Gender and Crime (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes
Gender and Crime
Gender represents one of the most significant factors influencing patterns of criminal behaviour. Official crime statistics consistently show substantial differences between male and female offending rates, with various sociological theories attempting to explain these patterns.
Female crime patterns and explanations
Statistical overview of female criminality
Women represent a small proportion of the overall prison population, accounting for just 4.5% of prisoners in October 2015 according to the Prison Reform Trust. The gender gap in recorded crime is substantial - four out of every five recorded crimes are committed by males.
When women do offend, their crimes typically differ from those committed by men. Around 80% of women enter prison for non-violent offences, whilst males are considerably more likely to be convicted of violent or sexual crimes. Theft and handling offences represent the two most common crimes for which women receive custodial sentences.
The stark gender differences in crime statistics raise important questions about whether these reflect actual offending patterns or differences in how the criminal justice system treats men and women.
The chivalry thesis
Pollock's chivalry thesis (1950) offers one explanation for women's apparent lower representation in official crime statistics. This theory suggests that the criminal justice system treats women more leniently because males within the system are socialised to be protective towards females. The thesis implies that women may commit similar amounts of crime to men, but are less likely to be prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced harshly.
Supporting evidence comes from self-report studies. Campbell (1981) and Graham and Bowling (1993) both discovered through their research that females committed considerably more crime than official statistics suggested. Campbell's findings also indicated that females were more likely than males to receive cautions rather than prosecutions for the same offences, supporting the idea of differential treatment.
However, contradictory evidence exists. Box's (1981) self-report study found that women who commit serious offences are not treated more leniently than their male counterparts. Farrington and Morris (1983) reached similar conclusions in their examination of magistrates' courts, finding no evidence of more lenient treatment for women.
The evidence for the chivalry thesis is mixed and contested. While some studies suggest women receive more lenient treatment, others find no such bias, particularly for serious offences.
Bias against women in the criminal justice system
Whilst some argue women receive preferential treatment, evidence suggests the criminal justice system can be biassed against women in certain circumstances. Casborn (1985) and Heidensohn (1996) found that courts impose more severe sentences when crimes are perceived as unfeminine or go against traditional gender expectations. Walklate (2001) argues that in rape cases, the female victim rather than the male offender often becomes the focus of scrutiny during trials.
The debate over whether chivalry exists in the criminal justice system remains open, but the lower female offending rate compared to males is undisputed. Several theories attempt to explain this gender difference.
Functionalist sex role theory
Parsons (1955) developed the functionalist sex role theory, arguing that gender differences in crime and deviance result from differential socialisation within families. According to this perspective, girls learn to adopt the expressive role whilst boys learn the instrumental role. This socialisation process encourages girls to be nurturing, caring and conformist, whilst boys are encouraged to be tough and take risks.
Early feminist theorists like Smart (1977) acknowledged the importance of differential socialisation but argued it reflects patriarchal structures that need challenging rather than natural biological differences. Feminists criticise functionalists for basing their theories on biological assumptions about women being naturally more suited to caring roles.
The functionalist approach has been influential but faces criticism for reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes and failing to account for social change in gender roles.
Patriarchal control theory
Heidensohn (1985) argues that women have fewer opportunities to commit crime because they are socially controlled by patriarchy in multiple ways:
In the home: Women's traditional roles as housewives and mothers provide less opportunity for criminal activity. Daughters experience closer family control, including restrictions on their freedom to go out at night.
In public: Women are less likely to enter public spaces where deviance occurs, particularly at night, due to fears of violence such as sexual attacks. Women's behaviour is also controlled through concerns about reputation - being labelled negatively affects their social standing.
In the workplace: Women's limited opportunities in the workplace, exemplified by issues like the gender pay gap and glass ceiling, mean they have fewer chances to commit white-collar crime. Research cited by Heidensohn found that 60% of women have experienced sexual harassment at work, representing another form of patriarchal control.
Practical Example: Patriarchal Control in Action
Consider a teenage girl whose parents impose a strict curfew compared to her brother, limiting her opportunities to engage in street crime. Meanwhile, her mother may avoid certain areas of the city at night due to safety concerns, reducing exposure to situations where crime might occur.
