This essay will consider the concept of ‘women and crime’ within the context of the issue being labeled ‘a social problem.’ Throughout a vast array of criminological studies and literature (Smart 1976, Worrall 1990, Heidensohn 1997) there is a unanimous agreement that women commit a smaller share of all crimes, and that the crimes they do commit are different to those of their male counterparts (i.e. in terms of severity, frequency etc..). Government and independent statistics go some way to supporting this belief by introducing, for example, the fact that there are significantly fewer women within penal establishments than that of men. In 2001 there were 4045 female prisoners, within a total population of 68,357 prisoners (around 6%). When reflecting on the above information one must consider why, if at all, women and crime could be seen to be a social problem, which this essay will argue that indeed it is. One will then proceed to present two contrasting theories which aim to address why women offend and subsequently analyse the extent to which each theory can be used to explain current trends. The essay will assess the response of the government to the social problem, and finally measure the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the National Probation Service (NPS) in its delivery of its services to female offenders.
So why can the area of women and crime be deemed a ‘social problem?’ According to the American sociologist C Wright Mills (1958) a distinction can be made between what could be considered a ‘public issue’ and likewise a ‘personal trouble.’ For Mills there were many different types of troubles or problems that individuals experienced in their lives, yet not all such troubles emerged as public issues which ‘commanded public attention and required public responses.’ Heidensohn (1985) believed the typical female offender to be ‘a young girl, a first time offender charged with shoplifting,’ would this assessment of female criminality justify a large scale problem? One could surmise thus far that of the 6% of female prisoners many of them can be said to have ‘personal troubles.’ However the issue does not end here. Female participation in crime is increasing, and as such the patterns of female and male criminality are converging. Furthermore throughout the 1990s the number of women in prison increased by more than 100%, and of those imprisoned 32% were first time offenders, as opposed to 14% of male prisoners. These figures present an early warning that female criminality is increasing dramatically, and even at this early stage there is enough justification for it to be labeled a social problem. The arguments presented throughout this essay will undoubtedly add weight to the authors claim.
Historically female criminality has largely been a neglected area of criminological theory (Smart 1976). Women have always committed fewer crimes than men and so as offenders they were simply incorporated within the general theories of criminology. The real focus on women’s crime emerged with the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 70s, providing a multitude of explanations for alleged increases in female criminality. In the aim of understanding this phenomenon one must begin to address the discrepancies that exist between the number and severity of crimes committed by women. To do this two key theories on women and crime will be introduced and examined; biological determinism, which is an individualist theory, and the liberation theory, which is a branch of the feminist approach and falls under the structuralist framework. These contrasting theories can be easily identified within the realm of a key sociological dichotomy – nature versus nurture.
Some of the first theorists to look at female criminality based their ideas on the physiological and psychological characteristics of women. To formulate such theories writers felt they had to create two distinct classes of women; good women who were normal, non – criminal women, and bad women, who were criminals. The first recognised ‘scientist’ to address female criminality was a 19th century statistician, Adolphe Quetelet (1835) who believed that since women possessed half a mans strength then the rate of women’s violent offences would be about half that of male violent crime. Indeed the subsequent work of Bonger (1916) built upon this approach by stating that women had less strength and courage than men and would thus commit less crime. These early attempts at understanding female criminality were enshrined in the belief that criminality was seen as an individual activity rather than a condition of existing social structures. The focus therefore is on biological factors that would turn a woman towards criminal activity.
However the biological theory of female criminality largely emanated from the works of Cesare Lombroso (1900) and his publication of ‘The female offender.’ For Lombroso women were simply biologically dysfunctional…..
