Essay, Research Paper: Female Criminality

In most societies of the past and present, women have been seen as inferior and
more passive than their male counterparts. Since women are perceived as being inferior and passive, it is especially shocking to society when it is learned that a female has committed a violent and brutal crime. Of course if a teenager murders a fellow classmate it should be shocking to most people, but if a teenaged girl that took the life of another human being why is it that much more sensational? Some people would argue that it is especially shocking because women are biologically predisposed to be emotional, passive, dependant and nurturing while men are presumed to be aggressive, dominant and independent. (Boritch, 1997) Others would argue that women are perceived to have the above qualities only because the society that they live in is a sexist society and educates its women to follow that gender role. These people believe that a woman s social environment and the way that they are dealt with by society cause women to commit a majority of certain offenses of the criminal justice system and that the biology of a woman makes little difference in their actions. This paper will take a look at both sides of this argument and will give light to how women s theories have evolved from a strong biological point of view to theories that are more concerned with the female s environment and how this affects the female socially and psychologically.
One of the earliest theorists of female criminality was Cesare Lombroso, whose theory was based on a strict biological point of view. Like many other early theorists of crime, Lombroso was greatly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin. (Artz, 1998) One of Lombroso s contributions to the world of criminology was the concept of atavism.
Lombroso was determined that criminals could be physically identified from non-criminals and created the word atavism which is defined as certain physical anomalies which are characteristic to a ape-like species of man. (Leonard, 1982) The book, The Female Offender, was based on Lombroso and Ferrero s assumptions of women being less evolved than men, which they credited as true from their analysis of the skulls and bones of female prostitutes in Italy. The brain and skulls of the female offenders were the primary interest of Lombroso and Ferrero. They compared the size of the brains and skulls with a control group of non-offending women and came to the conclusion that female criminals have skulls more like men than like normal women, and their brains weighed less than normal women. (Mann, 1984)
Other characteristics that Lombroso and Ferrero discovered were that female offenders are more masculine, weigh more, are shorter and have more gray hair than law-abiding women. The physical characteristics common to the offender were deemed as deviant characteristics and were more likely to be found on prostitutes than any other type of female offender. (Mann, 1984) The concept of atavism was less likely to coincide with female offenders than with male offenders since women were less evolved and had fewer signs of degeneration to reveal. (Boritch, 1997)
Lombroso stated that females are less inclined to commit crimes because women are more conservative, they are less exposed to society since their duties are mainly in the household, which gives them less of an opportunity to commit crimes, and because their brains are less developed than males, which causes them to act more primitive. (Leonard, 1982)
Although Lombroso s theory on female deviance is rejected today, it has been praised for looking at female offenders differently than males and using control groups of non-offending women to understand female criminals. (Boritch, 1997)
William I. Thomas was another influential theorist that based his theory on the biological aspects of female criminality. Thomas was more concerned with female delinquency in his book, The Unadjusted Girl, and also based most of his findings on the sexual nature of females more than Lombroso did. Thomas felt that women are naturally deceptive and manipulative and that society must enforce women to conform to the gender roles of society. (Boritch, 1997)
Thomas saw the family as the primary defining agency (Thomas, 1923) and as more women enter the work force, this causes the family structure to break down. Therefore, Thomas saw young girls as not given the proper guidance from their parents and not being properly socialized in their gender roles. Thomas emphasizes that along with improper socialization, the young girl s impulse to get amusement, adventure and freedom are the primary reasons for a girl to become delinquent.
