Feminism Criminology Contributions to Women - Research Paper Example

Kristina Lindroth Number: 20289022 LAWS8562: Major Assignment Question: Discuss the main contributions made by feminist perspectives in Criminology to our understanding of women as perpetrators and victims of crime. Feminism Criminology Contributions to Women Criminology covers a large range of approaches to the study of crime and deviance. In the past 30 years, feminist criminology perspectives have challenged theories, concepts, as well as assumptions of the majority of classical criminological work. Feminist criminology has attempted to “create a space for womens voices” (Gelsthorpe, 1989: 10). More specifically, a wide range of views have been involved in the explanation of the role and the significance of feminist criminology, even with reference to social and political theorists that did not refer directly to the involvement of women with crime (e.g. Marx). Other researchers through the years have tried to explain the importance of feminist criminology in the under representation of women as victims within all social classes and societies. The theories developed in feminist criminology have advanced the interpretation of women’s roles as perpetrators of crime and women as victims of crime as they tend to be ignored among genders in all social classes. In analysing the contributions feminist criminology has made to women as perpetrators of crime and as victims of crime, it is necessary to discuss the near complete lack of female presence in criminological literature. In fact, it could be stated that up until the decade of the 1970s no specific study had been made on the involvement of women with crime. The founding of feminist criminology can be credited in 1976 with the publication of Carol Smarts “Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique”. This book put womens crime on the empirical agenda for the discipline and was ground-breaking in its attempt to build a theory that would explain mens as well as womens crime. Smart (1976) states that up until at least the last third of a century, the majority of mainstream theories involved research into male criminals interpreted through the eyes of predominantly male researchers. The problems female crime did pose to theorizing were usually ignored or simply molded to fit male-based accounts. Smart expressed the concern that criminology, even in its most fundamental form, would be unaffected by the criticism of feminists. Smart (1976: 185) states, “Criminology as well as sociology have to turn out to be more than the research of men along with crime if it is to have any important role in the development of our understanding of crime, law along with the criminal procedure and play some role in the complete transformation of current social practices.” Smart views criminology as completely patriarchical and believes there is a strong resistance to a feminist transformation in the field of criminology. As Chesney-Lind (1986: 84) explains“…the [feminist] work simply plugs gender into often dated and monosexual criminological theories—the ‘add women and stir’ approach.” There was a failure to view female crime as a "purposive action", as opposed to innate weakness and irrationality. Womens criminality certainly wasnt based on rational choice. Simply put, most theories were andocentric and sexist. On the other hand, despite the fact that the need for examination of the role of feminism in criminology had been made clear very early, no particular study had been made on the relevant field and the study of the relationship between feminism and criminology began just around 1970s (as already explained above). The fact that the examination of the role of feminism in criminology was not included in the works of well known theorists of the 19th and 20th century – but only assumptions could be made on this issue using their study – like Marx, Durheim and so on led to the development of many different approaches regarding the influence of feminism on criminology. Heidensohn (1985) noticed that “feminist scholarship over the past thirty years in criminology can be divided into two phases; first, there is the pioneering work that defined the agenda for the study of gender; second, there has been consolidation, which has seen a range of studies produced in response to that agenda and debate over whether a feminist criminology is possible, or even desirable” (Carrabine et al., 2004: 84). In other words, the major priority for the theoretical examination of the relationship between feminism and criminology has been the identification of the need for this research; at a next level the terms of the relevant task could be identified and categorized. Women as Offenders The main argument as to why feminism and criminology are contradictions in terms is that within any body of criminology research, female crime only makes up a small amount of the entire criminal activity. Women are vastly underrepresented as criminal offenders. Maguire et al (1997: 764) stated the quote that “women commit much less crime than men do, is a statement that has achieved the status of a truth universally acknowledged.” Heidensohn (1997) states "some commentators suggest that women offenders are only 10% of the trouble” (Maguire et al, 1995: 766). Men are considerably more likely than women to engage in activities defined as criminal. This argument would therefore suggest that in the arena of crime, feminism has no relevance, as females are not equal to males in terms of offending. While the vast overrepresentation of men as criminals has served some as a rationale for ignoring women, for others, however, it has been a point of departure for considering them. Women comprise about 10% of the overall imprisoned population in the United States, but represent the fastest growing population within jails and prisons. At midyear 2005, the number of women under the jurisdiction of state and federal prison authorities rose 3.4 percent, while the number of men rose by 1.3 percent from 1995 (Beck & Harrison, 2005). Liberalist feminist, Rita Simon (1995) rejects the view of crime as a purely masculine endeavour and believes that the rise in