“…a comparison of the criminal skull with the skull of normal women reveals the
fact that the female criminals approximate more to males, both criminal and
normal, than to normal women.” (The Female Offender 1895 Pp. 28)
Lombroso believed female deviants to lack maternal instincts, exhibit atavistic characteristics and display masculine features such as excess body hair. Further to this was his view that most women were incapable of deviant acts because they were biologically inferior to men, weak, passive and even childlike! He traced the inner weakness of women to the ‘immobile nature of the ovum as compared to the more active sperm.’ Moreover he went on to describe women as being less evolved than men, and thus closer to a primitive nature that would not allow them to deviate to criminal thoughts or actions. His evidence for the continued low rate of female crime at that time was further explained by the fact that those females exhibiting such features were ‘less likely to be chosen as breeding mates’ (Lombroso and Ferrero 1895) and so a gradual withering away of female offenders would result as they were not reproducing.
The biological theory continued to expand in the early part of the 1900s and in 1958 another key thinker, Otto Pollack, published ‘The criminality of women.’ Pollack differed from Lombroso by moving away from the atavistic traits, yet he still remained within the biological framework by associating female criminality with biological phases that ‘undermined women’s natural inhibitions and influenced female offending.’ Underpinning this approach were three key catalysts for offending. The first was that of menstruation, which for Pollack awoke feelings of irritation, particularly in relation to her subordinate state within society. The second, pregnancy, also lead to irritation alongside anxiety and emotional imbalance. Lastly the menopause induced a level of fear in women regarding emotional security and the state of their marriage. However unlike previous biological theorists Pollack believed female criminality to be more prevalent than was publicly acknowledged – and the term he coined for this occurrence was ‘hidden crime.’ This hidden element of female criminality can be attributed to the female abilities of deceitfulness and concealment. For Pollack women were largely the instigators of crime and that the skills they possessed were biologically driven rather than learned; of which the female hiding her monthly menstruation and sexual enjoyment were two key examples.
Further extensions and developments of the biological approach to women and crime have continued up until the present day. In 1968 Cowie, Cowie and Slater (1968) identified physical traits in delinquent girls, including the linking of size to aggression. Research into pre-menstrual tension (Moir and Jessel 1997) suggests a link between that and aggressive behaviour. As a society we have also witnessed media representations using the biological theory to explain the acts of female criminals – Myra Hindley being one example.
Critics of the biological theory have identified a number of weaknesses and discrepancies. Smart (1995) believes the theories to be short sighted in explaining gender differences in offending simply in terms of sexuality. The sexist assumptions of the traditionalist male criminologist were also widely criticised, particularly in the assertion that the female gender lacked rationality (Smart 1976, Naffine 1981). With particular reference to the work of Pollack the primary criticism was that he offered ‘no proof for his statements’ (Leonard 1982 Pp.5). She adds that…
“Such a theory cannot be based on evidence, a weakness compounded by assertions
that simply defy plausibility.”
Indeed many feminist theorists see Pollack, Lombroso and other similar thinkers to be ‘foolish, simplistic, out-dated and inaccurate,’ part of a male-stream criminology that fails to take into account many of the structural influences that in turn influence criminality. However Pollack’s work does have some merit, his claims that women are treated differently has lead to the composition of many sociological theories. Furthermore his ‘hidden crime’ theory links to the inaccuracy of official statistics in measuring female criminality.
Throughout the 1900s however criminological theories began to shift towards sociological explanations of criminality; key theories included ‘Anomie,’ ‘Differential Association’ and ‘Strain theory.’ However these theories were all male orientated and female explanations remained entrenched in biological explanations of female sexual inferiority. While the majority of early theorists emphasized the key frameworks of physiological and psychological approaches, there were a handful of theorists who included the influence of social factors. Incorporating the economic and social concepts into the realm of female criminality expanded rapidly from the 1960s and in particular the rise of the feminist social theories. This explosion was underpinned by a substantial change from previous approaches, replaced by a highly critical dichotomy of the assumptions of early writers and marking the impact of feminist criminology.
