Gender, Inequality and Crime

Feminist Theories of Gender and Inequality

Women’s offending began to be studied seriously during the 1960s, coinciding with the rise of second-wave feminism. Feminist criminology emerged as a vital corrective to the near-exclusion of women from mainstream criminological research. Its core aims include exposing patriarchal oppression, sexism, and discriminatory practices embedded within the criminal justice system (CJS), and challenging the earlier criminological tendency to depict women offenders as psychologically or emotionally disturbed rather than as rational actors. Key scholars and early texts, such as Daly & Chesney-Lind (1988) and Smart (1976), provided foundational statements linking women’s structural oppression to crime. Furthermore, Burgess-Proctor (2006) and Gelsthorpe & Morris (1988) documented sexist practices within the CJS, while Carlen & Worrall (2004) offered a critique of the male focus prevalent in mainstream criminology.

Differential Treatment of Women in the Courts

A central debate in feminist criminology concerns whether women are treated more leniently or more harshly by the courts. The chivalry thesis, advocated by scholars like Carlen (1983) and Farrington & Morris (1983), posits that male judges extend paternalistic “chivalry,” leading to lighter sentences for women. Conversely, the evil woman / double-deviance thesis, supported by Chesney-Lind (1995) and Simon (1996), argues that women who violate dominant feminine norms, such as violent offenders, are punished more harshly than comparable men. Empirical findings vary; for instance, Jeffries (2002) in New Zealand found that women are often framed as either “not real” criminals or “not women” at all. This often involves applying stereotypes like nurturers, dependants, pathological individuals, or victims, which diminishes their agency and accountability. In the United Kingdom, Allen (1987) observed that female defendants were more likely than men to be labeled as psychologically disturbed, occasionally leading to mitigated punishment. There is a discursive blurring of “offender” and “victim,” especially for violent women, which creates tension with feminist portrayals of women primarily as victims of patriarchy, often encapsulated by the “mad not bad” trope (Allen 1998; Morrissey 2002; Peter 2006). Overall, there is no uniform, one-directional gender bias; instead, sentencing decisions are sexualized and context-specific, constrained by both law and judicial discretion.

Capitalism, Patriarchy and Crime

Messerschmidt (1986) draws an analogy between the capitalist exploitation of workers and the way men exploit and control women economically and biologically. This exploitation, he argues, blocks women’s access to both legitimate employment and illegitimate opportunity structures. Broader feminist explanations for lower female offending rates suggest that domesticity and maternity limit women’s opportunities for street crime (Broidy & Agnew 1997; Chesney-Lind & Sheldon 1998). Furthermore, capitalism renders women “double losers,” marginalized at work and in crime, increasing their vulnerability to victimization and steering them toward minor offenses like shoplifting. Contemporary statistics support this, showing that in 2017-2018, Australian male offending was 2-4 times higher than female offending (ABS 2019), a gender gap that is globally consistent.

Masculinity and Crime

In his work Masculinities and Crime (1993), Messerschmidt argues that crime can function as a resource for “doing masculinity,” particularly when legitimate pathways to financial success are blocked. This concept is further explored through hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005), which suggests that certain crime types, such as corporate fraud or interpersonal violence, can either produce or confirm a dominant masculine status for different groups of men.

Gender, Unemployment and Female Offending

Empirical trends since the 1960s show an acceleration in both the absolute number and the rate of growth of women’s offending in Australia and the USA (Carrington 2006). The liberation thesis (Adler 1975) claimed that women’s emancipation opened new criminal opportunities. However, this has been critiqued, as data suggest that the marginalized (unskilled, unemployed, underprivileged) — rather than career-oriented, emancipated women — are the primary drivers of female crime (Naffine & Gale 1989; Smart 1976). Furthermore, a 29-year dataset from 1951-1979 analyzed by Box & Hale (1986) found no statistical link between women’s employment and crime, but a positive correlation between female unemployment and criminality. This leads to the conclusion that economic marginalization, influenced by class and ethnicity, is a key determinant of women’s offending.

Reconceptualising the “Crime Problem”: Inequalities & Prevention

The dominant “law-and-order” common-sense approach to crime focuses on more policing and harsher penalties, a narrative often amplified by media sensationalism (Brown & Hogg 1996). Braithwaite (1992) calls for a “theoretical revolution” in criminology, advocating for creative, democratic crime-reduction strategies centered on social justice. Punitive approaches have significant limits; they concentrate prisoners from disadvantaged backgrounds, and incarceration itself entrenches disadvantage, leading to long-term recidivism and intergenerational harm (Western & Pettit 2010). Alternative, structural solutions are proposed, including redistributing power and wealth to build a more egalitarian society. This involves enhancing social inclusion through education, employment, and community participation, with particular emphasis on young men (Garland 2001; Sutton 1996; White 1998). Western & Pettit estimate that diverting even a portion of the annual US prison spending (approximately 70 billion) into skill development and job creation in poor neighborhoods could yield sustainable, socially integrative public safety.

Conclusion & Key Takeaways

In conclusion, crime is tightly linked to social disadvantage, impacting both victimisation and offending. Gendered analyses specifically reveal how patriarchal structures, economic marginalisation, and cultural constructions of femininity and masculinity shape patterns of offending and criminal justice responses. Simple punitive measures often overlook these profound structural roots, potentially exacerbating inequality. Therefore, structural, redistributive, and inclusionary policies hold greater promise for effectively reducing harm and promoting justice than a sole reliance on “tough on crime” rhetoric.