The female criminality

INTRODUCTION

“Women, undeniably, have been all but invisible for much of criminology’s history.”[1]

Women have never been as prominent as their male counterparts in criminology, so much so, they can be said to have been ignored for many centuries and it was not until the turn of the 20th century that women who committed crimes were really included in criminological discourse. The advent of the feminist movements throughout this time beginning with the suffragettes to the current Fawcett commission established in 2003, has seen the realisation of women’s rights and the struggle for ‘equality’ supposedly at an end. But as we will see, non-feminist explanations for female criminality still leave much to be desired of as most parts of criminology along with society appears to be wedded to the conventional and stereotypical views of women, with the feminist explanations casting a new view on how women ought to be studied within the field of criminology.

This paper aims to discuss and evaluate the various criminological explanations of women’s involvement in crime, and suggest possibilities that obviate the traditional reasoning which passes female criminality off as purely biological. The discussion of the criminological explanations will take on two focal threads: why some women commit crime and why the majority do not. Using government statistics from England and Wales, specifically those after the second wave of the feminist movement in the 1960s and the present day, incidence, types and trends of female criminality will be explored. After the issues and problems within the statistics have been identified, I will then discuss whether criminologists can explain conclusively the reason for these findings.

Do we need to study female criminality?

Criminology is the study of crime which endeavours to explain and find solutions for deviant behaviour, yet there also needs to be a reason why this certain behaviour requires explanation.

The theory welcomed by the government is that crime is conduct which has been agreed as contrary to the norms of society. Deviant behaviour is a problem which needs to be resolved, and once the problems have been acknowledged, policy makers can then make decisions and laws based on finding solutions to these problems.

Smart notes that only those topics officially designated as social problems are studied, which she articulates is responsible for the sorry state of current knowledge and work on female criminality[2]; women are not seen as a problem, yet they live in the same world as men but commit less crime. This creates a great opportunity for society; finding underlying reasons why women do not commit as much crime as men could possibly be replicated to reduce the number of men committing crimes, or at least aid in the general control of crime. However, according to the Youth Justice Board in 2009, ‘the relatively lower number of young women engaged in offending has meant, however, that most research and expertise has been developed in response to male offending[3]’.

Gender is one of the most certain predictors of offending[4], and women have never been seen as a social problem because their deviant acts in relation to men are very low. But as is sometimes suggested, statistical quantity alone is not sufficient to explain their lack of treatment.[5]

Equality to men was the driving factor for the Women’s Movements, but this immediately suggests that women are to be studied as a different entity, unduly undermining any common notion of equality from the outset. Arguably however, this hypothesis is true on some levels, but the equality women strive for is not equality of treatment, but equality of outcome.

There are various stereotypical explanations for women’s criminality which throughout history have been dominated by internal reasons; biology and psychology. However, what is interesting is how differently men are studied; from the outside. Rather than stating a man has an innate propensity for violence and deviant behaviour in his biological make-up, theorists use external reasons such as economical and class based expectations to explain behaviour. Women do not get the benefit of wholly non-biological determinist reasoning and it could be concluded that it is entirely their fault for simply being born a woman (e.g. Lombroso’s female ‘born criminals’).

In addition to this, female criminality needs to be studied so equality in outcome can be achieved from a justice perspective. Regarding the expectations of women in a social context, which will be discussed in depth later, if a woman was to act as expected, they are likely to be looked upon as the stereotypical ‘weak and fragile’ being which needs protecting – and this can be used to their advantage. But then also the opposite must not be ignored in that if they do not conform to the stereotypical female state then they will be twice condemned, which is extraordinarily unfair from a feminist perspective.

Substitution and the media

Hypothetically reversing the position of men and women, performed throughout this paper, when contrasting the consideration and study given to both sexes, is a very useful tool to shake out gender issues in criminality.

The proliferation of the media also works to the same effect in that when one is to contrast coverage of crimes committed by men, they seem extremely commonplace and the public hardly blink an eye, but when the likes of Myra Hindley and Rosemary West committed perhaps ‘masculine’ crimes, they were incredibly newsworthy. This can be down to the utmost shock that a woman has committed a crime and this produces a double deviance theory. Even now we do not expect women to behave in a criminal and inappropriate fashion, and the public are utterly shocked when we hear that a mother – with the qualities of being tender and caring – has shaken her baby to death. Heidensohn concurs, ‘women involved in very serious crimes … seem to provide the media with some of their most compelling images of crime and deviance.'[6]

THE CRIMES WOMEN COMMIT: INCIDENCE AND TRENDS

Despite their various shortcomings, the methods for measuring crime, such as police recorded crime statistics published annually by the Home Office and the British Crime Survey (BCS), have been able to provide an indication of crime trends in England and Wales. The statistics must be viewed with wary eyes because of the discussion that surrounds ‘unreported crime’ which leads to resources being allocated into improving the collation of statistics; it should not be ignored that this improvement could account for a vast increase in crime rates. In addition to this, the numbers for women are very low to start with, so any slight increase could lead to a huge percentage increase which would skew the findings. Despite this, they will be used to show the incidence and trends in women’s offending from: overall gender comparison, women under and over 18, the types of crime women are committing and finally cautioning rates.

