Social distribution of Crime

Chivalry thesis

Argues most justice agents are men, officers, magistrates, judges, and men are socialised to act chivalrous. Pollak 1950 ‘Men hate to accuse women and thus send them to their punishment’. The system is then more lenient

Graham and Bowling 1995 research on 1700 14-25 year-olds found men were 2.33 times more likely than women to admit to committing an offence in the last year however this is less than the 4 times more likely to commit crime in official statistics. 

• Women more likely to be released on bail, in crown courts 19% of  females kept but 38% males

• More likely to receive a fine or community service

• 1 in 9 women receive prison for shoplifting but 1 in 5 men

Evidence against chivalry thesis

• Farrington and Morris 1983 study of 400 offences in magistrates course found men’s more severe sentences could be entirely explained when severity of crime was taken into account. Women could also be more likely to show remorse and is why they could receive a caution.

• Thesis ignores the many male crimes not getting reported. In 2013 only 8% of SA’d women reported it, 1997 Yearnshire found a woman typically suffers 35 assaults before reporting domestic violence. 

• Crimes of the powerful are also under-represented in self-report surveys and these are more likely to be committed by men due to privilege in the job market. 

Bias against women in CJS

• Heidensohn 1985 argues female offenders are actually punished more harshly because they are seen as double deviants, not only broken the law but offended norms behind sex-role behaviour. 

• Sharpe 2009 found from 55 youth work records, 7/11 girls referred for support because of sexual activity but none of 44 boys. Women who don’t conform to monogamy, heterosexuality, motherhood are punished more harshly, 

• Carlen 1997 argues when women are jailed is less for their crimes and more of an assessment of their roles as a wife and mother. Scottish judges were more likely to jail women whose children were in care than women who they saw as good mothers. 

• Feminists argue that double standards exist because system is patriarchal, evident in rape cases. Walklate 1998 agues in rape cases its not the defendant on trial but the victim since she has to prove her respectability.

Functionalist sex-role theory + eval

Parsons 1955 links differences in crime to the conventional nuclear family. Men take the instrumental, breadwinner role performed outside of the home, women take the expressive role where they socialise children. Gives girls a female role model but boys reject feminine models of behaviour and distance themselves by engaging in ‘compensatory compulsory masculinity’.

Cohen 1955 says lack of male role models means more likely to turn to male street gangs as a source of masculine identity. 

Walklate 2003 criticises theory for its biological assumptions. Parson assumes as women bear children, they are the best suited to the expressive role. Ultimately based on bioessentialist logic.

Heidensohn Control 1985 + eval

Level of patriarchal control in different spheres of life is the reason for differing criminality. Women are controlled in public and private spheres. More dominant in domestic sphere which has limited opportunities for criminality, and the role of mother is time consuming. Men are more dominant in public and work spheres and aim to enforce dominance through force, politics or employment over women in public which also controls them. Behaviour also policed by women through informal mechanisms of control like gossip and judgement

Employment has become feminised yet only 1 in 3 CEOs are women

• Appears dated- more women working and greater involvement in work and public spheres

• Rising female criminality suggests a loss of patriarchal controls

Adler Liberation thesis 1975 + modern

Women were traditionally restricted to domestic sphere, limiting legitimate and illegitimate opportunities.

• Empowerment of women increased self-confidence to challenge feminine stereotypes. Girls are into being more assertive and financially independent.

• However increased strain to become providers for their family leads to greater dissatisfaction.

• Rise of feminism mostly correlates the rise in female criminality. 1950s 1 in 7 crimes in the UK were women, now 1 in 4. From 1960 to 1972 280% increase female embezzlers,

• women's criminality was restricted to prostitution and shoplifting, now more serious crimes like violent assaults, fraud, and white-collar and corporate crimes- ‘masculine crime’

Modern application, Heidensohn and Silvestri 2012 argue this idea of liberated females has continued, linked to perception of ‘ladette’ who participates in drinking and delinquency, verging on a moral panic of the ‘shemale’ gangster, no longer spectating in periphery of violence

Evaluation liberation thesis + modern girls

• Female crime rose (1950s) before the impacts of second wave feminism (1970s) despite strong correlation, overstating feminism's role

• Heidensohn argues ‘criminal women are among those last likely to be affected by feminism’ and white MC women who it does affect are the least criminal. 

