When analyzing the differences between male and female offending, possibly one of the most obvious differences is how work forces are responsible for most of the offense. Criminological theory has, in the yesteryear, tended non to speculate gender individually, the focal point has been on work forces and why their rates of piquing are so high. In analyzing the function of adult females, criminologists have tended to use the same theories to them as for work forces ( Chesney-Lind 1988 ) . More late, feminist attacks have been brought to bear on this job and a new set of theories and attach toing grounds has been produced.
This essay will first analyze the statistics on gender differences in offending, and so analyze how these differences have been explained, and how this has undergone a considerable displacement, particularly with the rise of modern feminist positions.The Home Office ( 2003a ) study statistics on adult females in the condemnable justness system. There are two chief beginnings of statistics on piquing and gender, self-report studies and the official offense statistics. The official offense statistics ( Home Office, 2003b ) show that, in 2002, 19 % of known wrongdoers were female. Looking across age-groups, the spread between males and females is smaller at younger ages with a spread of merely 2 per centum points at age 12-13, while at age 26-30 it has widened to 12 per centum points. The offense that adult females are most likely to be convicted of is theft and handling of stolen goods, with 57 % of all female wrongdoers being cautioned or convicted of this offense.
This is compared to the rate of 34 % for work forces. The merely other class in which females outnumber males is in fraud and counterfeit. The 2nd most prevailing class of offense for adult females is drug covering, although it is twice every bit prevailing amongst work forces.The official offense statistics provide information about differences in strong beliefs between genders ( Home Office, 2003b ) . This, once more, shows much higher degrees of strong beliefs amongst work forces. 33 % of males had been convicted of an offense before the age of 46, whereas merely 9 % of females had.
Comparing the more serious offenses, i.e. those given clip in prison, 7 % of males had received tutelary sentences, in contrast to merely 1 % of adult females. Womans had besides been convicted less frequently over their life-times ; while 50 % of male wrongdoers had merely been convicted one time by 46, 74 % of female wrongdoers had merely been convicted one time. Women ‘s condemnable callings were shorter: 80 % of adult females compared to 55 % of work forces ‘s condemnable callings lasted merely one twelvemonth. These sorts of forms continue throughout the statistics with adult females less likely to be arrested for notifiable offenses, less likely to be remanded in detention, less likely to be given a tutelary sentence or mulct, and, eventually, adult females merely made up 6.1 % of the prison population in 2002 – although this has risen from 3.4 % in 1992.
The consequences of official offense statistics can be compared with those from self-report studies. The advantage of self-report studies is that many offenses are non reported to the constabulary so this is one of the few ways of acquiring at the worlds of piquing, although of class these statistics are capable to the usual prejudices built-in in self-report statistics – people may lie or bury. The Home Office ( 2003 ) citation informations from the 1998/9 Youth Lifestyles’ Survey ( Flood-Page, Campbell, Harrington & A ; Miller, 2000 ) which finds that work forces are more than two and a half times as likely to hold committed a offense in the last twelvemonth, 26 % of work forces admitted to an offense compared to 11 % of adult females. Again, in these statistics, shoplifting and managing stolen goods were the most likely offenses for females to perpetrate. The age at which females reported the most offense was 14. Comparing the self-report statistics with known wrongdoers suggests that the spread between male and female piquing rates might really be smaller than the official statistics suggest. Some research workers suggest, nevertheless, that adult females ‘s offense may be over-reported because there are countries such as organized offense and corporate offense for which adult females, on norm, have less chance ( Box, 1983 ) .
Having considered the statistical differences between work forces and adult females, what accounts for the obvious differences between genders? One account that has been advanced to partially explicate these figures is that the condemnable justness system is biased to handle females more laxly than males. A figure of surveies have been carried out to prove this theory. Box ( 1983 ) reviews these and finds a existent mixture of consequences, Steffensmeier & A ; Steffensmeier ( 1980 ) found that adult females were so treated more laxly, while others argued the antonym ( Dominelli, 1984 ) , and still others argued that there was no difference. These sort of generalized surveies about surely over-simplified what is a complicated state of affairs. Other research workers concentrated more on the peculiar fortunes. As adult females frequently receive lighter sentences, Farrington and Morris ( 1983 ) investigated the grounds and found that this was by and large because the offenses for which they were convicted were of the type that by and large attracted admonishing or mulcts instead than tutelary sentences.