Gender and the feminist movements

Although women gained more presence in society, the vote, property rights and other social triumphs in the first wave of the feminist movements at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, it is really only during the second wave in the 1960s and 1970s that there was a substantial change in the general and criminal behaviour of women which would attract academic and critical comment. The criminal statistics saw a huge boost in numbers of women represented across the board: in 1958, the number of women found guilty for all indictable offences was 17,380: in 1965 this increased to 31,011, and amidst the full swing of the second wave of the feminist movement, in 1975 the number was at its highest at 60,356. In the 1960s, the ratio between men and women again for being found guilty of all indictable offences went down slightly also (from 7:1 to 6:1). The following decades saw a gradual decrease in numbers in the same respect, and in 2007 the numbers were 267,000 men to 45,300 women for both sexes and the ratio still lies at 6:1. The trend to be carried forward is that it remains consistent that women commit less crimes than men overall, and the highest increase in female crime was in the 1970s.

Age

The estimated peak age of offending is 15 for girls (and 17 for boys). According to a Ministry of Justice publication ‘Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System[7]’ a higher proportion of all women arrested were aged between 10 and 17 than the proportion of men in that age group who were arrested, 25.7 per cent compared to 20.5 per cent. In addition to this, a study in 2009 by the Youth Justice Board[8] found that the offences most frequently committed by adolescent girls are theft and handling stolen goods, and that there has been a proliferation in the amount of girls committing violence against the person, especially ‘if there is an existing relationship with the victim’. It is also noted that ‘recent use of alcohol is often linked to the offence/offending pattern.’

Home Office Statistics show the ratio of men to women found guilty or cautioned for all indictable offences is 3:1 for adolescents and 4:1 for adult women.

From this two distinct trends can be deduced; there is what Worral describes as a ‘problem population’ of young girls committing more crime, especially violent crime, than their older equivalent, and, that as a women gets older she is less likely to commit crime (desistence).

Types of Crime

As Smart notices, the proportion of women who engage in crime varies quite considerably according to the nature of the offence[9]. From the Home Office statistics for 2008/09[10] it can be seen that there are large differences between women and men in terms of their involvement with the formal criminal justice system, notably, and obviously, less women across all areas of crime. However, there appears to be a rise in theft, especially shoplifting which Smart terms a sex-related offence, a crime that has a preponderance to be committed by one sex more than the other. It follows then that this is the only area where women make significant contribution to the numbers; in 2007, 52,100 women were found guilty or cautioned for theft, the ratio between men and women is a mere 2:1. Although the ratio for fraud and forgery is also 2:1, the numbers are smaller: 9,500 women being found guilty or cautioned.

By contrast, the highest ratio between men and women is that of burglary at 15:1 in 2007.

The most prolific offence seen in the statistics is that of violence, but it appears to be low-level violence, harassment compared to men. Although it appears that it is more abundant for adolescent girls recently, over the last few decades there has been a dramatic increase of violence in women of all ages. For example, in 1965, 827 were found guilty of violence against the person: either murder, manslaughter, death by dangerous driving, assault or wounding. In 1975 this increased to 2,748 and then to 3,600 in 1985. In 1995 there was a slight, but not significant, decrease in (both men and) women committing violence against the person and until 2007 the number has steadily increased again to 4,500, the ratio since 1995 becoming closer (10:1 to 8:1 respectively).

There has been a preponderance of women committing property offences, especially robbery as from the 1970s to present; the incidence has more than quadrupled from 200 in 1978 to 900 in 2007.

Finally, according to the Women and the Criminal Justice System statistics[11], the violence that women commit is interfamily; partners and children, and homicides appear to be committed against intimate partners.

Cautioning rates

Women are more likely to be cautioned than men. Overall in 2007, 56% of women were cautioned instead of being officially processed by the courts for indictable offences compared to 36% of men. It was the same nearly 10 years ago also as in 1991, it was 54%. Looking at the cautioning rate for theft in 2007, out of 52,100 women, 26,000 were cautioned. In regards to violence against the person, 12,700 were cautioned out of 17,200 women.

