Download Distribution of Crime by Gender in Criminology and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Distribution of Crime by Gender
A major shortcoming of criminology has been the tendency to exclude females from the field of study. Traditionally, theories of crime have been concerned primarily with the behaviors of males and research has been largely limited to male samples. The exclusion of women has been due in part to the notably low rates of female involvement in crime as indicated by official arrest records (see Table 4.5). Addition- ally, it was long assumed that females primarily engage in sexual offenses, making their behavior tangential to any serious study of criminality. As a result, the major criminological theories may suffer from a lack of generalizability to females and our understanding of the distribution of crime by gender may be biased. Throughout this text, we will attempt to address this deficiency by calling attention to research and theoretical formulations that include females or focus on females.
Perspectives on Female Crime
Examples of early justifications for excluding females are provided prior to a summary of the gender-crime issue. William Kvaraceus commented that “[t]he major- ity of delinquent girls, regardless of their reason for referral [to the juvenile court] are in some degree sexually delinquent” (1945:116). Albert Cohen declared that girls were beyond the scope of his theory. He stated: The most conspicuous difference between male and female delinquency is that male delinquency... is versatile and female delinquency is relatively specialized. It consists overwhelmingly of sexual delinquency (1955:45). Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) acknowledged that female gang mem- bers existed, but they concluded that they were affiliated with and subordinate to groups of male delinquents. Because the female members were not a real threat on their own, Cloward and Ohlin eliminated women from further consideration in their theoretical work. Females were also readily dismissed in Causes of Delinquency , in which Tra- vis Hirschi (1969:35) spelled out his version of social control theory and specifically stated, “In the [data] analysis that follows... the females disappear.” These theorists, though less concerned with the “immorality” of female offenders, excluded them from serious study. The Gang Feature presented in this chapter refutes this belief among previous criminologists that gang membership is primarily a male phenomenon.
TABLE 4. Tfy pg Pggfoefst cz Pggfotf Uzqf- VDS- 3118 UCR Index Offense Males Females Total Arrests 6,150,145 1,968, 75.8% 24. % Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 6,519 782 89.3% 10. % Forcible Rape 13,079 133 99.0% 1.0% Robbery 64,004 8, 88.5% 11. % Aggravated Assault 202,588 54, 78.7% 21. % Burglary 154,607 26, 85.2% 14. % Larceny-Theft 413,125 275, 60.0% 40. % Auto Theft 51,382 11, 81.9% 18. % Arson 7,685 1, 84.5% 15. % Source: U.S. Department of Justice (2007). Crime in the United States, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. Not all criminologists, however, ignored the criminal activity of women. In The Criminality of Women (1961), Otto Pollak argued that crime data underreport female crime. He cited a number of factors for this, including the petty nature of the majority of women’s offenses and the likelihood that men who are victims of crimes committed by women do not report them. He also believed that male police officers often face a conflict when dealing with female offenders because of a sense of “chivalry” and preconceived notions about women. As a result, the officers are less likely to suspect and arrest female offenders. Furthermore, the data indicated that women are more likely to be acquitted than men. All told, then, the crimes of women are underreported, less likely to be detected, and even when detected, treated more leniently. Discussing the masked criminality of the female, Pollak argued that to a large extent this has to do not only with the types of crimes committed by women (illegal abortions, thefts by prostitutes of their customers’ possessions, domestic thefts), but also with the innate secrecy of women. He argued that the deceitfulness of women is not only socially induced, but also related to the female physiology. Pollak
Although there is no apparent support for the work of Pollak, some criminolo- gists accepted his premises. The notion that women are able to conceal their deviance through their legitimate and traditional roles has found its way into a number of stud- ies of female crime. At the same time, Pollak’s work has been bitingly criticized by feminist criminologists who find it superficial, misogynistic, and highly overstated. In one of the more subtle critiques, Meda Chesney-Lind and Randall Sheldon (1998) label as “fascinating and contorted” his attempts to explain why “precocious biological maturity” accounts for female but not male sexual delinquency.
