Criminological Theory free essay sample

Criminological theories have rarely been concerned with the analysis of female criminality. Typically criminologists have either been content to subsume discussion of women offenders under ‘general’ theories, that is to say they have implicitly assumed the female is dealt with in discussing the male, or they have dealt with them exceptionally briefly in the way that other ‘marginal’ or ‘special’ categories are treated. The reason offered for this overwhelming lack of interest is that within the population of known offenders, female offenders constitute a statistically much smaller proportion than male offenders. With the exception of offences like shoplifting and soliciting, the number of female offenders nowhere exceed the numbers of male offenders known to the police. But this statistical ‘insignificance’ alone cannot fully explain why so little work has been attempted in this area. Rather the relative absence of work on crimes by women may be considered as symbolic of the nature of the discipline of criminology. Traditional criminology in both the UK and the USA has always had close links with social and penal policymaking bodies with the result that research has tended to be directed towards areas officially designated as social problems. Female criminality has not generally been treated as a particularly important or pressing social problem, not only because of its comparative rarity, but also because of the nature of the offences committed by women. Official statistics, which are themselves a problematic source of information in criminology (Hindess, 1973; Wiles,1970), indicate that women engage mostly in petty offences and, with the exception of prostitutes, most appearances by women in court are for first offences. Women do not seem to pose a serious recidivist problem therefore; nor a threat to society, and so fail to constitute a real problem to the agencies of social control. Failing to become a pressing social problem has meant that studies of female criminality have not received much official support or finance with the result that traditional ‘control oriented’ criminology has also shown a lack of interest in this area. The lack of attention devoted to the question of crimes committed by women and their treatment has given rise to the present unsatisfactory understanding of female offenders and the offences they commit. There has been virtually no development of our knowledge in this area with the result that ostensibly scientific works predicated upon unexplicated ideologies have been allowed to stand uncriticized. Recognition of the under-development of criminology and sociology in this area is explicit in Ward’s statement to the U. S. National Commission on Crimes of Violence that: Our knowledge of the character and causes of female criminality is at the same stage of development that characterised our knowledge of male criminality some thirty or more years ago. (Ward, 1968) As a consequence of this lack of development the ideology and methodological limitation inherent in some of the classical works on female criminality still inform contemporary studies and, furthermore, are reflected in the treatment of female offenders. This paper is therefore concerned to reveal the ideological foundations of the major theories of female criminality, in particular the culturally relative, commonsense conceptions of women on which they are based. I shallconcentrate on the works of Lombroso (1895) and Pollak (1950), whose theories are still influential, as well as the work of Cowie, Cowie and Slater (1968) whose analysis of female delinquents reveals the influence of the early theorists. The second part of this paper will focus on the possible implications of the ideologies inherent in these studies of female criminality. The ideology of theories of female criminality. The most significant ideology which informs both classical and contemporary accounts of female criminality is a sexist ideology. It is sexist not because it differentiates between the sexes but because it attributes to one sex socially undesirable characteristics which are assumed to be intrinsic or ‘natural’ characteristics of that sex. Such an ideology arises because the socially structured and culturally given nature of the assumptions informing these theories are not treated as subjects for analysis; rather common-sense understandings are taken for granted as a suitable platform from which to commence theorizing. Working within the natural attitude, adopting culturally given understandings of the nature of sexual differences and in particular the characteristics attributed to women, the theorists concerned provide merely a scientific gloss for common-sense understandings. Myths about the ‘inherent’ evil in women or their lack of intelligence and ability and their ‘natural’ passivity therefore abound in these studies and they are used uncritically to supply ‘evidence’ for either the greater or lesser involvement of women in crime. GENDER AND CRIME An equally persuasive theme implicit in most accounts of female criminality, which also stems from the uncritical attitudes of the pioneers in this field, is that of biological determinism. Biological determinist accounts may take two forms, although they are rarely mutually exclusive. Firstly women who have committed offences are