When analysing biological theories, particularly those that are more recent, it becomes apparent that in addition to continuities in behaviour there are also changes. It is the opinion of many that only social accounts of criminal behaviour can explain these relatively rapid changes. The extent and type of crime now engaged in by females effectively means biological and psychological make-up cannot alter rapidly enough to account for those changes. The social changes important to feminist theorists are the opportunities and desires available to females, and the constraints they experience. This includes Heidensohn’s belief that class position influences delinquency (1980) and Hagan’s view that the function of the family combined with class position influence crime rates for women. Both are strains of the control theory (1989). However this essay will explore and examine the feminist theory of opportunity, encapsulated by Adler’s ‘Sisters in Crime’ (1975) and Simon’s ‘Women and Crime.’ (1975).
In the 1920s the first wave of the women’s liberation movement resulted in a woman’s right to vote. The 1960s gave way to a second wave of liberation, which promoted ‘equal educative and employment opportunities, enhanced childcare and reproductive freedom’ (Morris 1987 Pp.68). Despite the benefits of this movement for women Adler identified what she termed a ‘dark side.’ On the positive side women were grasping employment and economic opportunities, but on the other hand they were also pressing into crime. Adler dismissed biological and psychological theories as inadequate. Whilst she did concede the small natural differences between the genders, Adler insisted on the substantial impact of social forces upon human behaviour (1975 Pp. 43)….
“Of all the differences between the sexes only four – size, aggression, strength and
dominance – have been implicated in any way with the over-representation of
males in the criminal justice system. The first two are biological givens,
the other two are largely, if not entirely, socially learned.”
For Adler then the socialisation process has prevailed to institutionalise sex roles in which men and women aspire to different expectations. Furthermore she felt that socialisation was more important in determining criminal behaviour than whatever small biological differences that may exist. Moreover any differences in physical strength and size have largely been negated by modern day technology and weaponry.
Women’s liberation for Adler created new structural opportunities for women within the context of crime. Competition within the workplace required women to adopt certain masculine traits (a view not too dissimilar from that of Lombroso) which included assertiveness, aggression and risk taking. These newly acquired skills and masculine traits could then be utilised in an atmosphere of opportunity….
“Medical, educational, economic, political and technological advances have
freed women from unwanted pregnancies, provided them with male
occupational skills and equalized their strength with weapons.”
This theory states that in the same way women were demanding equal opportunities within legitimate fields, a similar number of ‘determined women’ were forging similar aspirations in the field of criminality. Adler worked on the premise that women were primarily human, and secondly women, and thus she assumed that the needs and ambitions of these women mirrored that of men. As a consequence the more the position of women met the position of men, the more alike their legitimate and criminal behaviour becomes as women would naturally wish to emulate male patterns in criminality. Adler, unlike Pollack, gave substance to her theory by using statistical evidence to prove that women had already begun to use their newly acquired skills in the criminal field. Her claim that female arrests for major crimes had ‘sky rocketed’ since the 1960s was a measurement taken from such data.
Adler anticipated that the women’s liberation had not yet reached its full effect by the late 1970s. Even in the present era the goals and effects of emancipation are still far from being realized as generally women are ‘still behind men in terms of equality, social status and economic positions’ (Steffensmeir & Allen 1996). Adler envisaged that the then current generation of women will mature into an environment in which their positions in the social and working worlds will be more on a par with men, and that through this course social differences will gradually diminish. She expected the same pattern to occur within crime, predicting that if social trends continue women will share with men not only ‘ulcers, coronaries, hypertension and lung cancer (male associated illnesses) but will also compete increasingly in such traditionally male criminal activities as crime against the person, more aggressive property offences and particularly white collar crime.’
Critics of Adler’s liberation theory have concentrated on three general areas of weakness. The first is the misleading use of statistics in relation to Adler’s choice of data, the analytical methods used and the reliability of the interpretations gained there from. The second area is that of the availability of alternative explanations for female offending. Within this area criminologists have forwarded alternate theories that do not include liberation as an independent factor in explaining female offending. The strain theory illustrates the potential opportunities available for women, but insist that women in some instances will be unable to achieve those goals (Brody and Agnew 1997). The final critical response to the theory deals with the underlying assumptions of her theory. For example her critics question the use of male criminals as a measuring tool for female offending, and the precise extent of the benefits from emancipation.
