered. However, for both female and male first-time violent offenders, there were no clear gender disparities in the likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence (3% of men and 3%). More importantly, many female prisoners are mothers, 55% have 1 child under 16, a third of which are under 5 (Martin, 2002, pp 197:3). This evidence suggests a hidden element of discrimination against women who are thought to be failing in their traditional ‘gender-roles’. In relation to the complexity of sentencing, the study found many influential factors are gender related, such as, family circumstances, status and appearance.
Conclusion
The aim of the essay was to analyse the discourse in regards to a possible link between the development of the modern ‘women’s movement’ and an assumed increase in female crime. Through defining the traditional role of women, both within the private sphere and the public sphere it is clear that historically, women have been systematically controlled and constrained and prevented from having the same freedom and opportunities as men, both legitimately and illegitimately. This is enabled through the facilitation of ‘Patriarchy’, a structural feature of a capitalist society. The result of which, creates conformity and limits the possibility of delinquent behaviour amongst females. From the debate, it is clear that when these mechanisms of social control diminish, there is a greater risk of deviation. Some of the studies evaluated, despite their methodological limitations and their over reliance on statistical data, do give some indication as to why women are becoming more prominent in official criminal statistics. It is also prevalent that the ‘chivalrous’ attitudes of law enforcement officials has dissolved, replaced by a more severe sentencing policy in relation to females and that this is mirrored in the current prison population statistics. Those females that do participate in crimes, especially ones of a violence nature, which is associated with ‘masculinity’, are treated harsher when they deviate from societal norms and female ‘sex-role’ expectations. There’s support for the view that, 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 study revealed, women are just as likely as men to receive a custodial sentence. The maturation and impact of the modern ‘women’s movement’ has undoubtedly influenced and altered the social control of women and has produced changes in their behaviour and the way in which they are processed within the criminal justice system. Although, there was a clear argument that refutes the effect liberation has had on the emancipation of lower-classes females. The increase in female crime is more practically explained as a result of economic marginalisation through unemployment, divorce or separation from a partner. Consideration must also be applied to the way in which female crimes, especially those of a serious nature arouse the greatest publicity and controversy, despite the obvious small amount in ratio to male crime.
Appendix 1
The Various Feminist Theories
Liberal Feminism- This perspective is essentially concerned with equal rights and opportunities for women by demonstrating how women are being ignored and has primarily concentrated on sex differentials in crime and discrimination practices in the criminal justice system in its research.
-
Radical Feminism- This perspective focuses on the oppression of women by men and examines how women came to occupy subservient roles within society by focusing on their physiology (the necessity to bear children). For Radical Feminist Criminologists, the only way to understand crime is to see it through a female perspective.
-
Socialist Feminism- This perspective views oppression as rooted in patriarchal capitalism. They support practical action to improve the position of women’s lives on an everyday basis.
-
Post-modern Feminism- Its approach is broadly ‘deconstructionist’. Writers such as Carol Smart (1990) proposed that the very concerns of Criminology (Burglary, street crime, etc) are actually a reflection of male concerns and that women should be looking beyond those to consider how harm comes to women. It is also opposed to accepting the ‘male’ boundaries that other theories offer.
-
Marxist Feminism- This approach views ‘patriarchal ideology’, male domination and female subordination as developing out of the relations produced by the capitalist system. For Marxist Feminists, we need to rid society of capitalism and then gender inequalities will also be remedied.
Bibliography
Adler, F. (1975), Sisters in crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Borgatta, E and Montgomery, R (2000). Encyclopaedia of Sociology. 2nd Edition, MacMillan Reference: New York.
Brown, B (1986). ‘Women and Crime: The Dark Figure of Criminology’. Economy and Society, vol. 15: 355-402.
Campbell, A. (1981), Girl Delinquents, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Carlen, P. (1988), ‘Women, Crime and Poverty’, Millton Keynes: Open University Press.
Carlen, P. (2002), Women and Punishment: The Struggle for Justice, Cullumpton: Willan Publishing.
Chesney-Lind, M (1980). ‘Rediscovering Lileth: Misogyny and The Female Criminality’, in Taylor Griffiths, C and Nance, M (eds), ‘The Female Offenders’: Simon Frazer University, New York.
Feeley, M, Little, D, (1991), ‘The Vanishing Female: The Decline of Women in the Criminal Process’. 1687-1912’. Law Society Review, vol 25: 719-757.
Gelsthorpe, L and Morris, A (1990), ‘Feminist Perspectives in Criminology’, London: Old Bailey Press.
Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (2002), ‘Women’s Imprisonment in England and Wales in the 1990’s: A Penal Paradox’, Criminal Justice, vol.20 (3), p 277.
Heidensohn, F. (1985), ‘Women and Crim’e, London: Macmillan.
Heidensohn, F. (1992), ‘Women in Control’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lombroso, Cesare (with Ferrero, G.) (1895), ‘The Female Offender’, London: Unwin.
Martin, J, (2002). ‘The English Legal System’. Third Edition: Hodder & Sloughton.
National Association for the Resettlement of Offenders (1990). Suicides in Prison.
Pollak, O. (1950), ‘The Criminality of Women’, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Smart, C. (1976), ‘Women, Crime and Criminology’: a Feminist Critique, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Smart, C and Smart, B. (1987), ‘Women, Sexuality and Social Control’, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smart, C (1989) ‘Feminism and The Power of Law’: Routledge, London.
Smart, C. (1990), ‘Feminist Approaches to Criminology, or Postmodern Women Meets Atavistic man’, in Lorraine Gelsthorpe and Alison Morris, ‘Feminist Perspectives in Criminology’, London: Old Bailey Press.
Williams, K (2004), Textbook on Criminology. Fifth Edition: Oxford University Press: New York.
Wilson, D and Ashton, P (1998). ‘Crime and Punishment’: Blackstone Press, London
Table of Journals
Box, S and Hale, C (1983). ‘Liberation and Female Criminality in England and Wales’, British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 23, No 1.
Hagan, J, Simpson, J, and Gillis, A, (1979). ‘The Sexual Stratification of Social Control: A Gender-Based Perspective on Crime and Delinquency’. British Journal of Sociology, vol. 30: 25-38.
Matthews, R, (2005). ‘Policing Prostitution’. British Journal of Criminology, vol 45, p 877-895. Advance Access publication, 3rd may 2005.
Smart, C (1979), ‘The New female Criminal: reality or myth’.British Journal of Criminology, vol. 19 (1979).
