Women and the CJS - chivalry thesis, bias against women

Criminology

• Neglected female crime as was male-dominated

• Feminists now filling this gap

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — violent crime

• 84% men

• 16% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — s3xual crime

• 98% men

• 2% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — robbery

• 92% men

• 8% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — theft

• 79% men

• 21% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — criminal damage

• 86% men

• 14% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — drugs

• 92% men

• 8% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — weapons

• 93% men

• 7% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — public orders

• 89% men

• 11% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — fraud

• 67% men

• 33% women

2019 — gender of offenders (🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) — misc. crime

• 87% men

• 13% women

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012)

• Gender differences = most significant feature of recorded crime

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — fraction of convicted offenders in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 who are men

3/4

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — % of men who have a criminal conviction by 40 y/o

32%

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — % of women who have a criminal conviction by 40 y/o

9%

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — offence that has a high proportion of women

• Property offences (minus burglary)

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — offence that has a high proportion of men

• Violence/sexual offences

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — 3 things men are more likely to do than women

1. Reoffend

2. Have larger criminal careers

3. Commit more serious crimes

Heidensohn and Silvestri (2012) — men = -x more likely to be convicted of homicide

15x

2 factors in the underestimation of female crime

1. Under-reporting (prostitution and shoplifting are unnoticed or unreported)

2. Under-prosecution (women likely to get off on good behaviour or not get prosecuted as are primary caregiver)

2012 — average custodial sentence length for women

9.9 months

2012 — average custodial sentence length for men

18.8 months

1 reason to not send women into prison

1. Puts more children in care which leads to higher offending rates later on

Smart

• Women ignored in criminology

  • Fewer crimes committed, any crime seen as trivial

    • Women’s behaviour seen as less problematic than men’s

      • Criminology dominated by men

Chivalry thesis

• Male criminal justice agents socialised to act in a chivalrous way towards women

Chivalry thesis — Pollak (1950)

• Men have a protective and more lenient attitude towards women

  • Men (👮‍♂) don’t arrest them

  • Men (👨‍💼) don’t prosecute them

  • Men (👨‍⚖) don’t find them guilty

Chivalry thesis — Pollak (1950) — official statistics

• Underrepresented

• Creates invalid picture of crime

• Exaggerates gender differences in offending

Self-report studies key finding

• Women treated more leniently

Self-report studies — Graham and Bowling (1995)

• 1,721 14-25 y/os

  • Men more likely to re-offend but not by as much as official stats

Self-report studies — Graham and Bowling (1995) — men = -x more likely to admit having committed an offence in the last year (+ official stats)

• 2.33x

• Official stats = 4x

Self-report studies — Flood-Page et al (2000) — number of female self-reported offenders cautioned/prosecuted

1 in 11

Self-report studies — Flood-Page et al (2000) — number of male self-reported offenders cautioned/prosecuted

1 in 7

CRITICISM of CT — self-report studies — men

• More likely to commit offences

  • More likely to binge drink/drugs/disorderly conduct

CRITICISM of CT — self-report studies — more serious offences

• More serious offences = larger gender gap in offences

CRITICISM of CT — self-report studies — Hales et al (2004)

• Men more likely to be offenders in all major categories

Number of men who shoplift that get a prison sentence for it

1 in 5

Number of women who shoplift that get a prison sentence for it

1 in 9

4 ways official statistics support the chivalry thesis

1. Women more likely to be released on bail

2. Women more likely to get a fine/community sentence

3. Women less likely to be sent to prison

4. Women less likely to get a prison sentence for shoplifting

Hood (1992) — women -x less likely to be jailed

• 3x

  • Study of 3,000 defendants

CRITICISM of CT — Farrington and Morris (1983)

• Studied 480 theft offences

• Women not sentenced more leniently

CRITICISM of CT — Box (1981)

• Women commiting serious offences not treated better than men

CRITICISM of CT — Buckle and Farrington (1984)

• 2x more male shoplifters yet official stats show men = women

  • Shows female shoplifters more likely to be prosecuted

2 CRITICISMS of CT

1. Women treated more leniently as commit less serious crimes

2. Women more likely to show remose and therefore more likely to be cautioned instead of jailed

CRITICISM of CT — undereporting of male crimes against women — 2012 % of SA victims that reported it

8%

CRITICISM of CT — undereporting of male crimes against women — Yearnshire (1997) — number of assults suffered before women report DV

35

Heidensohn (1996) — 2 aspects of CJS bias against women

1. Courts treat women more harshly when they deviate from gender norms

• If don’t conform to monogamous heterosexuality and motherhood they’re punished

2. Double standards

• Women way more punished for premature/promiscious sexual activity

  • May end up in care w/out having committed an offence

Sharpe (2009) — proportion of girls and boys registered for support due to sexual activity

• 7/11 girls

• 0/44 boys

Steward (2006) — magistrates

• Magistrates judge defendants on sterotypical gender roles

Carlen (1997) — 3 aspects of CJS sexism

1. Women often jailed for court’s assessment of then as wives, mothers and daughters instead of their crime

2. Girls believed by parents to be beyond countrol more likely to be jailed

3. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 judges more likely to emprison women with children in care than those they saw as good mothers

Causes of double standards — patriarchal CJS — Smart (1989)

• Judge

• “Women who say no do not always mean no. […] If she doesn’t want it, she clearly has to keep her legs shut.”

Patriarchal CJS — Walklate (1998) — r4pe cases

• Actually just put the victim on trial

  • Have to prove their respectability to have their evidence accepted

Patriarchal CJS — Adler (1987) — single mums

• “Unrespectable” women (i.e. single mums) often have testimony not believed by the court