Since 2001 penalty notices for disorder (PND) can be issued for £50 or £80 depending on the severity of the offence. Inclusive of all ages, the Statistics on Women and the CJS found that in 2008/09 the top three reasons for issuing a penalty notice of disorder (PND) to women were: ‘theft (retail under £200) – 20,453 (49%); causing harassment alarm or distress – 8,051 (20%); and being drunk and disorderly – 7,520 (18%)’ notably all of these appearing to require no physical strength. Although the amount of PNDs being issued has decreased from 207,544 in 2007 to 176,164 in 2008, there was a smaller decrease for the amount issued to women than to men. According to the Ministry of Justice, ‘PNDs were designed to be a simpler and swift way for the criminal justice system to deal with low level criminal behaviour’.

CRIMINOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

Classical Criminology

Early or ‘classical’ criminologists accounted for female criminality on biological grounds; describing the psychological, physiological and hormonal characteristics of female criminals, or emphasising that their crimes were sexually based. Biological determinism is perhaps historically the most common yet underdeveloped explanation for female criminality, and has dominated discourse for a dreadfully long time, even intertwining itself into modern and contemporary theories despite mass criticism. Women being studied biologically can be immediately contrasted with the study of male criminality which, as Morris suggests[12], has nearly always used specifically socio-economic explanations such as ‘subculture or labelling theory’.

Cesare Lombroso was the main projector of biological determinism, but this concept can be seen in the early works of W. I. Thomas and Otto Pollak in general, especially in regards to sexual delinquency. Thomas’ work was written in what Smart describes as the ‘transitional period’ where criminology became more liberal. Pollak, although his work was carried out a long time after Lombroso’s, is classed along with Lombroso and Thomas as a ‘classical’ criminologist in that they all shared the same conventional views of women as Heidensohn summarises succinctly,

Their view of women is heavily stereotyped. Women are defined according to domestic and sexual roles; they are dominated by biological imperatives; they are emotional and irrational.[13]

Modern biological explanations have been exampled in this paper to highlight that biological theories remain to this day and when read in light of social theories, biological explanations as far as they go to explain female criminality, tell us more about society’s perception of women than anything else.

Lombroso

One cannot read any textbook related to theories of female criminality without encountering at least a brief mention of the criminological pioneer Cesare Lombroso, whose work, in particular ‘The Female Offender'[14], made specific mention of female criminals for perhaps the first time. Although completely discredited now, the mere fact that women became a topic of study was a phenomenal feat for criminology.

With his son-in-law Ferrero and the help of others, along with the emphasis on ‘scientific based study’, Lombroso looked initially at 26 skulls and 5 skeletons of female offenders, namely prostitutes, 60 criminal subjects who died in prison and 17 others along with studying photo-portraits. The offences they were said to have committed were those such as infanticide, complicity in rape, arson, theft, homicide, abortion and poisoning. One of the studies within this work regarded the skull capacity and size. They were measured on account of each crime, and such conclusions were made for example, that ‘fallen women have the smaller cranial capacity of all… [offering] more analogy to the mentally afflicted than the sane.’ Essentially, Lombroso was explaining that women commit crime because of physical defects, and they were from the outset ‘born criminals’ because of this. According to Newburn’s summary, Lombroso’s female born criminal would ‘specialise in not just one but several types of crime’ and ‘surpasses her male counterpart in the refined, diabolical cruelty in which she commits her crimes’ and therefore a female criminal is a ‘true monster’. Also, Lombroso’s theory perhaps edged towards the later idea of ‘double deviance’, in that ‘the female criminal was doubly exceptional…because criminals are exceptions among civilised people and women are exceptions among criminals[15]’.

On the other hand, in explaining why women did not commit as much crime as men, he argued that firstly ‘there were far fewer female born criminals than males’ and secondly and more offensive to read nowadays, he suggested criminal women were atavistic; a manifestation of the idea that women were not fully evolved, had underdeveloped intelligence and ‘had less scope for degeneration.’ Criminality therefore was defined as a mental illness, because women’s ‘normal’ psychology was piety and weakness which meant the normal woman would not have the predisposition to commit crimes due to lack of intelligence, and were not affected by environmental issues as men would be.

Evaluating this theory with modern eyes, the criticisms of this study are obvious, but one cannot lose context of the time in which it was carried out. It was, despite its failure, ‘an undoubtedly sincere attempt to justify certain beliefs and theories.[16]’ However, it was completely ignored that the beliefs were founded on premises so naïve. Also, the theory suggests that there should be more women committing crimes, but according to the statistics this is not true. Of course, the study is archaic and did not really progress understanding of female criminality, as Heidensohn points out, the observations made of the photographs are ‘as objective as an adjudicator in a beauty contest’. However, it does tell us about the perceptions of women in that time and that worked as a starting point for later theorists to use as a point of comparison and critique.

