Gender differences in Crime - Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes...

Description

Jack Masterman – Sociology “Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess explanations for apparent gender differences in involvement in crime.” As noted in the essay title there is ‘apparent’ gender differences in involvement in crime when it comes to gender differences. This may be in reference to official statistics which show in most countries, including the United Kingdom, males commit far more crime than women do often referred to as the ‘crime gender-gap’. As for example, in England and Wales in 2013 men accounted for nearly three-quarters of all persons convicted. There are two principle streams of research and theory that must be investigated to asses apparent gender differences. The first is why do females commit less crime than man and there are various explanations given; less detectible offences, sexrole theory and gender socialisation, control theory, rational choice theory (opportunity in patriarchal society). Key debates surrounding the Chivalry Thesis and the Liberation Thesis must also be considered. The second is why do males commit more crime than women and explanations include; sex-role theory and gender socialisation, the assertion of masculinity, stereotyping, control theory and rational choice and opportunity. The first key issue to consider is why females appear to commit less crime. One explanation is that they engage in less detectable crimes such as shoplifting. Theft from shops is the most common offence among women and although why men do most shoplifting women tend to steal smaller, less detectable items such as clothing and are therefore more likely to get away with it. Sex role theory, generally associated with functionalism, points towards women’s traditional ‘expressive’ role as why women appear to commit less crime. Their traditional role gave them less opportunity to commit crime as they were tied down to their responsibilities of child-rearing and most of their time was spent in the home. Furthermore gender socialisation encourages women to adopt ‘feminine’ characteristics such as being less competitive and most important less averse to taking risks. The combination of both sex-role theory and gender socialisation make women avoid the risk-taking involved in crime as well as giving them fewer opportunities of doing so. However there have been criticisms. Walklate (2003) states that sex-role theory is based on biological assumptions, according to Walklate, Parsons assume because women have the biological capacity to bear children, they are best suited to the expressive role. Alternatively both Carlen and Heidensohn combine a feminist approach with control and rational choice and opportunity theories to explain the lower levels of crime. Carlen (1988), following a study of a small number of working-class women who had criminal convictions, suggests women were encouraged to conform. This is done in two ways; the Gender Deal, referring to the rewards that arise from fulfilling their roles in the family and home and the Class Deal, which refers to the material rewards which arise from working in paid employment. Carlen argues most women accept and achieve these deals and therefore conform however not all do. Some obstacles prevent a few women accepting either one or both of these deals including; relative poverty, unemployment, lack of a family because of being brought up in care or abusive partners. Therefore, such women may make a rational choice to choose crime as they have little to lose and crime has benefits such as consumer goods which would otherwise not be available. Similarly Heidensohn (1996) suggests there is a patriarchal ideology dominating different spheres, in which women operate, preventing them from

committing crime. In the ‘domestic sphere’ of the home control is brought about through the allocation of women to certain responsibilities, such as childcare providing them with less opportunity for crime as well as facing severe consequences if they do become criminally active. In the ‘public sphere’ women are controlled through threat of physical or sexual violence if they go out alone at night and at work they’re subject to sexual harassment by male bosses, restricting their opportunity to offend. They’re also likely to hit the ‘class ceiling’ at work meaning opportunity to commit ‘white collar’ crime is not there. Finally women face the threat of losing their reputation of being ‘respectable’ if they engage in deviance and may be applied labels such as ‘slag’. However there are criticisms of both Carlen and Heidensohn’s theories. Both control theory and feminism can be accused of seeing women’s behaviour as determined by external forces such as patriarchal controls or class and gender deals, they can be seen as too deterministic. Finally Carlen’s sample was small and cannot be considered representative. The ‘Chivalry Thesis’ argues most criminal justice agents are men and are therefore socialised to act in a ‘chivalrous’ way towards women, Pollak (1950) was the first to suggest men have protective attitudes towards women. The criminal justice system is thus more lenient with women and so their crimes are less likely to end up in the official statistics which gives an invalid picture which exaggerates the gender differences. There are multiple self-report studies which support this thesis. For example Graham and Bowling (1955) found that although males were more likely to offend, the difference was smaller than that recorded in the official statistics. They found males were 2.33 times more likely to admit to having committed an offence whereas official statistics show males as 4 times more likely to offend. Furthermore women are more likely than men to be cautioned rather than prosecuted, the Ministry of Justice (2009) states that 49% of females recorded as offending received a caution in 2007 compared to only 30% for men. However there is a plethora of evidence against the ‘Chivalry Thesis. Farrington and Morris’ (1983) study of sentencing of 408 offences of theft in the magistrates court found that women were not sentenced more leniently for comparable offences which links with the idea women aren’t treated leniently, it’s just that their offences are less serious. In contrast many Feminists argue that the actual opposite is happening in the justice system, it actually treats them harsher when they deviate from gender norms. The ‘Liberation Thesis’ is essentially the argument that as patriarchal controls weaken in society women’s crime rates will increase to that of men’s. Put forward by Adler (1975) he argues as women become liberated from patriarchy their crimes will become as frequent and as serious as men’s. This is aided by further opportunities for women in the education system as well as in work, women have begun adopt traditionally ‘male’ roles in both legitimate and illegitimate activity. As a result women commit no longer just their traditional crime such as shoplifting but also more typically ‘male’ crimes which may involve violence. This is a result of the fact women are now more self-confident and assertive as well as that they have more opportunities in the legitimate structure. There is much evidence so support this view. The overall rate of female offending and share of offences have gone up, for example between the 1950’s and 1970’s the female share of offences rose from one in 7 to one in 6, there is increased media focus on the growth of ‘girl gangs’ and Denscombe (2001) found female teenagers were as likely as males to engage in risk-taking behaviour and they were adopting more ‘male’ stances such as wanting to be in control. However there are multiple criticisms of the Liberation Thesis. The female crime rate began rising in the 1950’s, long before women’s liberation movement and most female criminals are working-class (the group least likely to be affected by