female offending is linked to the increased opportunities for crime given in the increasing equality of the workplace. Simon argued that until the 1970’s womens crime was limited because womens opportunities were restricted. Simon believes that with the rise of the feminist movement (also known as the ‘women’s liberation movement’), women were provided with more opportunities to act like men, and the increasing equality in the work force resulted in women committing occupational related crimes such as fraud, larceny and embezzlement. As explained above, no particular reference has been made to the role of women in criminal offences until the decade of the 1970s. During this decade, the work of Smart (1976) was considered as a valuable contribution towards the explanation of the role of women in criminal offences taking place around the world. Apart from Smart, another theorist, Freda Adler, has helped further the explanation of the interaction between feminism and criminology. Her publication, Sisters in Crime, is considered to be one of the most significant studies within the particular field. Adler explained that women have – almost equally with men - participated actively in the development of crime internationally, especially in the last decades. Adler saw increasing participation in violent crime as inevitable as women became more like men as a result of their social and political emancipation. Adler posits that the new female criminal is “now more assertive, more aggressive and more masculine” (Naffine, 1987: 90). More specifically, Alder (1975: 3) notices that “while women have demanded equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavours, a similar number of determined women have forced their way into the world of major crime such as white collar crime, murder and robbery.” The crucial point about Adlers description of crime is her acceptance of traditional criminologys conception of crime as an expression of masculinity and that “crime is a vehicle for exhibiting traditional masculine qualities." (Naffine, 1987: 91). In this context, it is highlighted that “as women are climbing up the corporate business ladder, they are making use of their vocational liberation to pursue careers in white-collar crime” (Alder, 1975: 83-84). The effect of the womens liberation movement on female crime has turned out to be the basis of an intense debate in the criminological literature on women. Since Adlers publishing of Sisters in Crime, there have been criticisms of her standpoint with regard to the new female offender. Brown (1986) clearly explains it as a humiliation to feminism and argues as an alternative that feminism has made female crime more noticeable in the course of improved reporting, policing and criminal sentencing of female offenders. Adlers proposition that the liberated criminal woman has become more masculine is discredited by Naffine (1987: 96): "Criminologists have had little success at uncovering a relationship between masculinity in females and their criminality. So whether or not the womens liberation movement is making females more like males, and this is yet to be established, this masculinisation does not seem to be conducive to offending." Traditional sociologists, like Durkheim, have referred to the position of women in society; however they have hardly examined the victimisation of women or generally their involvement with crime (either as victims or perpetrators). Regarding specifically the position of women in the workplace, Durkheim (1952) noticed that women would be treated as equal with men: “woman would not be officially excluded from certain functions and relegated to others; she could choose more freely, but as her choice would be determined by her aptitudes it would generally bear on the same sort of occupations; it would be perceptibly uniform, though not obligatory” (1952, 385, in Taylor et al., 1988: 83-84). The above assumptions refer specifically to the position of women in the workplace; however these assumptions could be equally applied when trying to explain the differentiation between men and women regarding their treatment by courts or their criminal behaviour. In accordance with the above theory, the equality between men and women regarding their criminal behaviour should be justified based on the equality between the two genders in the workplace. Under the terms that the latter is already extensively supported in the literature, the former also should be considered as valid and be recognized by all political and judicial authorities. In the social context, it is supported by Taylor et al. (1988, 83-84) that “the correspondence of social roles and biological aptitudes in the hypothetical healthy society is underpinned by the collective conscience; social control, that is, is the control of the biologically inferior by the biologically meritorious”. On the other hand, Pollock et al. (2005: 5) noticed that “there have been periodic "discoveries" of the violent female offender as well as dire predictions of an increase in violence committed by women”. Moreover, it should be noted that no traditional theory refers to the relationship between women as perpetrators of crime. The study conducted by Simpson and Ellis (1994: 453) proved that “neither Marx nor Friedrich Engels noted the gender regularity of criminality; over the years, Marxist and neo-Marxist scholars have replicated this omission, and it appears to have become a legacy of criminological Marxism.” On the other hand, throughout the years many theorists entered the relevant field of research using traditional theories in order to identify the possible existence of a differentiation in criminal behaviour between genders. For example, “Colvin and Pauly rely on the neo-Marxist theory developed by Marxist sociologists to distinguish between traditional Marxian class categories (e.g., capitalist, working class, and petty bourgeoisie), and also to point out differences within these categories; their theory of delinquency production depends on the way in which different control structures within certain fractions of the working class solicit and compel certain types of behaviour from individuals … " (Simpson & Ellis, 