Thomas

Thomas’ early work ‘Sex and Society[17]’was more akin to the works of Lombroso in that it studied women in regards to their physiological ‘energy’, suggesting that women were altogether less ‘creative’ than men and therefore were not destined to commit crime. It was critically lacking in its applicability to all women, as it focussed on immigrants and peasant women – already seen as a lower species in that time, and again based ideas on detrimental societal views of women.

His later work, ‘The Unadjusted Girl,[18] however, was a first glance at the social reasons why women could commit crime, namely that women were more aware of their deprivation in society in his time of writing and therefore likely to be frustrated, leading to ‘the disorganisation of [their] life and potentially to sexual delinquency'[19]. Society transformed whilst Thomas was writing and that because of the ‘breakdown of traditional restraints on women’ they are more likely to be ‘unadjusted’. Here, instead of appreciating the progress, he displays contempt for the ideological change in society and thus promotes repression. He theorised that women from the start were trying to find the legitimate role of the good wife, mother and dutiful daughter and in failure of this they acquired the illegitimate role, that is to say the degenerative criminal or more usually the sexual delinquent. The ‘legitimate role’ was merely a sign of the times dictated by the middle-class norm, not an adequate explanation.

Pollak

In his work, The Criminality of Women in 1961, Pollak’s argument was that women commit just as much crime as men but it is hidden, partly because of the social order in which women live, but also because of a women’s physiology particularly in regards to sex. He agreed with Lombroso and Thomas in that the most likely ‘degeneration’ of women was to prostitution, which was true at that time, but has no bearing on prostitution now. Prostitutes now, according to the Home Office website[20] are not there voluntarily and are usually forced into it. He explained that women were empirically deceitful and manipulative in their nature because they conceal their menstruation every month, and that their passive nature during sexual intercourse enables women to ‘discover and acquire confidence in their ability to deceive men in all respects.'[21] Obviously Pollak could not get away from his apparent infuriation that it was men ‘on show’ with their erection, and women could hide how they really felt. Here Pollak has taken this idea and translated it into the assumption that all women are vengeful, manipulative and cruel deceitful beings, not really moving on from the perceptions of women in Lombroso’s time.

Regarding the statistics, Pollak was perhaps correct when he argued that women are likely to commit offences against family members; such as poisoning their husbands, sexually abusing or killing their children. And also that persons are less likely to report a crime committed to them by a woman, as Smart notes the victims are usually children and are unable to report the crimes of their parents.[22] But his basis for this conclusion is flawed as he overlooks crimes committed by men towards their family, makes judgements completely based on the sex discrimination in society at the time and again completely ignores that this is the case. Because of this, he would probably be surprised by, and would not fit in with his conclusions, the amount of hidden wife battering and domestic abuse committed by men that has come to light recently if he were writing today.

He also suggests that because of their nature, their acts are cunning and vengeful (putting poison into their husband’s food) explained because their vengeance is a product of their monthly reminder of their inferior status to men and they are the persons closely related to the domestic task of food preparation, again decisively based on the perceived domestic role of women at the time. His study does correspond with the current statistics in that women are likely commit crimes within the home, but his original study was not based on any real evidence but on societal assumptions and preconceptions about the behaviour of men and women, which at the time he was oblivious to the fact that the power and societal position of men and women was completely imbalanced.

Chivalry Theory

Pollak, considering the very low number of female criminals, also proposed that men, especially those in the CJS, had an innate chivalry towards women. He argued that they have the same (he would argue misconceived) conceptions of women as his societal counterparts do; that women are weak and fragile, but they have deceived themselves into believing this and not realised the true nature of women. They are therefore are ‘less likely to report, charge and convict women for the offences they engage in.'[23] In all aspects of life, Pollak has described that women are treated less severely than men to their advantage and this discrimination is to men’s disadvantage. However, as Smart notes, although recognising ‘a darker side of chivalry’ he has not mentioned the disadvantages of this discrimination towards women, and does not criticise the double standards for men and women; he treats it as the norm.

However, it could be suggested that this theory is adequate because it is very much in effect today. The CJS currently appears to deploy this ‘innate chivalry’ that protects women from the full rigours of the law, which could explain why a great deal more women are cautioned than men. Chivalry gains its credence because it is how one would expect women to be treated in a society which stereotypically views them as delicate and in need of protection. Interestingly, the chivalrous nature of the law can be seen in practice as with regard to infanticide in particular, where the Home Office stated in rejecting the proposal to abolish this offence:

That a mother can be charged with infanticide on the basis of the ingredients for manslaughter is in keeping with the desire to treat such cases with compassion, in particular the desire not to force a mother to be brought face to face with the admission of whether or not she intended to kill her child.[24] (Emphasis added)

However, despite of this grave offence, it is mainly true today for perhaps petty crimes, where the statistics suggest that women are more likely to be cautioned than thoroughly processed in the CJS. But this could also be explained, not by chivalry, but because there is a strong urgency for ‘diversion’ in the CJS, costs are always a priority, as is police time and resources. However, Pollak’s theory generalises the lenience that women get, although it is relevant on some levels, it pays no heed to the fact that after due process, female murderers and those who commit very serious offences will go to prison.