Both of the aforementioned theories discuss the direct attention paid to female criminality. Biological explanations remain prominent within the circles of female criminality, and modern day theories draw from the early work of Lombroso and Pollack. Adler’s liberation theory, enshrined by the feminist framework, remains an important milestone in feminist thinking. Morrison (1995) referred to her as a ‘pioneer who generated publicity for a topic previously much ignored.’ At this moment it is important to digest the key differences (and similarities) between the two theories before moving on to the next phase of this essay. Having established that female criminality is a social problem, and explored two theories that have sought to explain female criminality it is now important to assess the response of the government to the issue.
The government have, in the past, tended to respond to criminality on a generic basis, that is their strategies and plans to fight crime have failed to incorporate any recognition of the impact of gender on crime rates. Women currently account for 6% of the prison population ands 14% of offenders serving community sentences. The use of male offending rates is, at this point, useful in assessing the impact of female offending beyond these two overall figures. In 1991 82% of known offenders were male, and by the time we reach 35 years of age ‘33% of males are likely to be convicted of at least one standard offence, as opposed to only 8% of females’ (Barclay 1993). Upon reviewing such figures one would ask the question as to whether a specific government response was required.
According to Walklate (1995) when women are convicted for offending it is more likely to be for offences involving ‘theft, handling stolen goods and fraud, with the former accounting for 70% of women cautioned and convicted.’ Coleman and Moynihan (1998) take these findings a stage further by suggesting that women are now found in all offence groups (similar to Adler’s prophecy) but form the majority in only two – ‘prostitution and TV licence non-payment.’ Perhaps more alarmingly is that the number of females incarcerated has dramatically increased. Between 1991 and 2003 the average female prison population has risen by 140%, compared to that of 46% for men (BBC News 2001), and from 1991 to the present day the rise has been by 173% (WORP 2004). Most of these women are imprisoned for non-violent crimes and pose little risk to the community. Official statistics and reports (NACRO 2001, WORP 2004) show that there have also been rises in women appearing before the courts, an increase in the proportion of those women receiving custody and an increase in the length of prison sentences imposed on women. It could therefore be argued quite vehemently that there is a need for governmental response to female criminality.
Further supporting evidence is provided by a handful of studies conducted in the 21st century. Figures from one, ‘Women behind bars’ states that 40% of women prisoners expect to be homeless upon release due to relationship damage, and that only 25% of fathers look after their children whilst the mother is in custody (female criminality could encroach on other social problems – homelessness, single parent families). This particular report recommended the setting up of a ‘network of supervision, rehabilitation and support centres’ to guide women serving community sentences and/or released from custody.’ NACRO (2001) too suggests the need for the government to rethink its strategies, primarily by assessing the way in which the courts deal with female offenders. It recommended a wider range of community punishments instead. For the then NACRO chief, Helen Edwards….
“It is little wonder that nearly half of women released from custody commit
another crime within 2 years.”
Further pressure on the government to respond to the growing concern of female criminality came from the Prison Reform Trust’s wedderburn Committee (2000) who published a report on women in prison. It called fro a need to reduce imprisonment for women, emphasized by their spokeswoman Juliet Lyon (2000)…..
“If this government is serious in its determination to end social exclusion and
to prevent offending it must now press ahead with creating small local
units for those women who need to be in custody.”
Last year an article in the Observer (2004) ‘Bingeing women fuel crime – Blunkett warns of soaring violence as alcohol culture spirals out of control’ raises further concerns by linking offending females to increased violent offending. It states that the ‘number of women drinking over the safe limit of 21 units per week had risen from 14-33%, and that although there was little evidence ‘as yet’ that it causes violence, there is a strong belief that the pub culture, once associated with men only, is changing.’ With reference to the impact of female violence in the article the Home Secretary. Mr Blunkett, stated that ‘they may be the ones who countenance it rather than calm it,’ linking in with Pollack’s belief that women largely instigate crime.