Similar findings were arrived at by US research workers Nagel and Hagan ( 1983 ) , who found that, in condemning, adult females were more likely to be treated laxly, although in about all other countries, such as likeliness of strong belief and supplication bargaining, there was small difference.Feminist authors have tended to see the statement that adult females are treated laxly as a manner in which traditional gender functions are reinforced. In other words, the condemnable justness system is seen to take into history a adult females ‘s household and kids every bit good as, possibly, oppugning whether a adult female can truly perpetrate a offense. Some research workers have found grounds that adult females are more likely to have harsher intervention if they had stepped outside of their traditional gender functions ( Morrison, 1995 ) .
As can be seen from the statistics, the most common offense that adult females are convicted of is theft – often shoplifting. Morrison ( 1995 ) describes some of the research that has been carried out, and accounts provided, for this tendency. The traditional account is that adult females have greater chance for shoplifting. Others have argued, nevertheless, that adult females are more likely to be caught shoplifting because that is what is expected, so, for illustration, security guards are more likely to watch them.
Some grounds of this is provided by Buckle and Farrington ( 1984 ) who found in their survey that there was non a immense statistical difference between the figure of male and female boosters, although this was a survey limited to a comparatively little sample. Morrison ( 1995 ) points out that the fact that the types of offense that adult females commit has been limited in the yesteryear, leads to the thought that, as their power and countries of influence addition in society, so will the offenses they commit. This is known as the gender equality hypothesis.In criminology by and large, though, there has traditionally been small accent on the survey of adult females in offense – which is surprising given the disparity between the rate of piquing in work forces and adult females. Heindesohn ( 1989 ) , cited in Morrison ( 1995 ) argues that the ground for this is that the academic survey of criminology has been largely carried out by work forces, and, by and large, adult females were harder to analyze because they feared loss of position every bit good as consisting a much lower proportion of committed offense.
The consequence of this has been a trust on theories that do little to explicate forms of female aberrance and have done small to explicate what part maleness makes to criminal behavior in relation to muliebrity. One of the earliest and most abiding theories has been the biological stance. Maccomby & A ; Jacklin ( 1974 ) , for illustration, make the point that work forces are by and large more aggressive than adult females and this can be mostly set down to the function of testosterone.
This theory has been peculiarly of import in explicating the higher rates of engagement of males in violent offense. Criticisms of this type of attack tend to concentrate on the importance of situational factors in offense, every bit good as socialization procedures.Alternatively of trusting on testosterone and biological science to explicate male aggression, socialization theories concentrate on the importance of the socialization of work forces at a immature age and how society encourages them to work out jobs utilizing force. Similarly, it is theorised that adult females are socialised to avoid utilizing force to work out jobs. Socialisation theory, harmonizing to Smart ( 1976 ) can non account for all of the difference between genders. Socialisation theory is frequently used in concurrence with control theory to assist explicate the difference. Control theory has at its root the thought that parents use a assortment of mechanisms to command their kids. These include parents instilling their kids with a peculiar morality, marrying them to a conventional vision of the hereafter and guaranting that they are attached to grownups ( Hirschi, 1969 ) .
By this procedure, parents help to guarantee that their kids do non finally become wrongdoers. Geting involved with instructors and grownups for more of the clip prevents them being involved with people their ain age and so prevents them from going delinquent.Theorists have attempted to utilize both control theory and socialization theory to explicate why adult females commit fewer offenses.
Hagan ( 1987 ) , for illustration, has pulled together the theories of socialization, control and chance. For the effectual working of industrial society it has become necessary to split labor. Woman have traditionally had control over the place, a peculiarly informal country. Conversely work forces have historically been more involved in the universe of work which has been more closely associated with formal control systems, i.e. the condemnable justness system.
Hagan ( 1987 ) besides argues that adult females are the topic of greater efforts to command their behavior than work forces. Apart from that, adult females are besides the primary accountants within the household, exercising control over other adult females. Womans have, harmonizing to Hagan ( 1987 ) , become ‘over-socialised ‘ . Other theories of chance point out that adult females are seen as undependable or over-emotional and hence non suited, as other, likely male, felons might see it, to a life of offense and risk-taking.More late theoreticians have asked whether female offense can be explained in the same manner as male offense or whether specific theories are required for adult females. Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) reexamine these theories and the grounds, reasoning that in explicating general criminological tendencies, female offense can be seen to be acted on by the same beginnings as male offense. For illustration, societal backgrounds is of import in condemnable behavior: Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1995 ) show that, like male wrongdoers, female wrongdoers normally come from lower socio-economic groupings, minority groups and the unemployed. Male and female rates over clip and different offenses usually vary with each other, be givening to propose that the same factors are act uponing them.