Modern Biological Determinism

Hormonal and Mental Imbalance

Although Lombroso’s work is said to have continued to exert influence long after it was written[25], Edwards states that too much emphasis is sometimes placed on Lombroso as ‘godfather’ of biological criminology, arguing that medical professionals, such as Icard, Krafft-Ebing and Krugelsten walked the terrain far before Lombroso.

Despite the criticisms of biological positivism, it cannot be ignored that all women have ‘undeniable stages in their development cycle[26]’ namely in menstruation, menopause and after giving birth.

The common theory in this respect, for why women do commit crime, is that hormonal imbalance dictates their deviant behaviour, particularly violence. Even Lombroso found this link in his work after finding that 72 out of 80 women arrested for resisting public officials were menstruating at the time[27]. Contemporary criminologists such as McClean, Wood, Devlin and Mercier have also claimed the physiological differences between men and women as a reason for criminality, but have not given substantial reasons as to why the rest of the female population have not committed crimes whilst going through the same ‘crisis periods.'[28] Freud lends a suggestion here as he believed people are born with anti-social criminal qualities, but the better amongst them learn to control this. His theory suggests women do not have the fear of castration (as do men baring the Oedipus complex) which would be used to control their impulses, but suggests their passivity and want of affection controls them.

It is commonly known that women experience mood swings, tension, water retention and headaches, however, 19th century theory exaggerates the ‘mood swings’ into unaccountable violence and intolerable evil and cruelty.

The works of the late Dr Dalton whom coined the term ‘PMS’ to describe the ‘changes’ women experience in these times, and it is accepted by the law that there can be uncontrolled aggression at certain times of the month, and PMS has the possibility to be a mitigating factor in the sentencing of female criminals under diminished responsibility in the law of evidence in England. For example, in a case in 1981, Christine English killed her boyfriend by driving into him. After pleading guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility due to pre-menstrual syndrome she was conditionally discharged.

Furthermore, biological theory has manifested itself into the law of infanticide in that the Infanticide Act 1938 s.1 (1) states:

‘..where a woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child being a child under the age of 12 months, but at the time of her act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation.’

However it is curious to note that the medical profession refuses to accept this, in its definition, symptomatology, treatments or rates of manifestation[29]. Crimes such as infanticide can only be committed by a woman. Naturally, criminologists cannot in any way try to fit this crime into gender-neutral theories; there has to be something particular about women. On the other hand, ‘infanticide’ still remains, according to the Law Commission in a Home Office Consultation Paper in 2008, a piece of legislation which is a ‘practicable legal solution to a particular set of circumstances,’ which gives something to consider if there was no crime of infanticide.

Accepting PMS and infanticide in the law gets varied responses, usually either outrage that a woman could literally get away with murder, or that recognition of biological happenings that every woman has is a positive step, however the deep rooted connotations are far more complex. Some might see it as positive that women are getting recognition, whereas others would see retrogressive irony in play; women want to gain equality, but they too are immersed in the want for allowances to be made for them, and also that ‘PMS constructs women’s normal experience and behaviour as abnormal'[30]. Furthermore, the masculinity of law does not understand women’s ‘problems’, so it is easier to accept mental imbalance than challenge the norms of society, and so an account of PMS, as Raitt and Zeedyk suggest,

‘…is striking only because social norms dictate a particular baseline for women’s behaviour and when they fail to meet that expectation, illness provides a convenient explanation[31]’

Consequently, Smart notes that, ‘in principle, the law should be held to be equally applicable to all regardless of sex, (noting also, race, class and other distinctions)’ but in reality this does not happen. There are at all times a number of societal connotations or stereotypes, such as the chivalrous nature of men, and the stereotypical way women are perceived which overshadow what should be happening, and determine what does happen in regard to the study of crime, and although this should not be the case, it does reveal the underlying, discriminatory views towards women that would better be abandoned for the sake of the quality of explanations for criminality.

Finally, it would be interesting to use substitution here. Firstly if women were in power in society, there would be no explanations for deviant behaviour down to PMS, as having PMS at certain times or experiencing the effects of childbirth and lactation would be the norm. There would probably be explanations for why men behave they do, for example neurosis because they cannot have children.