Laidler and Hunt 2001 traditional gender roles are still placed on girls in gangs, Contemporary research suggests girls are often taking on submissive roles. 3rd wave feminism may not have had much impact on their socialisation

Carlen Control 1988

Patriarchal control limits socially approved pathways. Select women turn to criminality as they have barriers to following legitimate paths. Rejected Adler's ideas of liberation, women are still largely controlled by social expectation. 

A 1988 of WC women found they had not gained access to jobs and liberation, still facing restriction. Couldn’t acces the:

Class Deal- Women who chose employment were rewarded for their labour. Comforts of material gains, expected to be obedient to employers and passive and submissive.

Gender deal- Conforming to roles as housewife and mothers. Rewarded emotionally for caring for their children, psychological reward. Financial security provided by their partner

. Most women had a history of poverty growing in care, domestic abuse so class and gender deal blocked.

Corston report 2007 background of women in prison, history of long term unemployment, 61% left school with no qualifications, 1 in 5 no permanent residence, 1 in 3 lone parents

Evaluation Carlen Control

Contemporary society has a pressure to conform to both deals, increasing control and social pressures, levels of informal control

Aganist

• Postmodernists would argue women have more choice and class deal is diverse and many pathways, emotional rewards not limited to caring for women

• Critics say the role of patriarchy is overstated in setting deals

• Carlen’s sample does not explain criminality of working women or mothers, only focuses on her deals

Hegemonic masculinity

Messerschmidt 1993: Social angle of Hegemonic Masculinity- males are socialised into providers . Physical strength valued over intellect + heterosexuality bordering on misogyny. Gender is a social construction and dominant form of masculinity can cause criminal behaviour.Men are also socialised by media, shown images of a ‘real man’

Men react to having less power, such as being subordinate to a teacher or manager, and can challenge at home leading to domestic violence.

Not all men are well-placed to display masculinity legitimately, turn to crime to demonstrate. White MC youth adopt ‘accommodating masculinity’ in education to not jeopardise success however WC youth have less chance of success so construct masculinity around physical aggression

Mugging moral panic

Stuart Hal et al 1979: The RC are typically able to maintain control without force, through hegemony, but more difficult in times of crisis. Individuals subject to high inflation and unemployment are more likely to oppose capitalist ideologies. Therefore RC needs to create a narrative of fear to legitimise a use of force

Justifies the 1970s moral panic around the supposed growth in ‘mugging’, relabelling old crime of violent street robbery to suggest a resurgence in crime, without legitimate increase. ‘Mugging’ was associated with Black youth by the media+police

Argues that this moral panic coincided intentionally with the crisis of capitalism, in order to distract the WC from the true issues, myth of black violence became a scapegoat. Black criminality then became a symbol of social disorder in itself, supported by anti-immigration fearmongering and rhetoric creating an ‘us vs them’ narrative

Don’t believe that crime among black youths is purely due to stereotyping or the media. The crisis of capitalism was creating further marginalisation for Black youth due to unemployment, and therefore many of these youths were driven into criminality due to societal strain and lack of legitimate opportunity.

Hall moral panic staitsics

• Relating to Hall’s theory on moral panic, between August 1972-3, 60 events were reported as muggings in daily papers- highlighting a new and frightening crime. Home secretary quoted 129% increase in muggings in previous four years. 

• However, Hall notes because there is no legally defined crime called mugging, the Home secretary can’t measure its extent and could find no basis for this increase. From their own examination, robbery and intent to rob rose 12% from 1962-72 but 33% 1955-65, this type of crime was growing slower

Mugging moral panic evaluation

• Downes and Rock (1988) made the argument that Hall et al were inconsistent within their own theory (as they claimed that there was not an increase in Black street crime, but also that there was an increase due to unemployment).  Hall et al seemed to change their views on whether or not crime was rising according to how it could benefit their argument.

• Hall et al also do not explain the relation between how the capitalist crisis led to panic, whether the concurrence was manufactured or simply capitalised on. They also lack evidence that the public were panicking, or blaming Black youth for a rise in crime. 