These studies strongly indicate the actual and potential increases in female offending and furthermore highlight the fact that they can be found in all types of offending groups (giving credence to Adler’s belief that female criminal behaviour will eventually mirror men’s). This increase in pressure on the government to acknowledge that problem of female criminality consequently resulted in a number of responses. This began in 2000 when the government introduced a ‘Strategy for women offenders,’ which signified an official recognition of the problem. However the most visible response to female criminality to date occurred in July 2004 when the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, unveiled a new, detailed strategy on reducing, specifically, female offending – ‘Women’s Offending Reduction Programme (WORP) – Action Plan.’ The overall aim of this strategy was to…
“Co-ordinate work across departments and agencies to ensure that policies,
services, programmes and other interventions respond more appropriately
to the particular needs and characteristics of women offenders.”
This plan followed on the heels of the government’s ‘Delivering a gender equality’ (2003), and represented a significant shift in the governments push towards improving gender equality. WORP (2004) admits that previous responses have generally been developed ‘with male offenders in mind’ and that a continuation of such responses would result in the women’s prison population increasingly disproportionately and at a far greater rate than the male population. The over-riding target of the plan is to reduce female offending and the number of women in custody.
The publication of this action plan could prove to be timely as it coincides with the Home Secretaries announcement of reforms to the correctional services, also in 2004. ‘Reducing crime – changing lives’ is a publication that incorporates the governments plans for managing offenders, which includes the creation of a National Offender management Service (NOMS). The emphasis here is on the increased use of community penalties for low risk offenders and reserving the use of custody for dangerous and persistent offenders. The approach taken by WORP (2004) supports this new direction, and according to the government it will ensure that these objectives are delivered effectively to female offenders. As an integral agency for delivering community penalties the Probation service will need to implement the strategies and plans forwarded by the government and ensure the effective delivery of community penalties to women. This is of particular importance as it has thus far failed to develop any specific interventions toward the female client group.
Around 14% of the probation client base are women, and within the confines of this essay one will aim to assess how the national Probation Service (NPS) has specifically provided fro female offenders, and how it proposes to target such a minority offender group in the future. Without the need to chart the history of the NPS, it is nevertheless important to understand the criminological framework within which it operates and the subsequent basis of its deliveries. In 1974 Martinson’s ‘Nothing Works’ paper signaled a significant turning report for the service. This in turn resulted in a loss of confidence in the rehabilitative ideal, yet a number of theorists and practitioners (led by Gendreau and Ross 1987) searched for new ways to prove the effectiveness of rehabilitation. They discovered that some interventions worked for some offenders some of the time – as a consequence the 1990s saw a resurgence of the rehabilitative ideal through a What Works framework – from which evidence based practice emerged. The primary issue, that cannot be overstated, is the fact that all evidence based practice was based on experimental groups of young, white, middle class American males – and as a consequence interventions (i.e. cognitive behavioural) were designed for….young, white males. Recent years has witnessed an increased participation of women in general offending programmes that are designed for male offenders, which may therefore not be directly transferable to females. This argument has been countered by the claim that the difference between risk factors for white males and females appears to be ‘not much’ (What Works 1995 Pp 54).
What we are left with is the idea that the NPS could be seen to be discriminatory in its practice. We have a correctional service underpinned by an arguably discriminatory what works framework. Feminists would argue that such a framework fails to incorporate the needs of the female offender and in identifying the key differences that exist between genders and criminality. This in turn continues to perpetuate sexist ideology. Furthermore theorists such as Adler may argue that although women may be seen to be minority offenders at present, current trends would suggest a continued increase of female offenders sentenced to community punishments. Within probation policies they would also identify the fact that of all the available policies to date, only one policy (Domestic Violence) is underpinned by feminist thinking. Despite such evidence the NPS maintains that it works within the ADP and AOP frameworks and aims to deliver its interventions fairly and effectively to all its existing clients
This essay has thus far demonstrated a severe shortage of theory, investigation, policy development and understanding within the realm of female criminality. The government, through WORP (2004) and even the NPS itself have admitted to neglecting the ideas of gender differences. The governments response is however beginning to pick up pace and so now one must turn the gaze onto the intentions of the NPS, particularly in the light of the governments WORP action plan.