Brain Function

Although truly biological theories seem to have disappeared from criminology[32], Lansdell, in a study of laterality of verbal intelligence in the brain in 1962[33] noticed that when males and females had strokes or lobotomies, their recovery processes were different even though the injury was the same: women recovered better because they found that their brain hemispheres are more connected, enabling the female brain to possibly assimilate all sorts of information that male brains would keep separate. How this would become an explanation for female criminality would be quite complex and I would profess that it would see criminologists using these findings to merely support the well known stereotype that women can ‘multitask’. Nevertheless, it could be suggested that women have less chance of being caught as they could plan the offence thoroughly, or be able to perceive the consequences of their actions before they can perform an act which would render them criminal, but these would amount to huge generalisations, and would not conclusively explain why women do or do not commit crime.

Although it is arguable that as with any ‘disease’ of the body and mind, as Williams notes, biological factors ‘all suggest traits that are capable of being cured based upon adjustments to the individual[34]’ but in reality it is questionable how far could that be taken.[35] In addition to this, there is an inherent problem with biological studies; you cannot rehabilitate someone if you believe the criminality is biological, whereas you could if the reasons for crime are social.

Contemporary Theories

“Women’s behaviour seems bizarre when it does not match their gender role”[36]

The classical and biological explanations for female criminality must be given credit as they recognise that women are by and large very different. For a start women do not generally match the physical strength of men and through medico-legal research it is shown that they negotiate the world differently. However, the fact that women are altogether less criminal means that they were not seen as worthy of being studied and that they are not posing such a great problem for society and so traditionally, women have been invisible, irrelevant and their behaviour passed off as ‘mental imbalance’ with no further investigation. This underdevelopment of the study of female criminality in comparison with men seems to be ‘a consequence of the pervasiveness of the belief that women are inessential'[37], and urged feminist writers to challenge them.

This stems from the paradigm that the male policy makers, make laws to govern the behaviour of men, and thus it flows that criminological theories are thought by men, to explain non-adherence to the law in regards to men. So the majority of theories throughout criminological schools of thought would not fit snugly when women are put into them, and women end up being an embarrassment for male criminality because they are notably so much more law abiding.

Social Role Theory

Diminuitive societal views of women and their nature from the 19th century became natural or common sense views, and these carried on long after the likes of Lombroso and Pollak, unquestioned. Thomas’ legitimate role theory touched on the social aspects that could possibly affect female criminality but was inadequate because it was partially based on misconceived biological assumptions, and there is no explanation for where the preconceptions came from.

Nowadays we are still shocked that a woman has committed a crime, particularly a serious or violent crime, which shows that the common sense conception of women has permeated through feminist triumphs and persisted through time. It is a shock in the first instance because female crime is a comparatively rare occurrence, as the statistics suggest, but probably more importantly because they have not adhered to their core ‘role’ in society.

Social control and socialisation

The first explanation which endeavours to explain women’s low level involvement in crime regarding social role is that of the difference between male and female social control. This takes the forms of either internal or external control, and also a theory commonly described as ‘socialisation’.

Internalised control is a differently conditioned, behavioural response to certain actions. For example, it is impressed upon girls that ‘punch-ups’ are wrong, whereas boys would be actively encouraged to be adventurous and stand up for themselves, or face being pilloried for being ‘effeminate’. Succinctly, misbehaviour is accepted more readily for boys and they are taught as such. It is suggested by Heidensohn, that in the western world, men are praised for taking a more individual and aggressive role, whereas women are expected to be passive, bare an aversion to violence and are so committed to maintaining the family structure – as their role would suggest – that they do not have the time to offend.

External control takes on two forms, formal and informal. It is suggested that girls have more informal control, that is to say closer supervision and restrictions of freedom at a younger age in comparison to boys, whose freedom means they have more formal control in the forms of the police and CJS. It is equated as the more informal control there is, the less formal control is required, which attempts to explain the lower level of offending by women. Such a theory, however, despite the merits of discarding biological determinism, cannot be conclusive because it is society that influences what behaviour is seen as criminal, so if merely not conforming to the feminine role is dubbed criminal, without further explanation of why the role exists, it cannot be convincing.

Double deviance

As discussed, women are not ‘supposed’ to be violent so when they are it leads to a two track condemnation; the crime that they have committed and also for not achieving the standards of a woman. Double deviance theory transfers into courtroom situations and to the police, therefore affecting decisions made about women. The fact that women have not lived up to their role, leads to higher sentences; it is not unusual for women to be sentenced for a few months longer having committed the same offence as men. However, this theory can be criticised by looking at the CJS process. Although sentencers do not get gender awareness training, the sentence might simply be based on whether they are undertaking a crime control deterrent method or a reformative approach.