• Left realists would argue that fear around crime is justified and realistic.

Gilroy- The myth of black criminality

Argues that black criminality is a myth born from racist stereotypes.

In their view, ethnic minority crime can be seen as a form of political resistance against racist society which has roots in British imperialism.

Many Black and Asian people in the UK originated from British colonies where they were taught to resist oppression through force. When facing racism in modern society, they adopted similar methods but have been criminalised by the state.

As a result of the police and justice system, this criminalisation means EMs end up in greater number in official statistics

Similar view to critical criminology which argues WC crime is resistance against capitalism.

Left realist criticism of Gilroy

• First generation immigrants in the 50s and 60s were law-abiding so unlikely they passed on resistance to their children

• Most crime is intra-ethnic (same background) so isn’t anti colonial against racism- argue that neo-marxists romanticise street crime as revolutionary

• Police racism can’t explain it as only 8% of crime is uncovered by police, the rest is public

• Asian crime rates are similar/lower than whites, if GIlroy is right then the police are only racist towards Black people and not Asians.

Recent approaches to EM crime

• Neighbourhood: Fitzgerald et al 2003 examine the role of neighbourhood factors.  Found rates were highest in poor areas where young people came in contact with the affluent. Young black people are more likely to live in these places but white people also affected were more likely to commit crime. Ethnicity isn’t the cause but black people are more likely to live in poor areas because of racism in the housing market

• Getting caught: Sharp and Budd 2005 found black offenders more likely to be arrested than white. Due to them being more likely to commit robbery where victims can identify them and many are associated with known criminals, raising visibility to authorities

Left realist Ethnic minority crime

Lea and Young 1993 argue statistics reflect real differences in levels of offending by different ems. Racism has led to economic exclusion of ethnic groups, facing higher unemployment and poorer housing ,relative deprivation. Media and consumerism sets unrealistic goals minorities can’t hope to obtain

One response formation of delinquent subcultures, higher level of utilitarian crime to cope with deprivation. No organisation represents their interests (marginalisation) so also produces non-utilitarian crime such as protest and violence.

Police sometimes act in racist ways but they don’t believe this fully explains the differences in statistics.Only 8% of crime discovered by police- rest is reported by public. black people are more criminalised than asian so police would be very selective of their racism. (could be because stereotypes of asians as passive) Conclude statistics represent reality but this is due to relative deprivation. 

Macphereson report

Stephen Lawrence, an 18 year old African Caribbean in London was stabbed to death in an unprovoked racist attack at a bus stop in 1993, by a white youth gang. After the initial investigation 5 suspects were arrested but not convicted. They wrongly assumed he was involved in drug gangs and dismissed his victimhood.  It lead to a deeply flawed police investigation, which led to accusations of institutional racism due to their mishandling of the case

A Landmark Macpherson report in 1999 diagnosed the metropolitan police as institutionally racist

After a tireless campaign from his parents, only 2 of his killers were convicted in 2012 after years of initial failed prosecutions. 

Led to Race relations amendment act 2000 imposed duty on public bodies for equality. Can be applied to all CJS

Self report statstics evidencing insitutional racism

Largest study on EM self-report offending from 2003,

• 10% white committed crime in last year compared to 7% black, 5% asian.

• Over a lifetime 42% white, 28% black, had committed a crime, white has the highest of all.

Limitation of the survey relies on honesty but would affect all groups similarly. This means there’s a mismatch between representation in CJS stats and self-report surveys, suggests institutional racism

Underepresentation of white collar

1. hidden from view and hard to detect – Clark and Croall 2001, offences are invisible, offenders have the right to be there at work 

2.  without personal victims – Croall 2001, less obvious personal harm victims appear impersonal – they are often ‘complaintless crimes’

3. They may benefit both parties concerned– Bribery or corruption both parties stand to gain something – both parties try to conceal.

4. They are not prosecuted or dealt with – corporate crimes often only receive a fine or an enforcement notice rather than police interventions – ‘institutional protection’ crimes are rarely reported to protect the interest of the company

5. Offenders have a better chance of being found not guilty – Most juries hold the large stereotype that most crime is a WC phenomenon

Therefore levels of offending may not be that different but types of crime committed are different and corporate crime is less likely to be caught