1994: 454). The delinquency theory as explained above has led to the assumption that class can affect males and females differently. For this reason, a differentiation in the criminal behaviour of men and women could be justified. Some theories do not refer directly to criminology but they can be used indirectly for the explanation of the differentiations observed in the treatment of women offenders by the police, the courts, and the prison system. Feminist criminologists have begun to challenge the operation of the criminal justice system by drawing attention to womens treatment. Gelsthorpe (1986: 127) believes that a “major contribution to our understanding has been through a concentration on institutionalized ‘sexism’ within the criminal justice system and criminological theory.” Contradicting popular stereotype, studies of womens experiences with the criminal justice system have revealed that women do not benefit, at least not uniformly, from chivalry at the hands of police, prosecutors, and judges. It has been stated that a framework named the ‘code of chivalry’ can be used to explain the differences among men and women in criminal behaviour and victimization. This particular framework is based on the fact that “women coming before the courts experience what is known as the double bind of double deviance and double jeopardy: Double deviance - women who do offend are seen to have transgressed not only social norms, but also gender norms while for double jeopardy women are being punished twice; first, they face the usual sanctions of the criminal justice system, but in addition they may be more harshly treated because they are seen as deviant as women” (Carrabine, 2004: 87). For example, a series of studies has shown that women who are married and have children do sometimes receive more leniency than other defendants. This effect is double edged, however; women who do not conform to traditional stereotypes of wives and mothers or who are perceived to avoid their responsibilities may be dealt with especially severely (Morris and Wilczynski, 1994). However, a study in 1996 revealed for all types of offenses except property offenses, the sentences received by women were shorter than those received by men; the average sentences for property offenses were the same (Greenfeld & Snell, 2006). The relationship between women and crime seems to be influenced by a series of parameters. One influential parameter is specific mental illnesses, which can contribute to the development of criminal behaviour. Research regarding this issue conducted by Hodgins (1992) found that “women with major disorders were five times more likely than women with no disorder or handicap to be registered for an offence and 27 times more likely to be registered for a violent offence; intellectually handicapped women were almost four times more likely to offend than women with no disorder or handicap and 25 times more likely to commit a violent offence.” The above findings, however, only reference the gender of the perpetrators, while any reference to the social class of the perpetrators is avoided. Another prominent parameter affecting women’s role in crime is sexual abuse. According to Radosh (2002: 300) “the common life experience of prior physical or sexual abuse is among the most consistent recurring themes among incarcerated women; for these women, crime is a symptom of other painful life experiences.” This view may explain some of women’s involvement in criminal activity, however there is no reference made to the specific obstacles that cause women to commit criminal offences. Using empirical research in order to explain the participation of women in criminal activities, Fishback (1944) conducted a study that came to the conclusion that “the majority were native-born, poorly educated and vocationally untrained; forty percent were psychotic and the importance of hospitalizing psychotic patients is indicated by the finding that four out of five homicide cases were in this group” (Fishback, 1944: 605). In other words, the mental condition of women is not the only parameter that can explain their involvement in criminal actions. The conditions of life are also very likely to lead women to criminal offences. The level at which the conditions of life can influence the women behaviour would be differentiated in accordance with the infrastructure available to each particular society regarding the support of women that live under extremely adverse conditions (not only financially but also psychologically). Women as Victims In the United States, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) consistently shows that men are more likely to be victimized by all kinds of violent crime than women, except rape and sexual assault. In 2006, males experienced 26 violent victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older. The rate of violent victimizations for females in 2006 was 23 per 1,000 females age 12 or older (Rand & Catalano, 2006). Prior to 1992, the NCVS didnt ask women specific questions about the occurrences of rape and sexual assault, instead asking only if there was violence in the home. Due in part to criticism from feminist advocacy groups, a redesign of the NCVS prompted an increase in women victimisation statistics (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004). While awareness of women’s victimization has been increased through publications such as the NCVS, the reasoning behind such victimization is still often stereotyped and misunderstood. Taylor et al. (1998: 229) referred to the view of Bonger (1969) regarding the victimisation of women. In accordance with Bonger (1969: 58): “the great power of a man over his wife, as a consequence of his economic preponderance, may equally be a demoralizing cause…how many women there are now who have to endure the coarseness and bad treatment of their husbands, but would not hesitate to leave them if their economic dependence and the law did not prevent.” In other words, women are expected to be the victims of crimes at a higher percentage than men because of their position in society. The views that have been accepted traditionally by all societies around the world