women’s liberation). Chesney-Lind (1997) found in the USA poor and marginalised women are more likely than liberated women to commit crime. Finally there’s little evidence illegitimate opportunity of white collar crime has opened up to women. It can be argued Adler overestimates both the extent which women have become liberated and the extent to which they’re now engaged in serious crime. It must also be questioned as to why men appear to commit more crime than women. Messerschmidt, mentioned in Item A, is a key sociologist when considering this aspect. Messershcmidt (1993) argues masculinity is a social construct or ‘accomplishment’ and men have to constantly work at it and some men have more resources to draw upon than others. He argues that different masculinities co-exist in society but hegemonic masculinity, with emphasis on competiveness, lack of emotion, and risk taking is the dominant, most prestigious. Some men have subordinated masculinities which Messershmidt argues is prominent in working-class men as they do not have the resources to achieve hegemonic masculinity which he argues leads to crime to try and accomplish it. He argues class and ethnic differences among youths lead to different forms of rule breaking to demonstrate masculinity. White middle-class youths have to subordinate themselves to teachers in order to achieved middle-class status leading to accommodating masculinity in school. Outisde of school however it takes on an oppositional form, for example drinking. White-working class youths have less chance of educational success so their masculinity is oppositional both in and outside of school. It’s constructed around sexist attitudes, being tough and opposing authority. Finally black lower working-class youths may have few expectations of a reasonable job and may use gang membership and violence to express their masculinity. He also acknowledges middle-class men too may use crime but argues they probably commit white-collar crime to accomplish hegemonic masculinity, poorer groups may use street robbery to achieve a subordinated masculinity. Despite the numerous strengths there are noticeable criticisms; masculinity may just be a description of male offenders and therefore it could be a circular argument, he does not explain why not all men use crime to achieve masculinity and he over-works the concept of masculinity it explain virtually all male crimes. Applying a postmodernist twist Katz (1988) argues most criminology has failed to understand the role of pleasure in committing crime. This search for pleasure has to be placed in the context of masculinity. Doing evil, he argues, is motivated by the search for a ‘moral self-transcendence’ and different crimes produce different thrills. Katz argues by understanding the emotional thrills we can understand why males commit crime. His worked his clearly influenced by that of Matza (1964) who has argued constructing a male identity in contemporary society is difficult, for most young males it is period of boredom and crisis and crime gives them a sense of clear identity. A linked argument is that of Lyng (1990) who argues young males search for pleasure through risk-taking best seen as ‘edgework’ by which he means there is a thrill to be gained from acting in ways that are on the edge between security and danger. However a major criticism of both Katz and Lyng is they fail to answer the question, why males? They do not provide answers as to why girls, who are as equally bored, do not go out committing crime. To draw a conclusion there are many sociological explanations put forward to explain the apparent difference in the ‘gender-crime gap’. In both streams of research; why females appear to commit less crime than men and why do males commit more crime than women there are credible arguments. Perhaps the most important one is Messershcmidt’s which uses the idea of masculinity to explain

why males commit crime. Despite its drawbacks, such as not explanining why not all men use crime to accomplish masculinity, it presents a detailed line of argument and reasons as to why men appear to commit more crime....