Sex-role theory and Opportunity theory

These theories explain why women are committing certain types of crimes, not others. Smart professes that sex-related offences such as shoplifting, prostitution, child abuse and theft from employer are ‘role-expressive'[38]. Theft is most likely to be items of clothing or food; both linked to the ‘feminine role’ in that women will steal clothes that they like, but cannot afford, to gain attention from men, and food because they are more likely to have the domestic role (and thus opportunity) to shop for it. The Home Office statistics on theft do not differentiate between expensive or cheap items, but the PNDs given out for shoplifting for items under £200 suggest that it is these smaller items being stolen. Theft from the workplace shows opportunity theory; women are employed as shop assistants or domestic help, and seeing that ‘none of these offences require particularly ‘masculine’ attributes[39]’ such as strength, they are likely to be committed with ease with the aim of fulfilling the female role. Also, repression of women has made fraud realise itself at a lower rate than men because women until now have never had the ‘big money’ careers so they were less likely to get involved. The fraud that they tend to get involved in nowadays is social benefit fraud, most likely to pay for the upbringing of children, and child abuse happens more frequently as according to the theory their lifestyle is based around the home, and frustration with single parenthood.

There are two substantial limitations to the social role theories. The first, as noted by Smart, there is a failure to situate the discussion of sex roles within structural explanations of the social origins of these ‘roles’. As a consequence, they do not challenge the beliefs of the biological determinism; therefore they have not advanced in the search for a conclusive explanation.

Konopka

Konopka offered a different explanation; instead of viewing delinquent women with disdain, she wrote as if they were the victims of personal maladjustment and could be cured with treatment. Although aware of socio-economic factors, her work related to the personal dilemmas of the individual case histories of the women she studied, namely poverty and abusive backgrounds. This is seemingly more in line with current research in that a study of 18 adult offenders (male and female) by Byrne and Trew in 2005 reported that ‘the women would give largely pragmatic accounts of their offending behaviour ‘taking place in the context of negative pressures, needs and personal problems'[40] and is supported by a study by Rutter et al. in 1998 concluding that:

It may be that girls are becoming more violent because they are increasingly exposed to social contextual influences where violence is a risk, rather than because girls, in some general sense, are becoming more violent.[41]

Therefore those who study the status of many women in society and the risk factors explaining their behaviour, surpassing (but not ignoring completely) any biological predisposition for crime, would be explaining female criminality in the same way that men are evaluated, and would regard such things as single parenthood and poverty. This consequently becomes a more adequate explanation because firstly it is not discriminatory, and secondly accepts that women are susceptible to socio-economic factors also.

Emancipation of women

In the second phase of the women’s movement in the 1970s, as the statistics can show, there was a high increase in the number of women committing crimes. The controversial explanation for this expounded by Freda Adler in 1975 is the liberation thesis which rests on three main assumptions. Firstly, that women have been freed from paternalism, where they became free from legal, social, political, intellectual and moral restraint, therefore open to more opportunity to commit crime. However, Smart criticises this assumption because she has treated emancipation as an isolated factor, outside of any socio-economic factor, and in turn has remained in the confines of the structure of early criminology which was not productive. Secondly, emancipation let women loose to act like men, commit ‘masculine’ crimes, be sexually liberated and get powerful careers. It is emulated in the statistics that this may be true – there is more violence, which is perceived as a masculine crime. However, Carlen[42] criticises this assumption in that it created a paradoxical and ironic conception of what appears to be a masculine woman, and instead of challenging the old views on women, she has actually entrenched them. Smart concurs, and simultaneously criticises the sex-role theory also, ‘if we expect women to be passive… when they are perceived by others to fail to live up to the stereotype, their actions will appear all the more shocking or threatening’, again illustrative of societal influence and conceptions that determine how women are viewed.

The final part is based on the assumption that the link is proved by the rising tide of recorded crime. At first glance the statistics do provide us with the link, but the unreliability of the statistics makes Adler’s claim inadequate as male crime went up also it was arguably proportionate.[43]

Transgression – the feminist critique of criminology

The whole area of criminology seemed locked in a time warp up until feminists decided to expose criminology for what it was – written by men, to understand the deviance of men. It is in these explanations, especially the work of Smart, which it could be suggested still do not answer why women commit crimes, but negate any credit given to theories which base themselves on the stereotypical conceptions of women and conclude that something must change.

CONCLUSION

The question of to what extent criminology has provided adequate explanations for female criminality desired a critical analysis of the theories professed throughout history, and from this it can be seen that classical criminology seems to lack any relevance nowadays except providing an account of the way women were viewed then. Even contemporary theories cannot retract completely from comprising of the same misconstrued and chauvinist presumptions of women that lie beneath their reasoning. The feminist movements took women out of what was a male hegemonic society which inevitably dictated how women were studied in criminology, yet although women have progressed; it is only the persons that can see through society’s construction of women that have any real base in evidencing a ‘real’ explanation for female criminality.

