Feminist Theories

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

Carlen adopts Hirschi’s control theory when explaining crime, which assumes that humans are essentially rational and they will turn to crime when the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages and are more appealing than the likely rewards of conformity. Carlen argues that the working-class background is fairly typical of female offenders convicted of more serious crimes. According to Carlen, working class women have been controlled through the promise of rewards stemming from the workplace and the family. She identified the ‘class deal’, which offers a decent standard of living for women who work, and the ‘gender deal’, which offers material and emotional rewards to women who conform to conventional domestic gender roles. In terms of the class deal, the women in Carlen’s study failed to find a legitimate way of earning a decent living. In terms of the gender deal, some had been abused by partners/fathers. They had gained nothing from either deal and so felt they had nothing to lose by using crime to escape from poverty.

With this in mind, this study shows that research could contribute to crime control theories considering it identified a correlation between gender and crime by focusing on the physical attributes of criminals. However, this theory for the physical differentiation between criminal and non-criminals is viewed by modern studies as statistically insignificant. Furthermore, this suggests that crime control has change over recent years considering theories have been challenged by researchers using more reliable and valid measures. In addition to the relationship between criminality and gender, Klien (1973:185) states that, “These characteristics are of physiological or psychological nature and are uniformly based on implicit or explicit assumptions about the inherent nature of women. This nature is universal, rather than existing within a specific historical framework.” In other words, the observable difference in crime rates between criminal and non-criminal women might have been due to economic, social, and political factors. As a result, several criminologists have tried to establish a theory that explains all crime is still possible, while others have suggested that crime control should focus on understanding particular types of crimes instead. Therefore, it is clear that crime control has been modified over the years to accommodate for more rounded theories.

The findings on the website show how female offenders have been perceived as less violent offender compared to males (NCJRS). Although, in the past females were perceived to commit minor offenses, but there has been a rise in females committing violent offense (NCJRS). There has also been a rise in the percentage of female offender overall, which younger girls represent a larger proportion of juvenile arrest (NCJRS). The reason for this could be many younger girls are experiencing trauma, abuse, violence, and poverty issues at home. For example, if a younger female leaves in a home and all she sees is her mother and father fight, which could lead her to think that it’s okay. She also gets beaten by her father and her mother never say anything so she might think it’s a way of life. This cause for whenever this younger female gets into a confrontation at school, she automatically leads to violence. The reason why is that’s all she seen growing up. The victimization that the female offender go through cause them to have different needs compared to male offenders. The findings on NCJRS states how due to the different victimization females go through they are more likely to be addicted to drugs and have mental

The United States criminal justice system, an outwardly fair organization of integrity and justice, is a perfect example of a seemingly equal situation, which turns out to be anything but for women. The policies imposed in the criminal justice system affect men and women in extremely dissimilar manners. I plan to examine how gender intersects with the understanding of crime and the criminal justice system. Gender plays a significant role in understanding who commits what types of crimes, why they do so, who is most often victimized, and how the criminal justice system responds to these victims and offenders. In order to understand the current state of women and the way in which gender relates to crime and criminal justice, it is first

In viewing the information contained in the aforementioned articles, one can immediately understand the underlying reasons that women are committing more crimes than men. Through the mid-1990s, the arrest rates of both genders has increased steadily, with the male rate far exceeding that of females (Gross, 2009, pp. 84). However, in recent years, a shift has been seen, with the numbers of female offenders rising significantly, especially at the juvenile level, which significantly raises the likelihood of re-offending later in life. As such, an understanding of the differences between the sexes in terms of the reasoning behind their offenses has long been researched.

With regards to female sentences, it can be seen on the one hand that the criminal justice system deals with female crimes more leniently than with male criminality, as referred to as the chivalry theory (Pollok, 1983). As many female offences are usually petty wrongdoings, such as shoplifting which makes up for nearly a half of all indictable convictions (Ministry of Justice, 2014), due to their gender, it is most likely that females are to be cautioned over receiving a prison sentence. However, this was not the case for Maxine Carr in 2003. A whirlwind of media interest surrounding Carr’s involvement, with the murders of two young girls from Soham, is argued to be the definitive reason as to why Carr received a prison sentence of three years, all for perverting the course of justice.

Since 1970, there has been an increasing and alarming rise 138 percent of violent crimes committed by women. Still, while the equivalent percentage compared to male violence is small 15 percent to 85 percent the fact that the numbers have elevated so drastically points to something changing in society.

According to Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (232) Feminist theory has been on the back burner of modern criminology until the late 19th century. As with the other criminology theories there are many thoughts and ideas on why females commit crimes. In the beginning the theories seem to revolve around the victimization of the female gender. Then criminologist took a look at female delinquency, prostitution, and gender inequality in the criminal justice system. Lilly (233) wrote that Lombroso used physiological traits to determine what type of women would commit crime. Lombroso also argued that the women that committed the most crime were more masculine then the women who did not commit crime. He used physiological immobility, and passivity to make the argument. Lilly (235) also wrote that Sigmund Freud believed the reason women committed crime was because they has “penis envy”. Since women were physical different than men, women would become more aggressive trying to act like the male counterpart in order to fit in with the status quo.

Despite the general consensus that the number of females involved in crime is continuing to rise, males are still the dominant gender committing crimes, especially for violent offences. This may be why there is a continued lack of research on female offenders using a gender specific approach that accounts for gender differences. Historically, female offenders have been primarily studied using a gender-neutral model comprising mainly male offenders. Although there is support that a gender-neutral model can effectively apply to both male and female offenders (van der Knaap et al. 2012), there has been an ongoing debate on whether the pathways and processes that lead to female offending can be successfully explained and ultimately applied to interventions and preventions by using theories originally created to explain male crime (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996).

Females are said to be very emotional and if they were troublemakers at a young age they are said to possess “masculine traits and characteristics” (Siegal & Walsh, 2015). Males tend to commit crimes like robbery, assault and burglary. This has changed in the last decade. The rate of offending has decreased for males by 27 percent and females about 15 percent. “Girls have increased their

Gender is clearly one of the major factors in the causes of crime as men commit far more crimes than women. “90% of those found guilty are men.” – the poverty site

I believe that this train of thought addresses the cause of criminal behavior in women because many viewpoints that fall under the umbrella of feminism are given as different causes of criminal conduct in women .Feminist criminology lacks evidence of a woman’s crime. Women's activist theories not only strive to elucidate criminal wrong doing, exploitation and additionally join together theory with practice to create more impartial answers for the crime at hand.

Feminist criminology emerged out of the realisation that criminology has from its inception centred on men and the crimes they commit. Although it can be argued female criminality was researched by Lombroso, as far back as 1800’s, female crime, it’s causes and the impact in which it had on society was largely ignored by the criminological futurity. Those Criminologist who did attempt to research female crime such as Thomas and Pollak were not only very damning of women but were also very condescending, choosing to stereotype them as either Madonna or whore (Feinman).

The social process and traditional structure theory explained why female crime rates are rather lower than males. The social process theory tend to explain the traditional crime with regards to differential opportunity to lean criminal techniques and values. The use of the traditional theory shows evidence in which considered the overlap on the causes of crimes committed by both genders. Studies shows that both male and female offenders that came in contact with the criminal justice system often came from a social background that are typically of low socioeconomic status, poorly educated, under or unemployed, and minority groups (Steffensmeir and Allan, 1995). The only difference between male and female offenders is, female