Thomas felt that delinquent girls do not engage in sexual relations because of sexual desire, but to use sex as a commodity in exchange for more desirable things. He felt that this was the case because the girls have usually become wild before the development of sexual desire, and their casual sexual relations do not usually awaken sex feeling. (Thomas, 1923) On the other hand, Thomas viewed boys who had sex as being ordinary while sexually active girls as disturbed and in need of therapy and proper management. (Boritch, 1997)
Thomas theory has been under much controversy and criticized for a number of reasons. Thomas fails to show an understanding to human affairs and wishes and completely disregards economic reasons for why women commit crimes, which tends to tarnish the credibility of his theory. (Klein, 1973)
Lombroso and Thomas theories of female deviance are generally regarded as sexist and racist thinking that was prevalent back when their theories were first developed. Believing that men were superior and women inferior is highly critical and a theory that based itself on it would be quickly disregarded today. Societies are able to live together in sexual harmony like in Israel. The kibbutzim are a culture of people in Israel that encourage sexual equality; the men and women share both the work and decision-making. The male and female children of the kibbutzim are raised exactly the same and are taught to look upon sex as nothing relevant it their society. (Macionis, Benoit and Jansson, 1998) A society living like this discredits Lombroso and Thomas theories.
Lombroso and Thomas theories may be laughed at today, but there are many theorists that still ascertain that biology is the key factor for female offending. One such
theorist is Katharina Dalton who bases female criminality on the premenstrual syndrome, also known as PMS.
In 1999, Curt Bartol defined PMS as the cyclic physiological and psychological changes that occur prior to the onset of menstruation, usually four to seven days before. Some of the negative effects of PMS include irritability, tension, anxiety, depression, nervousness, stomach cramps, water retention, and painful swelling of the breasts. (Mann, 1984) PMS is always seen in a negative way but some females have reported having positive effects including increased creativity and physical vigor during PMS. (Bartol, 1999)
Dalton based her theory of PMS as being a key factor of criminal activity among women after performing interviews with 156 female prisoners in 1961. Her findings indicated that 22 percent committed crimes during their premenstrual period, and another 26 percent committed their crimes during menstruation. (Bartol, 1999) Dalton also indicated that premenstrual tension, which is defined as mood changes, headaches, tiredness, bloated ness or mastitis, was a significant factor since 63 percent of the committed their crimes during this time. (Mann, 1984) Dalton used these findings to come to the conclusion that during a woman s premenstrual and menstruation period, the hormonal changes may cause women to commit crimes. Although Dalton s findings seem to support her theory, a closer look is needed to properly consider these findings.
Dalton s study is heavily flawed and can be disparaged easily. Dalton s theory is based on a very small sample group and cannot be applicable to every society. Dalton s findings are also based on a woman s memory alone to remember at what part of her cycle she was in when she committed the crime. Dalton also fails to take into consideration that some of the women in her study may have been affected by lethargic and slow reaction time which she states to be a characteristics of premenstrual syndrome when they committed the crime. (Mann, 1984) If this were the case, Dalton s theory would be that women have a higher chance of being apprehended by the authorities when they commit a crime during PMS rather than PMS being the cause of female criminality. Also, recent research has come to the conclusion that women who believe in menstrual pain are more likely to recall more painful and agonizing memories of their last period. (Bartol, 1999) Therefore, if Dalton asked her questions in a way to persuade the female offenders in her study to believe in PMS, they may have been swayed to answer that they had been in a more agonizing condition than what was true.
During recent times, many theorists have questioned the reasoning of those before them and have turned to explain criminal behavior as being the affects of certain social, environmental and economic conditions. Robert Merton s Anomie Theory is one that focuses on social structure and was constructed in 1938. Although Merton s theory gave much of its attention towards entire society, it can be adjusted slightly to explain female criminality. Merton s theory is based on the idea that everybody is trying to attain a certain goal and not everybody has the means to attain the goal. When people cannot attain the goal legitimately, they often choose to use illegal methods to obtain the goal that causes criminal behavior to occur. (Williams III and McShane, 1999) Merton identified five different types of adaptations to the goals-means relationship.