Dowden and Andrew’s (1999) found little research on the effectiveness of correctional treatment for female offenders, which at this point seems hardly surprising. Their meta-analysis of 24 studies suggested that a ‘targeting of interpersonal criminogenic needs could prove to be an effective intervention for women’. Group work programmes (based on cognitive behavioural approaches) have been conducted in mixed group settings, but in acknowledging that these interventions are designed for the male client the NPS itself has taken a major step in identifying the need to specifically target female offenders. In 2004 a pilot programme – ‘Focus on female offenders’ was introduced. The programme aims to address the needs of a large number of women serving a community sentence for acquisitive offences, which accounts for the majority of female offending. At the same time it addresses concerns about existing programmes that are designed for men but used on women. The aim of this programme is two pronged; to reduce female offending and to curb the sentencers use of custody for women. The concluding findings are encouraging and offer several recommendations before its troll out under the umbrella of effective practice.
The implementation of this programme represents a significant step for the NPS in recognizing the specific needs of female offenders. This is hopefully the start of may more planned interventions specifically for women, and if current offending rates continue to increase then the need for them will increase also.
In conclusion one would surmise that the issue of female criminality can be labeled a ‘social problem.’ In identifying the problem one has examined two contrasting theories that sought to identify not only why women commit crime, but why it is important to distinguish between male and female criminality and predicting possible future trends. Furthermore the two theories provide a valuable debate that encapsulates the individualist versus structural debate. Upon addressing the response of the government and the NPS one must assert that both organisations have been slow to react. In their defence previous criminological theory has been male dominated (based on men, for men, by men) and as a consequence interventions have been geared towards a male client base. Furthermore, since the turn of this century a number of publications by the Government suggests that they are beginning to take the social problem seriously. This will undoubtedly extend to the government run NPS/NOMS, and signs of this have recently become evident. To end one would like to draw upon a point made by Adler, who stated that women would wish to emulate male patterns of criminality – on the evidence put forward such a view co9uld indeed prove to be accurate.
REFERENCES
Cavadino, M. & Dignan, J. (1997)
The Penal System (2nd Edition)
London: Sage
Croall, H. (1998)
Crime and Society in Britain
London: Longman
Duff, A. & Garland, D. (1994)
A reader on Punishment
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Guardian Unlimited (2001)
Bingeing Women Fuel Crime
http://www.theobserver.co.uk/news/politics
Hamilton, M. (2002)
Freda Adler
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/Adler.htm
Heidensohn, F. (1997)
The Oxford Handbook of Criminology
Oxford: Clarendon Press
Home Office (2004)
Focus on female offenders: the Real Women Programme
London: Home Office
Leonard, E. B. (1982)
A critique of criminology theory: Women, Crime and Society
London: Longman
Lombroso, C. & Ferrero, W. (1895)
The Female Offender
Found in….
Mclaughlin, E., Muncie, J. & Hughes, G. (2003)
McGuire, J. (1996)
What Works: Reducing Reoffending
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Mclaughlin, E., Muncie, J. & Hughes, G. (2003)
Criminological Perspectives
London: Sage
Smart, C. (1995)
Law, Crime and Sexuality
London: Sage
Steffensmeir, D. & Allan, E. (1996)
Gender and Crime
Found in ‘Annual Review of Sociology (2)’ Pp. 459 - 487
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (2005)
The Government’s Strategy for Women Offenders
Found at: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/parliament/responses/WOS.htm
The Griffins Society (2002)
Working with female offenders
Found at: www.thegriffinssociety.org/research%20briefing2.html
Worrall, A. (1990)
Sociology of law and crime – Offending Women
London: Routledge
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2015. All rights reserved.