Where the general theories have jobs, harmonizing to Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) is in explicating some of the specific tendencies in female offense, like the correlativity between female piquing and relationship affairs, or the higher barriers adult females seem to hold to come ining offense, or the higher preponderance of female wrongdoers in the less serious belongings offenses.Turning to reexamine the sociological theories already mentioned here, Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) argue that the deduction of the control and socialization theories is that rates of female offending should change across clip and infinite. This is because socialization patterns and degrees of control should of course change between communities. What is really seen is that the rates are reasonably consistent across genders, compared to other fluctuations such as age and societal category ( Steffensmeier & A ; Allan, 1988 ) .In add-on to the socialization and control attack, Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) effort to offer an integrated gendered attack, one that mixes traditional criminological constructs with feminist thoughts. As portion of this, Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) point to different force per unit areas on adult females. Gender inequality may force adult females into offense as they struggle out of opprobrious relationships and are forced to pique in order to back up themselves. Women ‘s lower socio-economic position may do the high prevalence of the more junior-grade offenses seen in the larceny and counterfeit statistics.
There are now peculiar types of offenses which are more oriented towards females – that require lower accomplishments to transport out and are more widespread because of the consumer civilization, such as recognition card fraud. These sorts of factors are seen as more of import by Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) than the control and socialization theories, every bit good as better supported by the available grounds. A gendered attack so, should take into history the context of piquing, should explicate both female and male criminalism, should see how adult females ‘s condemnable callings develop every bit good as work forces ‘s paths to criminalism. Finally the theory should take into account biological factors every bit good as societal and historical factors.
In decision, it is clear from the offense statistics that there are major differences between male and female piquing – the most of import being that adult females ‘s offending is significantly lower than work forces. Within these findings there are a assortment of tendencies which besides require explicating, such as the much lower engagement of females in ‘more serious ‘ offenses. Traditional criminological theories have proposed biological and chance based accounts. Feminists have criticised these theories for centering about entirely on males, and in contrast have proposed theories of socialization and control. The failing of the socialization and control theories have been shown by Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) who propose that traditional theories can explicate the gender differences in the condemnable statistics to a certain extent. Steffensmeier & A ; Allan ( 1996 ) , in peculiar, press an integrating of these different types of theories in an effort to explicate, what are striking differences, between male and female offending.MentionsBox, S. ( 1983 )Power, Crime and Mystification, London: Tavistock.
Buckle, A. , Farrington, D. ( 1984 ) An Observational Study of Shoplifting,British Journal of Criminology, 24, 63-73.Chesney-Lind, M. ( 1988 ) Making feminist criminology. The Criminologist, 13 ( 1 ) , 16-17.Dominelli, L.
( 1984 ) Differential Justice: domestic labor, community service and female wrongdoers,Probation Journal, 31, 100–3.Farrington, D.P. , Morris, A.M ( 1983 ) Sexual activity, Sentencing and Reconviction,British Journal of Criminology, 23, 229-48.Flood-Page, C.
, Campbell, S. , Harrington, V. , Miller, J. ( 2000 )Young person Crime: Findingss from the 1998/99 Youth Lifestyles Survey, Home Office Research Study 209, London: Home Office.
Hagan, J. ( 1987 )Modern Criminology: offense, condemnable behavior and its control, New York: McGraw-Hill.Heidensohn, F. ( 1989) Crime and Society, London: MacMillan Education.Hirschi, T. ( 1969 )Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.Home Office ( 2003a )Statisticss on Women and the Criminal Justice System.
London: Home Office.Home Office. ( 2003b ) .Condemnable Statistics England and Wales, London: HMSO.Maccoby, E.
E. , Kacklin, C. N. ( 1974 )The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Morrison, W. ( 1995 )Theoretical Criminology From Modernity To Post-modernism.
London: Cavendish Publishing.Nagel, I. Hagan, J. ( 1983 ) Gender and Crime: Discourtesy Patterns and Criminal Court Sanctions. In Tonry, M. , Morris, N. eds.Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol 4, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smart, C. ( 1976 ) Women, Crime and Criminology, A Feminist Critique, London: Routledge.Steffensmeier, D. , Allan, E.
( 1988 ) Sexual activity disparities in offense by population subgroup: abode, race, and age. Justice Quarterly, 5, 53–80.Steffensmeier, D. , Allan, E.
( 1995 ) Gender, age, and offense. In Sheley, J. erectile dysfunction.Handbook of Contemporary Criminology, New York: Wadsworth.
Steffensmeier, D. , Allan, E. ( 1996 ) Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending.Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.Steffensmeier, D. , Steffensmeier, R.H.
( 1980 ) Trends in Female Delinquency: An Examination of Arrest, Juvenile Court, Self Report and Field Data,Criminology, 18, 62-85.