regarding the low position of a woman (in terms of rights and personal strength) should be regarded as the main reason for the existence of high percentages of females among the victims of crimes. Even in the theory, the role of women in the development of crime has not been adequately addressed while the first significant effort towards this direction was made just in the decade of the 1970s, as already explained above. The existence of male on female violence has been a central focus of radical feminist politics. As Helen Longino (1993: 201) explains, “radical feminist theory has been one of the most distinctive and debated contributions of contemporary feminist thought to the theory of knowledge.” In the 1970s, many radical feminists argued that viewing rape as an act of power and violence against women was a constructive way of challenging patriarchal culture. Brownmiller (1975: 15) argues that rape was “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” Brownmiller implies that men are intent on keeping all women in fear of rape and thus, rape is motivated not by sexual desire but by innate power. Radical feminism has its critics, as the idea of an all pervasive patriarchy fails to take into account class and ethnic differences (Curran & Renzetti, 1994). According to Bowker (1981) radical feminism concentrates more on the active oppression of women by men. Radical feminists have a preoccupation with defending female behaviour rather than trying to explain the complexity in their behaviour. These radicals place a great emphasis on victim studies. The term survivor rather than ‘victim’ was coined to denote a more active and positive role to women (Bowker, 1981). Other theoretical approaches have been also used in order to explain the interaction between female victims and crime. In practice, routine activity theory has significant importance in explaining the various aspects of women’s participation as victims in crime. The theory says that “peoples lifestyles, or behavioural patterns increase their vulnerability to criminal victimisation by increasing contact with potential offenders, and decreasing guardianship over themselves and their belongings” (Rodgers & Roberts, 1995: 363). The most significant findings yielded by routine activity theory is that “the situations in which women and men are victimised, and the type of assaults to which they are vulnerable, are substantially different; women are more likely to be victimised by someone they know while men are more likely to be victimised by a stranger” (Rodgers & Roberts, 1995: 375). This finding supports the argument that all aspects of women’s participation in crime can be differentiated from that of men. The differences on which the scientific research focuses depend on the issue under examination, the characteristics of the society involved and the targeted result. Conclusion Feminist criminology is important because of the new perspective it brings to the field of study. It is not the maleness of crime that is the subject of feminist attention, but the issue of women and crime. Since the Carol Smart and Freda Alder publications in the 1970’s, the involvement of women in crime has been explained using many different justifications. It is clear from all issues developed above that women have an active presence in criminal offences (either as victims or perpetrators). In fact, in accordance with a series of statistical data revealed by the United States Bureau of Statistics in 1998 (the most recent available): a) In 1998 there were an estimated 3.2 million arrests of women, accounting for 22% of all arrests that year; b) based on self-reports of victims of violence, women account for 14% of violent offenders, an annual average of about 2.1 million violent female offenders and c) women accounted for about 16% of all felons convicted in State courts in 1996 (Bureau of Justice, Statistics, 1998). It is clear that women participate actively in crimes worldwide and the reasons behind their involvement in criminal activities present a trend for increase. This is a phenomenon that could be possibly explained by the fact that there are no specific measures for the protection of women within the society from specific violations of their rights and their health. As a result women have often proceeded to particular criminal actions that they consider to be a solution to their problems, even if these actions are not in accordance with existing laws. Despite the unwavering evidence that women have a heavy presence in criminal offence, it is unclear how this behaviour in women may change in the long term. Gelsthorpe et al. (2002: 277) explains that “women who commit crime, including women in prison, tend not to commit serious crime; the Government recognizes this disjuncture to a degree but more radical shifts in sentencing policy and practice are required to stem the increasingly rapid flow of women being sent to prison”. Measures taken by governments worldwide regarding the protection of women by criminal offences are not considered to be adequate. Feminists’ contributions have forced us to re-evaluate legacy research and have expanded the scope of criminology to understand the experiences of women. Post-modern feminists argue, however, that there is no single ‘womens experience’ from which to construct knowledge. The lives of women are so diverse it is impossible to generalize about their experiences. The most notable proponent of this argument is Judith Butler (1990). In her publication, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, she argues that although feminists have recognized that gender is not naturally given but socially constructed, they have nonetheless tended to assume that gender is always constructed in the same way. This argument leads to the conclusion that there is no single cause for womens victimization or offending, and no single approach towards dealing with the issue. In order for feminist criminology to have a more effective role in the reduction of women involved in criminal activities worldwide, feminist theorists need to develop an appropriate framework applicable in practice. The feminist approach presents three specific achievements: “a) as a critique of existing male stream criminology - showing how women have been neglected, how they have been misrepresented, and how they may be brought back into existing theories; b) as a perspective to suggest new areas of study; and c) as a way of bringing gender to the forefront and especially the role of men and masculinity in crime” (Carabbine et al., 2004: 85). However, in modern societies the achievements mentioned above are not particular easy to be identified. The conditions of life – which could be characterized as extremely adverse for women that do not have the appropriate financial support – can be used as a justification for the involvement of women in criminal offences. For this reason, it would be necessary that more measures are taken by governments worldwide towards the increase of support (offered to women living under adverse conditions) in practice. The development of the relevant theory could be used only in terms that the existence of the appropriate theoretical basis could help the governments and the non-governmental organizations worldwide in order to understand the needs of women especially of those belonging to the low-income classes. If we are ever to fully understand female criminality further discussion and progression is needed. Chesney-Lind (1986: 86) believes that “more basic research must be undertaken on the character and extensiveness of women’s deviance and on the motives expressed by delinquent or criminal women.” Gelsthorpe (1986: 149) advises feminist writers to “move on from sweeping generalizations about the treatment of female offenders and to adopt a more appreciative stance in their analysis, but a stance which can be built upon and placed in a broader theoretical context.” The full extent of female crime cannot be understood and dealt with until society as a whole, particularly males, change their attitudes towards the female ability to commit crime and allow them to take full responsibility for it. Bibliography Alder, F. (1975). Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill. Beck, A. & Harrison, P. (2005). Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on December 4, 2007, from, Bonger, W. (1969). Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bloomington, Indiana: University Press. Brown, B. (1986). “Women and Crime: The Dark Figures of Criminology”. Economy and Society, 15, 355-402. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1998). Criminal Offenders Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on December 7, 2007, from, Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Carrabine, E., Iganski, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K., South, K. (2004). Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. New York: Routledge. Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). “Women and Crime: The Female Offender”. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12, 78-96. Chesney-Lind, M. & Pasko, L. (2004). The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Curran, D. & Renzetti, C. (1994). Theories of Crime. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Daly, K. & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). “Feminism and Criminology”. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497-538. Durkheim, E. (1952). Suicide: A Study in Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fishback, D. (1944). “Specific Trends in Criminality of Women”. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 13, 265, 605-624. Gelsthorpe, L. (1986). “Towards a Skeptical Look at Sexism”. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 14, 125-152. Gelsthorpe, L. (1989). “Sexism and the Female Offender”. Aldershot: Gower Publishing. Gelsthorpe, L. & Morris, A. (2002). “Women’s imprisonment in England and Wales: A penal paradox”. Criminal Justice, 2 (3), 277-301. Greenfeld, L. & Snell, T. (2006). Women Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on December 4, 2007, from, Heidensohn, F. (1985). Women and Crime. London: Macmillan. Heidensohn, F. (1997). "Gender and Crime" in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford Press. Hodgins, S. (1992). “Mental disorder, intellectual deficiency, and crime. Evidence from a birth cohort”. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49 (6). Longino, H. (1993). “Feminist Standpoint Theory and the Problems of Knowledge”. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19, 201-210. Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (1997). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford Press. Messerchmidt, J. (1997). Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class, and Crime in the Making. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morris, A. & Witczynski, A. (1994). ‘‘Rocking the Cradle: Mothers Who Kill Their Children”. In Birch, H. (ed.), Moving Targets: Women, Maternal Infanticide Murder and Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Naffine, N. (1987). Female Crime. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Radosh, P. (2002). “Reflections on Women’s Crime and Mothers in Prison: A Peacemaking Approach”. Crime and Delinquency, 48(2): 300-315. Rand, M. & Catalano, S. (2006). Criminal Victimization. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on December 1, 2007, from, . Rodgers, K. & Roberts, G. (1995). “Womens Non-Spousal Multiple Victimization: A Test of the Routine Activities Theory”. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37(3): 363-391. Sabol, W., Couture, H. & Harrison, P. (2006). Prisoners in 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on December 4, 2007, from, Schmidt, A. (1971). The Concept of Nature in Marx. London: NLB Publishers. Simon, R. (1995). Neither Victim Nor Enemy. Lanham, MD: Womens Freedom Network & University Press of America. Simpson, S. & Ellis, L. (1994). “Is Gender Subordinate to Class? an Empirical Assessment of Colvin and Paulys Structural Marxist Theory of Delinquency”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(2): 453-480. Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Taylor, I., Walton, P. & Young, J. (1988). The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routledge. Read More