Women and crime

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) — proportion 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

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

1 in 5

Proportion 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

Hand and Dodd (2009) — 2000-2008 % increase/year for women arrested for violent crime in 🇨🇦, 🇦🇺 and 🇺🇸

17%

Criminalisation of women — 🇺🇸 Steffenmeier and Schwartz (2009)

• 1980-2003

  • Women’s share of arrests for violence 1/5 → 1/3

  • Not shown in victim surveys or self-report studies so suggests an increase in female criminalisation (not female crime)

Criminalisation of women — 🇺🇸 Steffenmeier and Schwartz (2009) — net widening

• Forces of order arrest and prosecute women for less serious forms of violence than boys e.g. low-level physical altercations

Criminalisation of women — 🇺🇸 Chesney-Lind (2006)

• Mandatory arrests for both parties involved in DV → seeming increase in female violence rates

  • Women used to be ignored by police, now arrested

Criminalisation of women — 🇬🇧 Sharpe and Gelsthrope (2009)

• Netwidening policies → rise in official stats of female violent crimes

Criminalisation of women — Young (2011)

• Netwidening = part of ‘defining deviance up’ to include trivial offences

Criminalisation of women — Worrall (2004)

• Girls’ misbehaviour has gone from welfare issue → criminality

Moral panic about girls — Burnman and Batchelor (2009)

• Media depicts young girls as drunk/disorderly/out of control/looking for fights

  • Then impacts CJS

Moral panic about girls — Sharpe (2009)

• Professionals influenced by media stereotypes of “ladettes”

  • Believe female violent behaviour is getting worse

Moral panic about girls — 🇺🇸 Steffenmeier et al (2005)

• Media-driven moral panic about women → influence on sentences

  • More reports of female misbehaviour → courts take tougher stance → more convictions → more reports…

Gender and victimisation — CSEW (2012)

• Gender differences in levels and types of victimisation

Gender and victimisation — homoicide victims % men

70%

Gender and victimisation — male homicide victims

• More likely to be killed by a friend/acquaintance

Gender and victimisation — female homicide victims

• More likely to know killer

Gender and victimisation — female homicide victims % killed by (ex-)partner

60%

Gender and victimisation — vicims of violence

• Majority men

• Women more victims of intimate violence

  • More likely to experience personal repercussions if reported

Gender and victimisation — % of women that experience DV during their adult life

25%

Gender and victimisation — women -x more likely to report SA

5x

Gender and victimisation — % of SA that’s reported

8%

Gender and victimisation — proportion of women who didn’t report SA as they didn’t think the police could do much

1/3

Gender and victimisation — Walby and Allen (2004)

• Women more likely to be victims of multiple incidents of DV

Gender and victimisation — Ansara and Hindin (2011)

• Women experience more severe violence and control

Gender and victimisation — fear v risk

• Most women have fear that’s disproportionate to the risk they experience

Gender and victimisation — Lea and Young (1993)

• Women more at risk than men for crime

Gender and victimisation — Sparks et al (1977)

• Female victims of violence less likely to be interviewed

Functionalist s3x role theory

• Socialisation

• Men → encouraged to be tough/aggressive → more violent, take advantage of criminal opportunities

Functionalist s3x role theory — Parsons (1955)

• Traditional gender roles in families (expressive/instrumental

  • Women have access to an adult role model at home

  • Men don’t have access to an adult role model at home so

    • Reject femininity — feminine men are called sissies/gay

      • Accept compensatory compuslory masculinity via acts that lead to delinquency like aggressiveness or anti-social behaviour

Functionalist s3x role theory — Cohen (1955)

• Men have less of a role in socialising → difficulties w/male socialisation

  • Boys turn to all-male street gangs for source of masculine ID

Functionalist s3x role theory — NR

• Lack of a male role model in matrifocal single families → male delinquency

CRITICISM of functionalist s3x role theory — Walklate (2003)

• Based on biological assumptions

  • Women not just suited for expressive role because they can carry children

CRITICISM of functionalist s3x role theory

• Ignores CA(G)ES

Patriarchal control — Heidensohn (1996)

• Female behaviour is conformist due to patriarchal soc’s control over. them

  • They have no opportunities to offend

Patriarchal control — Heidensohn (1996) — 3 areas in which women are controlled

1. 🏠

2. Public

3. Work

Patriarchal control — Heidensohn (1996) — 2 aspects of control @ 🏠

1. Domestic role restricts 🕰 and movement

• Fewer opportunities to offend

2. Rejection of domestic role → DV

Dobash and Dobash (1979)

• Violent attacks result from dissatisfaction with performance of domestic duties

Patriarchal control — Heidensohn (1996) — 3 aspects of control in public

1. Threat of male violence

2. Media increases fear by presenting rapists as random strangers

3. Fear of definition as irrespectable (👗, 💄, 🗣)

• Seen as s3x workers if wear nice clothes/go to pubs

Islington Crime Survey — % of men and women that avoid going out after 🌚

• Men = 14%

• Women = 54%

Lees (1993)

• Boys control girls at school using verbal abuse

  • E.g. calling them slags

Patriarchal control — Heidensohn (1996) — 2 ways women are controlled at work

1. Male managers — sexual harassment

2. Subordinate positions due to glass ceiling

• Fewer opportunities to commit fraud etc.)

Class and gender deals — Carlen (1988) — methodology

• Unstructured interviews

• 39 15-46 y/o working class women

  • Convicted of a range of crimes

Class and gender deals — Carlen (1988) — 2 main causes of criminality

1. Being in care

2. Having an oppressive family life

Class and gender deals — Carlen (1988)

• Version of Hirschi’s control theory

  • We react rationally and are controlled via a ‘deal’

• 2 types of ‘deal’ for W/C women

1. Class deal

2. Gender deal

Class and gender deals — Carlen (1988) — class deal

• Conform to social norms → work → get material rewards

  • BUT if can’t find legit work → can’t get material rewards → crime

• 32/39 women weere always in poverty

• Some could use their qualis but others couldn’t despite doing training courses

• Found claiming benefits difficult

Class and gender deals — Carlen (1988) — gender deal

• Conform to domestic role → emotional rewards from family life

• Many women didn’t have the opportunity/will to make this deal

  • Had been abused

  • More than 50% had spent time in care, run away and been left homeless/unemployed/poor

CRITICISM of Carlen (1988)

• Sample both small and unrepresentative, covering only W/C and serious offenders

  • BUT access and depth would have been difficult with more people

CRITICISM of Carlen (1988) and Heidensohn (1996)

• See female behaviour as determined by external forces

  • Underplays element of free will

Liberation thesis — Adler (1975) — 3 elements that have contributed to increase in female crime

1. Less influence of patriarchy

2. More female liberation → new type of female criminal

3. Structural changes

Liberation thesis — evidence

• Crime rate increased from 1950s to 90s from 1 in 7 to 1 in 6