perceived to have been motivated by fundamental biological bodily processes. For example, menstruation or the menopause, by affecting the hormonal balance in the body, are taken to be precipitating factors leading some women to commit criminal acts. In such cases action is seen to be directly related to, or even directly produced by, hormonal or biological imbalance. Secondly, and more significantly, the female biology is perceived to determine the temperament, intelligence, ability and aggression of women. In this case it is usually argued that women are ‘naturally’ averse to crime and hence any involvement in criminal activities is treated as symptomatic of a fundamental physical (or more recently mental) pathology. As a consequence of biological factors assuming such a key status in studies of female criminality it has followed that female offenders have been treated as a homogeneous group. Such factors as class, status, power, age, culture and so on are not considered as pertinent to an understanding of female criminality even though these variables are now accepted as relevant to the study of male criminality. As a result, therefore, of both the creation of a narrow stereotypical perception of women which relies upon culturally constituted understandings of the nature of female sexuality and the belief in biological determination, those women who do commit offences are judged to be either criminal by nature (Pollak, 1950) or pathological because they deviate from the ‘true’ biologically determined nature of woman which is to be law abiding (Cowie et al. , 1968; Lombroso, 1895). The latter perspective which treats female offenders as pathological is prevalent in both classical and contemporary criminological theories, one consequence of this being the continuing implementation of policy decisions predicated upon an understanding that criminal activity by women is a product of pathology located within the individual rather than an exemplification of meaningful action. Indeed it has become a ‘popular’ belief that women who commit criminal offences are ‘sick’ and in need of psychiatric treatment; it is to a much lesser extent that this ‘sick’ analogy has been adopted in the treatment of men as men are generally ssumed to be rationally responsible for their actions while women are not. This theme of the biological basis of female criminality which has become so entrenched in official and academic explanations was first fully formulated by Lombroso in his work entitled The Female Offender published in 1895. It is of course t rue that Lombroso employed biological factors to account for male criminality but with few exceptions this school of thought has been repudiated. As Shoham maintains, Today . . . . . the Lombrosian myth in criminology, and the few contemporary adherents to the biophysiological approach to the genesis of crime, are considered a sad episode which retarded the development of the field by almost half a century. (Shoham, 1974: 167). This is undoubtedly the case with most of Lombroso’s theories and yet the ideological content of his work on female criminality persists in contemporary explanations. In particular his assertion that most women, with the exception of the rare ‘born’ criminal, are ‘congenitally . . . ess inclined to crime’ and his belief that women’s ‘natural’ passivity and conservatism robs them the initiative to break the law have become a predominant part of the ideology in contemporary criminological and sociological the ories. The work of Cowie, Cowie and Slater (1968) is perhaps the best exemplar of a modified form of the ideology inherent in Lombroso’s work. In analysing the differences between male and female delinquency they state, Differences between the sexes in hereditary predisposition (to crime) could be explained by sex-linked genes. Furthermore the female mode of personality, more timid, more lacking in enterprise, may guard her against delinquency. (Cowie et al. , 1968: 167). Clearly,Cowie, Cowie and Slater and other theorists who adopt similar positions, have taken no cognizance of cross-cultural studies nor of historical data which reveal that, rather than there being only one ‘female mode of personality’ there are a multitude of culturally and historically based sets of attitudes and expectations that influence the consciousness or personalities of women, thus producing gender related behaviour. To suggest, for example, that women are ‘more lacking in enterprise’, or in the case of Lombroso, lead more sedentary lives because of their genetic structure, is to ignore the social situation facing many women which gives no opportunity or outlet for active or creative behaviour. Interestingly, Lombroso maintains that one sure sign of criminality in women is the lack of a maternal instinct. This deficiency was perceived to mean hat ‘psychologically and anthropologically’ the delinquent woman belongs more to the male than the female sex. But this belief, which is echoed in Cowie’s work, is based on not only biological determinism but also on a confusion between sex and gender. As Ann Oakley (1972) has pointed out sex is a biological term and gender a social, cultural and psychological term such that for a woman to act in a socially defined ‘masculine’ way does not mean that she is sexually or biologically abnormal. However, where gender appropriate behaviour