Explanations of Female Crime
Moreover, in our culture, boys are taught how to fight and that it is appropriate to stop when the opponent is down; this training is not given to young girls. When girls fight, they frequently bite, scratch, and pull hair. This behavior is socially defined as unseemly. Although typically they are not as strong as boys, girls can be much more vicious in fights than boys. Available data show that when women commit violent crimes, their victims are often relatives or lovers. For homicide, the weapon most often used is a kitchen implement, usually a knife. Even when women commit violent crimes, they utilize gender-specific weapons. In her study of female robbers, Jody Miller (1998) reported that women generally targeted female victims and, when weapons were used, they were more likely to use knives. This choice of weapon is in sharp contrast to male robbers’ reliance on guns to intimidate their victims. As a result of their socialization, girls have less access to illegitimate opportuni- ties than boys. Thus, it is not surprising that girls’ criminal behavior occurs at a lower rate than their male counterparts. Given the lack of freedom, opportunity, and training, fewer women become serious offenders.
Role theory, as it presently stands, is a starting point in the development of a femi- nist criminology. However, as Carol Smart (1976:69) has suggested, “The study of gender roles cannot be, and to be fair, is probably not intended to provide a complete analysis of the [crime] phenomenon.” She asserted that role theory must be situated within “a theory which can account for the specifically differentiated roles as well as other features of human activity” (1976:70).
Liberation and Crime
At the same time the women’s movement gathered momentum, the crime rate of women appeared to be increasing. As a result, criminologists began examining the link between liberation and crime. In Sisters in Crime , Freda Adler (1975:12-13) stated: Women are no longer indentured to the kitchens, baby carriages or bedrooms of America. Allowed their freedom for the first time, women by the tens of thousands—have chosen to desert those kitchens and plunge exuberantly into the formerly all male quarters of the working world. In the same way that women are demanding equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavor, a similar number of determined women are forcing their way into the world of major crimes. Adler connected the rise in female crime with the rise in women’s assertiveness brought about by the women’s movement. She contended that there were now fewer restraints on women and greater pressure on them from their enhanced positions. Because of this, women were becoming susceptible to the same criminogenic forces that men faced. Therefore, it was likely that with the convergence of role expectations, female crime would begin to resemble male crime. Adler’s prediction of an increase in the rate of female involvement in conventional “street crimes” has been realized in official data. Between 1973 and 2007, female arrests for Index offenses increased 48 percent while the male rate declined by 17 percent (see Table 4.6). While Adler utilized data from case studies to support her position, Rita James Simon (1975) in The Contemporary Woman and Crime examined the statistical pic- ture of female crime over a number of decades. To examine the possible effect of the women’s movement on the criminality of women, Simon utilized data on the status of women in the labor force, marriage and fertility rates, income, and education, as well as crime statistics. She concluded that some types of crimes (predominantly white-collar offenses) will increase, while other types (violent crimes, in particular) will decrease. These changes, she believed, will occur because of the change in the position of women in society. Furthermore, Simon concluded that as women are accepted into various legitimate fields that have been dominated by men, the criminal justice system will come to deal with women more like men. As a result, women will no longer benefit from “chivalrous” treatment by the police and the courts. Although the works of Adler and Simon broke new ground, their data and meth- ods of analysis have received considerable criticism. Adler also has been taken to task
GANG FEATURE
Demographic Characteristics of Gang Members While the gang literature is voluminous, little consensus exists with regard to the nature of gangs, especially with regard to gender and racial composition. The common stereotype is that gangs are primarily a male phenomenon and that females serve largely in an auxiliary capacity. Likewise, media presentations portray gang membership as a minority phenomenon, with non-minority youth virtually absent. Results from recent research suggest that these common assump- tions may be erroneous. As discussed in the Gang Feature in Chapter 3, the extent of the gang problem is largely determined by the definition employed. The same applies to the nature and composition of gangs. Differ- ent definitions and different methodologies result in different pictures. Much of the gang research has relied on case studies in which researchers observed specific individuals and/ or specific gangs identified by knowledge- able informants. These descriptive accounts provide very rich descriptions of these gangs. However, they provide only part of the over- all picture. Recent surveys of larger, more general samples of adolescents have included questions about gang involvement and gang activity. These surveys have produced a dif- ferent picture than the one provided by the case studies. But, again, they provide only part of the picture. Law enforcement data are simi- lar in nature to the information gleaned from case studies. One of the issues is the nature of the sample. In general surveys, both gang and nongang individuals are surveyed. These surveys generally are restricted to younger samples, including respondents as young as 10 years of age. Case studies are usually