Class and gender 'deals'
Drawing on Hirschi's control theory, Carlen (1988) argues that working-class women only commit crime when they lack the controls that normally prevent criminal behaviour. These controls operate through two main 'deals':
The class deal provides financial security, whilst the gender deal offers emotional attachment to family life. In Carlen's study of 39 women convicted of crime, 32 had consistently lived in poverty (lacking the class deal) and most had either been in care or experienced sexual violence (lacking the gender deal). For these women, crime represented a rational response to their circumstances.
Both Heidensohn and Carlen combine feminist and control theories to explain lower female crime rates, though control theory has been criticised for portraying women as passive victims rather than active agents.
When both the class deal (financial security) and gender deal (family attachment) break down, women are more likely to turn to crime as a survival strategy.
Liberation theory
Adler (1975) argues that increasing female crime rates can be explained by women's liberation from traditional constraints. As society becomes less patriarchal, women gain greater confidence and opportunities to commit the same types of crimes as men. Denscombe (2001) suggests that young females are increasingly engaging in risk-taking behaviour and adopting traditionally masculine attitudes such as 'looking hard'.
The feminisation of poverty
Rather than liberation increasing female crime, some feminists point to women's increased marginalisation since the 1980s. Women have become more likely than men to experience poverty due to low pay and benefit reductions. Heidensohn (2002) argues that most female criminals are working-class and commit crimes like shoplifting and prostitution out of economic necessity rather than liberation.
The liberation theory and feminisation of poverty represent competing explanations for changes in female crime patterns, highlighting the complexity of gender-crime relationships.
Masculinity and crime
Hegemonic masculinity theory
Messerschmidt (1993) argues that crime and deviance represent one way men can demonstrate masculinity. Boys are socialised into hegemonic masculinity, which emphasises differences from women and includes goals such as being a breadwinner, having power over others (particularly females), treating women as sexual objects, and displaying toughness and risk-taking behaviour.
Some men may not achieve these masculine goals or may be unable to accomplish them through legitimate means. These individuals may turn to crime to demonstrate different or subordinated forms of masculinity. For example, working-class males who underachieve academically may develop anti-school cultures based on toughness and non-conformity to achieve subordinated masculinity, whilst black working-class boys may join violent street gangs.
Messerschmidt notes that middle-class men may also be motivated by masculine values but will turn to white-collar or corporate crime to accomplish hegemonic masculinity through different means.
Worked Example: Different Expressions of Masculinity Through Crime
- Working-class youth: May join gangs and engage in street violence to demonstrate toughness
- Middle-class professionals: May engage in corporate fraud or insider trading to show financial success and power
- Unemployed men: May turn to drug dealing to achieve the breadwinner role through illegitimate means
However, Messerschmidt has been criticised for not explaining why only a minority of men turn to crime to accomplish their masculine goals. The theory may also suggest that masculinity is merely one way crime is expressed rather than being a fundamental cause.
Deindustrialisation and masculinity
In the late modern era, deindustrialisation has meant that some working-class men can no longer achieve masculinity through traditional forms of employment. Winlow's (2001) study of bouncers in Sunderland illustrates how the 'night-time economy' has provided opportunities to demonstrate masculinity through violence, whilst also offering financial benefits through illegal activities such as drug dealing.
Economic changes have disrupted traditional routes to masculine achievement, potentially creating new pathways to crime for some men seeking to maintain their masculine identity.
Key Points to Remember:
- Women commit significantly fewer crimes than men, representing only 4.5% of the prison population, with most female offences being non-violent
- The chivalry thesis suggests women receive more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system, though evidence is mixed and some research shows bias against women
- Patriarchal control limits women's opportunities for crime through restrictions in the home, public spaces, and workplace
- Heidensohn and Carlen explain female crime through the breakdown of class and gender 'deals' that normally provide control
- Hegemonic masculinity theory suggests men may turn to crime to demonstrate masculine qualities when unable to achieve them through legitimate means