Criminology being dictated by and on account of societal views is inevitable, as Heidensohn concludes ‘crime itself is a social construct[44]’ and so committing crimes therefore must not be to do with the physiology of men or women, but personal, social and economic factors. Nonetheless, the modern concept of Dr Daltons PMS and the law’s abidance with it may have some grounding if the medical profession eventually accepts it, to concur that aggression and emotions are flared during these times.

Men and women do commit the same types of crime, just less of it. But as the status and social role of women continues to equal men, although it has not done so just yet, the statistics are sure to converge at some point (taking the ever increasing violence for example). The chivalry of CJS is dying out as women are gaining credence, status and power exponentially in all areas of society. It will be incredibly difficult to remove social ideologies about women, but if they were, chivalry and leniency towards women may even extinguish for good and be replaced by well-informed knowledge that women are different. The distinction between ‘different’ now and ‘different’ then, is different now is just a state of being, not a diminutive term as it was. Both sexes’ needs and fundamental differences will need to be addressed to ensure equality of outcome, and in no way does that prejudice or treat women leniently, it will be simple fact. Hopefully in the future women will have become a product of their time whereby they are equal to men in criminology, or even that equality of study will become an irrelevant concept because no one will know that women and men were ever ‘unequal’.

Maybe the times and preconceptions of women are changing for good, women will be studied jointly with men, without any sense of gender discrimination. This would create a thorough and all-inclusive criminology, not just an unworthy struggle to fit women into obvious studies of men.

1. T Newburn Criminology (Willan Publishing, Devon 2007) p 300
2. C. Smart Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist critique (Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London, 1976)
3. YJB Study 2009 ‘Girls and offending – patterns, perceptions and interventions’ accessed 31 March
4. A Worral, ‘Twisted Sisters, Ladettes and the New Penology: The Social Construction of Violent Girls’ in C Adler and A Worrall (ed), Girl’s Violence: Myths and Realities (State University of New York Press, USA 2004) p.41
5. Smart n 2 p 2
6. F Heidensohn, Women and Crime (2nd Ed, Macmillan Press, London 1996) p 86
7. Home Office: Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System, published January 2010 for 2008/09 accessed 31 March 2010
8. YJB Study 2009 n 3
9. Smart n 2
10. Home Office Statistics n 7
11. see n 7
12. A Morris Women, Crime and Criminal Justice (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1987) p 41
13. Heidensohn n 6 p 115
14. C Lombroso, G Ferrero The Female Offender (Fred B Rothman Publications, USA, 1895)
15. Newburn n 1 p 301
16. Heidensohn n 6 p 114
17. W. I. Thomas Sex and society: Studies in the social psychology of sex. (Unwin, London, 1907)
18. W I Thomas The Unadjusted Girl. With cases and standpoint for behavior analysis. (Little, Brown, USA 1967)
19. Newburn n 1 p 302
20. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/prostitution/
21. Smart n 2 p 48
22. Smart n 2 p 49
23. Smart n 2 p 49
24. Home Office Consultation Paper, Murder, manslaughter and infanticide: proposals for reform of the law CP19/08 accessed 19th April 2010
25. Newburn n 1 p 301
26. Edwards n 14 p 80
27. Edwards n 14
28. S. Edwards ‘Medico-legal conumdrums – The legal organization of Psychological differences’ ch 3 in ‘Women on Trial’ (Manchester University Press, 1986) p 82
29. F Raitt, M Zeedyk, The implicit relation of psychology and the law (Routledge, London, 2000) ch 6
30. Raitt and Zeedyk n 29
31. Raitt and Zeedyk n 29
32. Newburn n 1 p 302
33. H Lansdell ‘Laterality of verbal intelligence in the brain’ (1962) Science 135 922-923
34. K Williams Textbook on Criminology (6th Ed, Oxford University Press, US, 2008) p 503
35. It is interesting to ask what the biological theorists would make of transsexuals who commit crime, especially after persons can now fully (and legally) change gender after proving medically that they are the other sex in body and mind (as per the Gender Recognition Act 2004).
36. Raitt, Zeedyk n 29
37. Smart n 2
38. Smart n 2 p 11
39. Smart n 2 p15
40. YJB Study 2009 n 3
41. Worral, n 4 p 42
42. P. Carlen, Criminal Women and Criminal Justice, the Limits to and the Potential of, Feminist and Left Realist Perspectives in Matthews, R., and Young, J (Ed) Issues in Realist Criminology. (Sage, London, 1992)
43. Smart n 2 p 72
44. Heidensohn n 6 p 197