Lombroso and Ferrero (1885) were the first criminologists to study the biological appearance of female offenders. Lombroso was one of the pioneers of criminology and his work represents some of the first theorising that was made. The idea of atavism or social Darwinism was central to Lombroso who argued that females were born criminal, and that these women were genetic throwbacks. This was considered rather radical at the time; Darwin’s work had only just appeared. Lombroso considered the white male to be the most advanced human and the non-white female to be the most primitive. By measuring the physical appearance of a control group of prisoners Lombroso sought to find physical signs of atavism. Theses people had simply not evolved enough to understand the complex rules modern societies are governed by. The female criminal proved problematic to Lombroso though, as the fact that she was deemed less advanced yet committed crime less was an anomaly. Lombroso solved this problem by pointing to a larger cerebral cortex on female offender. Here was proof that these criminal women were actually nearer to men! The female offender was unnatural, masculine and an ‘inversion of all the qualities which specially distinguish the normal woman, namely reserve, docility, and sexual apathy’ (Lombroso 1885).
This stereotype of women as being ideally passive and therefore not inherently criminal would live on in Thomas’ work (1907). However he deviated from Lombroso by stating that the female criminal was amoral rather than immoral. It was Thomas’ position that women by nature are very emotional creatures, and that the need to give and receive explained such crime as prostitution.
These stereotypes all painted the female offender as a passive, docile creature, completely controlled by her biology. Feminists have consistently criticised the methodology of Lombroso’s work and his theory of atavism. It ignores social factors in explaining crime by ignoring the link between the poor social conditions of the Sicilians that made up a large amount of the criminals Lombroso inspected. Sicilians, rather than Italians possessed more of the characteristics that Lombroso thought were atavistic. However they also came from an economically inferior background. Lombroso’s work was also racist, as certain ethnic groups possess the characteristics he considered atavistic more than others. To deem a whole race of people as ‘born criminal’ is a statement that would not be popular now.
Psychological accounts of female criminality have also faced criticism from feminists. Freud is the most prominent example of this. Again Lombroso’s legacy was present in his work, however he added to it. Whilst Lombroso thought that you were either born criminal or non-criminal (he later went on to change his mind), Freud included external factors. He attributed female criminality to the biologically inferior nature of women. He believed that female defectiveness was due to ‘penis envy’. This sexual neurosis caused crime. His theory of oedipal conflict portrayed females as morally weak and unable to control deviant behaviour. The male had learnt control as he had feared castration by his jealous father. The female had not developed this strong conscience, although the birth of a child was considered therapeutic by Freud.
Pollack’s sex based theory was also based on the perceived negative qualities of women. He claimed that women were forced to lie, conceal and manipulate to please their husbands. He portrayed women as often being the instigator of crime that men carried out. Female criminality linked to menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause the only crime that women were likely to commit was as a result of the characteristics of deceitfulness, and spite. This covered shoplifting, infanticide and poisoning. He also thought that the disproportionate amount of women sentenced was down to ‘chivalry’ on behalf of officers of law.
Carol Smart stated that up until, at least the last third of the last century the majority of mainstream theories involved research into male delinquents/ criminals. These experiences were interpreted through the eyes of predominantly male researchers.
Females were either not considered at all, or if considered, were viewed in terms broader societal conceptions of the female nature and role. Simply put, most theories were androcentric and sexist. There was a failure to view female crime as "purposive action", as opposed to innate weakness and irrationality. Women’s criminality certainly wasn’t based on ‘rational choice’. This has lead to: The 'generalisability problem’. This is concerned with whether or not general theories take account of both women's and men's criminality.
This canon of work all relied on an early twentieth century image of the ideal upper class lady. Feminists would argue that it is the stereotype that has been created by a male dominated society, and has been legitimised by this work. The achievements of feminism have been to criticise this legacy and find new ways to explain why women act criminally and what can explain the rate of female criminality. I will outline the basic approach to criminology taken by the various branches of feminism. As an approach it has been critical of what went before but also has been particularly busy in determining the relationship between the liberation of women and the rate of crime. Numerous attempts have been made at understanding this relationship.
Freda Adler in ‘Sisters in Crime’ asserted that the second wave of feminism coincided with a dramatic upsurge in the offending rates for women. It was her thesis that whilst women had achieved equality of opportunity in legitimate fields, they had ‘also forced their way into the world of major crime, murder and robbery (1975). Adler felt that as women climb the career ladder they are given the opportunity to break into the formerly dominated world of white collar crime. This is known as the opportunity thesis. Simon in ‘women and crime’ argued that these opportunities were still limited to mostly financial and property crimes. Women’s forays into the job market and education mean that they are less likely to commit violent crime. Although both of these theories link emancipation to increased criminality they differ on two vital points. Firstly, on whether they liberation has made women more violent, and whether criminality arises out of an increased gap to which liberations give rise.
The second wave of feminism started in the late 60s. It was called the ‘women’s liberation movement’ and championed the causes of greater social, political and economic equality. These liberal feminists argue that women are constantly undermined in research and that they should always be included in any investigation. Liberal feminists’ contribution to criminology has looked at the sexual differences of women who commit crime. Pollack (1960) is often cited as an example of discriminatory practice. Feminists within this branch identify the fact there are family issues, personal issues and other factors that influence women to offend.
Radical feminism concentrates more on the active oppression of women by men. These radicals place a great emphasis on ‘victim studies’. The term ‘survivor’ rather than victim was coined as it is supposed to denote a more active and positive role to women. The existence of male on female violence has been a central focus of feminist politics. Radical feminism has its critics though; the biological determinism has come under critical attack. As has the idea of an all pervasive patriarchy, which fails to take into account class and ethnic differences.
The work and ideas of Messerschmitt have informed much socialist feminist debate. He identified two main ideas. Firstly, that an understanding of crime had to be based on capitalism and patriarchy. Further, that the concept of power was important to understanding the more serious crimes. Cohen (1990) argues that female behaviour should not be seen as different as men’s. It is the threefold effect of classism, sexism and racism that effect criminal behaviour.
Post modernist feminism is often seen as having little impact on criminology. However its importance given to language that’s its biggest contribution. The concept of the ‘other’ is important; this problematises grand universal theorising that uses the term women to denote all women. This approach substitutes language production for economic explanations and studies the dominant male discourse that sets women apart.
The subject of the most feminist attention has been crime committed by male against female, usually domestic violence and rape. Feminist voices have resulted in direct changes in the way that these matters are viewed. Burke points to the special suites now available to rape victims, and the legal provisions that have resulted in the increased reporting of rape.
The feminist approach to criminology’s achievements has been that they have challenged the status quo. The new theories borne of feminism all react to and criticise theory that already exists. The ‘male stream’ that was a product of an outdated discourse has been one of the main victims. Feminism has forced criminologists to look at and defend certain forms of knowledge and methodology. Feminist’s contributions not only force us to revaluate and defend work but have expanded the scope of criminology to understand the experiences of women.
Bibliography:
Gelsthorpe, L. (1990) Feminist Perspectives in Criminology (Milton Keynes: Open University press)
Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (1990) Feminist Perspectives in Criminology: New Directions in Criminology (Milton Keynes: Open University press)
Smart, C. (1976) Women, Crime and Criminology: A feminist critique (London: Routledge)
Williams, K. Textbook on Criminology (2002) Blackstone Press