Conformists were seen as those that accept both the legitimate goals and means to accomplish the goals. Innovationists accept the legitimate goal but do not use legitimate means to attain the goals. Innovationists would include bank robbers and extortionists. Ritualists do not accept the cultural goal but accept the legitimate means to pursue the goal. Ritualists would be anybody that works a job simply to be working and not trying to attain the goal. Retreatists reject both the cultural goal and the institutional means to achieve the goal. Examples of retreatists would include drug addicts, alcoholics and others that simply drop out of society. Finally, Rebels reject both the cultural goals and the institutional means like the Retreatist, but only to try and replace the cultural goals and the institutional means with different ones. Retreatists include terrorists and others trying to change the world to reflect their beliefs. (Sacco and Kennedy, 1998) The only non-offending adaptation is Conformism while the others are all considered to be deviants by Merton.
The female s main goal in life is to have a stable marriage and children, which she learns from early in life through socialization. Females are taught that their family, children, husband and home should be their main concerns and should occupy the majority of their time. (Leonard, 1982) Since the goals that females are taught to obtain are fairly easy to achieve, they do not have to resort to criminal activity to acquire a family and children. This is the reason why female offending is so much lower than male offending. To explain why female offending has slightly increased, we must look at alterations to the role of the female. As society evolves and sees women as equals to men, the social structure and goals of women changes. As more women enter the workforce and spend less time at home, their priorities and goals will change causing them to go after the goal of economic prosperity and put less emphasis on family. The goal of economic prosperity will cause an influx in female crime because it is believed that the male s goal is economic prosperity as well. (Artz, 1998) Although Merton s Anomie Theory tends to make more sense than the previous theories covered, it is not immune to flaws in its system.
It can be argued that Anomie Theory is partial and not complete in its explanation to certain types of deviance. These would include middle-class girls that shoplift even though they can afford to pay for the merchandise, violent crimes that do not involve robbery, homosexuality and many others that do not involve the cultural goal in a significant way. It also seems certain deviants do not fit in Merton s adaptations as well as others. One example is drug and alcohol abuse of women, one would think that they would be categorized in the Retreatist adaptation but this is not always the case. Retreatists are characterized, as those that have given up on both the cultural goals and means but if drug and alcohol addicted women are married and have kids this cannot be the case since they have completed their cultural goals through institutional means. (Leonard, 1982) Another criticism of this theory is that Merton assumes consensus that everyone agrees what the cultural goal is. There are many different types of cultures in every society so it is difficult to be able to say that an entire society has consensus on the cultural goal. Merton s theory therefore is creditable in certain aspects and faulty on others. Anomie theory explains why women do not commit crimes as often as men do but fails to explain why women do commit certain crimes.
In the 1960s, Labeling theory was created to approach criminology theory differently from before. The Labeling theory focuses on the construction of symbols and meanings and is not as concerned with any actions that did not cause a reaction. (Williams III and McShane, 1999) Theorists from this school express support for the deviant actor and feel that some individuals are unfairly labeled as criminals while others are not. (Sacco and Kennedy, 1998) The Labeling theory was developed by Frank Tannenbaum in 1938 but was later refined by Edwin Lemert who is commonly known as the person who constructed the theory to what we know it as. (Williams III and McShane, 1999) Labeling theory sees deviance as a reoccurring phenomenon due to the fact that societal reactions cause certain individuals to continue to commit crimes.
Labeling theory can be explained as having two different steps: explaining how and why only some people get labeled, and the effect the label has on the successive criminal activities. (Leonard, 1982)
Powerful social groups create rules and regulations that the rest of society has to follow and if anyone does not conform to those rules and regulations, they are seen to being deviant. If one is seen as deviating from the norms of their society they are seen as deviant and labeled as being deviant. Individuals that are a minority, have a low economic status, do not agree with mainstream society s values, or isolated from society are more likely to become labeled as deviants. This step is referred to as primary deviance. (Elliot, 1988)
After a person has been labeled, they are affected by negatively and tend to continue to commit crimes because either the individual is constantly being labeled by society as a deviant and treated differently by society or else the individual internalizes the label of being a deviant. (Sacco and Kennedy, 1998) This stage is known as secondary deviance and either of these two methods will cause more deviance to occur from the individual and may create a profession criminal. (Williams and McShane, 1999) Labeling theory can be applied to prostitution, statutory rape, and abortion. It seems relevant to those offenses and any other mala prohibita crimes because they are acts that are wrong not in and of themselves, but by prohibition. (Elliot, 1988) The only reason why the crimes stated above are considered crimes is because the morals of society s more powerful groups have deemed them deviant. Still, Labeling theory tends to still be incomplete and does not answer many questions about deviance.