is seen as biologically determined women who adopt ‘masculine’ forms of behaviour become labelled ‘masculine’ themselves and this has connotations of ‘maleness’ which are seen to be linked to hormonal or genetic abnormalities. Cowie et al. in fact failed to distinguish between sex and gender at all, they state, Is there any evidence that masculinity or femininity of bodily constitution plays any part in predisposing to delinquency and in determining the form it takes? (Emphasis added. In response to this question they maintain, Delinquents of both sexes tend to be larger than controls, and overgrown by population standards . . . Markedly masculine traits in girl delinquents have been commented on by psychoanalytic observers. . . . we can be sure that they have had some physical basis. (Emphasis added. ) (Cowie et al. , 1968: 171–2) The point is that female delinquents are not perceived to be mer ely adopting behaviour more usually associated with males, they are portrayed as being chromosomally or genetically abnormal. This means that the ‘treatment’ of such offenders becomes justifiable, the aims, intentionality and rationality of the deviant act are overlooked and the social and cultural conditions under which the act took place can be relegated to the vague status of ‘environmental’ factors whose only role is to occasionally ‘trigger’ the inherent pathology of the deviant. Crime and delinquency can thereby be treated as an individual, not social, phenomenon. Inherent in this ‘individual pathology’ model is a control oriented ideology which serves to locate the causes of ‘problems’ in specific individuals and which supplies the relevant knowledge and understanding to develop the appropriate technologies and social policies for controlling deviant members. Criminological theorizing thereby becomes a means of providing new technologies for control or, failing that, a means of legitimating current policies which become justified as forms of treatment rather than punishment. Moreover, while such theorizing is not concerned to provide the subjects of its study with the means to change their social situation and status it does provide a damaging anti-intellectual diet for its consumers which in fact serves to mystify the social phenomenon under research. For example, the way in which Cowie, Cowie and Slater present their evidence is worth noting for they attempt to appeal to the reader’s ‘senses’ rather than intellect or critical faculties. They have a tendency to invoke ‘commonsense’ and concepts of the ‘natural’ to support their claims rather than relying on credible, scientific evidence. Rather than reducing the influence of their work however, their anti-theoretical and anti-intellectual approach may be conducive to acceptance by policy-makers who perceive themselves to be concerned with ‘practical’ issues and not theoretical ones. THE REJECTION OF GENDER DEAL According to Carlen, women generally are deterred from committing crime because they are brought up to see themselves as the guardian of domestic morality. They also have less opportunity to commit crime. Because they are closely supervised than males first by parents and later by husband. Patriachal idealogy promises women happiness and fulfilment from family life. Carlen’s study was based upon a small sample of mainly working class women involved in fairly serious crimes it is therefore dangerous to generalise from her findings. Nevertheless her study does provide strong support for the view that criminal behaviour becomes likely when societies mechanism of social control break down. Other sociologists have examined social control mechanism to explain while women seem so much more likely to conform than men. The implications of the ideological content of theories of female criminality. The implications of theorizing have frequently been overlooked by those sociologists or criminologists who perceive themselves merely to be observers or recorders of everyday life. Yet social theories do have indirect social implications either by confirming common-sense and culturally located beliefs or by altering the consciousness of people in their everyday lives through a criticism and demystification of accepted values and beliefs. Allen recognizes this when he argues that, Theories enter into the ideological process and emerge in an abbreviated, often vulgarized, sloganized form embedded in language and thought processes alike. They form the basis of common-sense attitudes. They are transmitted through the family, enter into folklore, get expression through the mass media. In a variety of subtle ways conventional theoretical explanations enter the conscious of individuals and provide them with instant explanations. CONCLUSION Compassionate judges and juries who viewed females as continent, docile and virtuous, and who understood the social stigmas that criminal proceedings cast upon women defendants. The quotations in this article revealed the subservience, dependence and chastity that were part of the Victorian cult of femininity. State and local laws encouraged a submissive and domestic role for women. Court officials, when faced with a direct contradiction to the popular female stereotype, such as a murderous woman, often could not accept the inconsistency and continued to treat the defendant as if she were inherently less violent than men.