restricted to gangs and active members, which by default results in older samples, generally 16 and older. It should not be surprising that these different methodologies produce dif- ferent estimates about the gender and racial composition of gang members. The police data and case studies reinforce the notion that most gang members are male and from racial minorities. These estimates indicate that more than 90 percent of gang members are male and that 90 to 95 percent of the gang members are minority. Thus, the picture emerges that the gang problem is indeed one that should focus on minority males. A different picture emerges from the general surveys; one that indicates that such attention on minority males is misplaced. These general surveys have found females to account for 30 to 40 percent of active gang youth, more than twice the highest estimates given by case studies and law enforcement data. With respect to race and ethnicity, most of the surveys have been limited to “high- risk” areas and therefore largely comprised of racial and ethnic minorities. One recent survey of 5,935 eighth-grade students con- ducted in 11 American cities examined the racial and gender composition of delinquent youth gangs (Esbensen & Winfree, 1998). The authors found that 25 percent of the gang members were white and that 38 percent of the gang members were females. As with other general surveys, these estimates differ substantially from the “official” figures. The authors caution that different methodologies (e.g., general surveys compared with case studies), sampling frames (e.g., survey of 13- to 15-year-olds versus observation of 18- to 25-year-old biker gangs), and definitional issues (e.g., restricting gang membership to criminally involved gangs instead of all youth groups), are likely to be the source of these different pictures of gangs. At the same time, they also maintain that it is important to consider all of these sources when assessing the nature and extent of the gang problem and when considering community response to gangs and gang activity.
family’s position in the social order. In the estimation of Hagan, Simpson, and Gillis (1985, 1987), it is the presence of power and the absence of control that cre- ates conditions in which delinquency can occur (see also Blackwell, 2000). Given the greater control of women and their lack of power, their lower rate of offending should not come as a surprise. Research exploring factors associated with adolescent crime, however, have failed to identify different causal or explanatory models for female and male delinquency. Maude Dornfeld and Candace Kruttschnitt studied the effects of family risk factors, such as parental divorce, maternal alcohol abuse, and harsh discipline, and concluded that “while we would not deny that there are gender-specific risk factors... we would deny that responses to those risk factors can be predicted solely on the basis of sex” (1992:414). Similarly, results of a multinational longitudinal analysis reported by Avshalom Caspi and his colleagues (1994) indicate that the same three personality scales were correlated with both male and female delinquency. A growing body of research continues to identify more similarities in the causal explanations of female and male offending than differences. Giordano and Rockwell (2000), for instance, tested the efficacy of differential association theory in explain- ing serious offending. They found that the social learning concepts of differential association theory were equally applicable to female offenders in their study as they were to male offenders. In a similar vein, Miller (1998) found that, while the actual methods of committing robberies differed between males and females, the motiva- tions underlying the robberies were similar. In their examination of delinquents, Liu and Kaplan (1999) not only found similar patterns of involvement in delinquency, but also identified similar mediating variables exerting the same effect on female and male offending. Esbensen and Deschenes (1998) examined the role of gender in explaining gang membership. They found some modest differences in explanatory models for males and females; the social learning models were quite similar for the boys and girls, but the social control models indicated different explanatory factors explained male and female gang affiliation. In yet another investigation into gender differences, Heimer and DeCoster (1999) explored the effects of familial controls on male and female offending. They found that “girls are less violent than boys mainly because they are influenced more strongly by bonds to family, learn fewer violent definitions, and are taught that violence is inconsistent with the meaning of being female” (1999:303).
UCR Data on Gender and Crime
Many of the reported UCR crimes are never solved, and no information about the offender becomes known. It therefore is necessary to rely upon arrest data for demographic information. This may result in a biased sample in that older, smarter, and occasional offenders probably are less likely to be arrested. Other factors such as sex, race, and social class also may affect police officers’ decisions to arrest or not to arrest an individual. Caution must be used, therefore, when employing arrest data to determine the pattern of crime.
NCVS Data on Gender and Crime
Information regarding the sex of property offenders is unavailable in the NCVS because these offenders are not usually seen by their victims. It is therefore only possible to compare victimization data for crimes of violence in which there is personal contact. The NCVS data reveal a greater level of female participation in violent crimes than does the UCR. The NCVS data indicate that the perceived sex of offenders in single-offender victimizations (that is, the gender of the offender as reported by the victim) is 90 percent male and 10 percent female. This distribution is fairly consistent across offense types; the only exceptions are that rapists tend to be predominately male (99%).