Labeling theory can be criticized as not being a theory of deviance. This theory does not explain the causes of deviance, which is a major issue in most other theories but only tends to explain why people continue to deviate from society. Labeling theory also does not even enlighten us why people continue certain crimes such as corporation crime. Labeling theory can only explain why individuals, not groups of people, continue to commit crimes. Labeling theory has also been criticized for treating everything as relative; it does not say what is right or wrong even though there are some absolute crimes like murder, rape and child molestation. Finally, Labeling theory contradicts official data, [e]ven empirical evidence concerning the effects of control agencies is not as substantial as labeling implies, calling into question its central argument: the negative impact of official reaction. (Leonard, 1982)
Differential Association theory, developed by Edwin Sutherland in the 1930s, is based on social interaction between intimate groups, which causes certain people to deviate while others do not. Learning criminal behavior is seen as being no different than any other form of learning according to Sutherland. The main focus of Differential Association theory is the frequency, intensity and meaningfulness of association. (Elliot, 1998)
Differential Association theory sees criminal behavior as being learned through intimate personal groups in the process of communication. (Williams and McShane, 1999) The intimate personal groups educate the inspiring criminal two different ways, techniques and also motives, drives and rationalizations. Certain techniques to commit criminal offenses are taught to the individual, these can be very complicated techniques or very easy techniques. Motives, drives and rationalizations see certain laws as biased and unfair, and use these excuses to commit crimes. If the motives, drives and rationalizations are more favorable to violate the law then people will become deviant. Finally, while criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. (Sacco and Kennedy, 1998) In other words, theorists must come up with a theory that explains criminal behavior alone and does not explain non-criminal behavior as well.
Using Differential Association theory, women are not the primary offenders due to the intimate social groups they communicate with. Since Sutherland explicitedly stated that one learns behavior from the intimate groups they socialize with, it is difficult for a female to learn criminal behavior because the family is the female s intimate social group. (Leonard, 1982) This theory would also explain why most juvenile delinquents place less importance on family life than non-criminal adolescents. (Artz, 1998) This theory also explains why there are very few females involved with white-collar crime. Since women are excluded from intimate groups that are involved with white crime, it is not surprising that they do not play a pivotal role in white-collar crime. (Leonard, 1982) According to Differential Association theory, as women enter the workforce we can expect women to be more of a key figure in higher and complex foundations of crime rather than petty thefts like shoplifting.
Differential Association has a lot of valid points, which include being one of the few theories that can explain both individual crimes and corporate crimes as well. Differential Association is not immune from criticisms unfortunately. Some criticisms are that this theory does not take into account people with psychological problems who may commit crimes and it does not explain fully why certain groups of people hold certain judgments about the law. Also, Sutherland s theory is cast in a positivistic light since he views individuals as being controlled by their intimate groups. This would mean that people do not have e a choice about committing a crime, they simply commit them due to association. (Elliot, 1988)
This paper has examined the past theories that were used to explain the different types of criminality between males and females. Each theory based itself on facts, which they deemed to be more relevant than other facts. This clearly can cause much different opinions and explanations on criminality. Early in history, most theories tend to be based on the biological differences between men and women and now has evolved to the point where theorists understand the importance of social and environmental conditions. After all, humans are supposed to be social beings that have a propensity to be articulate and open-minded. Our actions should reflect these thoughts about humanity and we should continue to try and understand the differences of males and females. The question, are women predisposed to commit certain criminal offenses? Is a complex and confusing topic and has baffled great minds for many centuries. Continuing accomplishments in science may help answer this question, but until this happens, crime will continue to be an integral and mysterious part of our society.