specification point
-
the social distribution of crime and deviance by ethnicity, gender and social class, including recent patterns and trends in crime
Historically men have been the focus of Criminology, women have only recently become part of the dialogue. However, when women are discussed in relation to crime and deviance it is often through two lenses – one being they are weak and vulnerable, and the other is that they are evil. This is very similar to what Stainton-Rogers says when referencing children (sinful and wicked or innocent and wholesome) and this is also applied to women. ​
Argument One: Innocent and Wholesome
The biological explanation for women not committing crime has provided a very convincing argument, given that science has given us more than a plausible reason for women not ‘being capable’ to commit violent or physical attacks. As Parsons states women are biologically wired to be more caring and maternal, their main role in the household is one of nurturing and emotional work. They are integral in raising children and creating a warm atmosphere for the members of the family (Warm Bath Theory – Parsons).
This is further reinforced through the work of Pollak, who speaks about the Chivalry Thesis, this is the idea that women need protecting therefore men in the CJS are more lenient towards them, this could mean they are less likely to treat them in a ‘rough’ way or may be more likely to let them off with a warning. Chivalry is essentially being a gentleman; holding doors open, not being overtly touchy and speaking to them with respect (bare minimum I know!). Gilmore discusses this with his theory of ‘impregnator, provider and protector’ – supporting the idea of women needing protecting by men due to their vulnerabilities and ‘weakness’. Therefore women are less likely to get prison time when they are involved with the CJS compared to men (Hood et al).
Women being seen as biologically more rational and level-headed can be seen through the Suffragist Movement, when letter writing campaigns were the way they believed change occurred, they did not take violent action but put their faith in reformism and legislation change to improve the position of women.
Argument One: Innocent and Wholesome OPPOSITION
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) – I know this is odd but hear me out! – PMS causes mood swings, aggression and emotionally irrational behaviour and has in fact been used in cases of shoplifting to explain the motive behind the crime. PMDD (premenstrual dysphoric disorder) is a more extreme version of PMS and can be debilitating to the sufferer. Both of these have been used in murder cases to explain actions.
Historically this has been associated with the plea of ‘diminished responsibility’ and ‘mitigating circumstances’. It cannot be used for the ‘insanity’ plea given there are no medical evidence that it can cause psychosis. In order to get the plea of ‘diminished responsibility’ and ‘mitigating circumstances’ one must prove that when they committed the crime they were not in the right state of mind. In order for PMS to be considered as legitimate it needs to have medical evidence beyond the common knowledge.
D’Orban and Dalton found that out of 50 women convicted of crimes of violence 44% of them were experiencing PMS during this time. There are less crimes committed after the period and before. This creates an interesting argument, does that mean PMS (a biological function) can lead to criminality amongst women? If so, surely this would counter Parson’s ideas about women being unable to commit a violent crime. During a woman’s periods her hormones fluctuate and can trigger negative emotions such as anger. But is this enough to explain crime or is it just a factor?
Argument One: Innocent and Wholesome OPPOSITION
If the period argument seems too much for you, here is a different opposition argument that you could use. The Suffragette Movement! Emmeline Pankhurst and Emily Davidson being the main figures in this movement where ‘extreme’ measures were taken to fight for the right to vote for women. During this time, they smashed windows, chained themselves to fences and Emily Davidson even lost her life attempting to pin a banner onto a horse. The Cat and Mouse Act was brought into action as a result of the hunger strikes the suffragettes were partaking in. Once the women were arrested they would be force fed, often resulting in fatalities so the act was brought into place so that women would be released, eat and then be re-arrested. This goes against the biological argument as it shows women as more than capable of committing a crime!
Men are often associated with violence and anger due to biological stereotypes. One of the more commonly discussed biological factor with this is the XYY gene - this is where men have an extra Y chromosome – sometimes called the ‘supermale’ gene. Historic research has shown that a high proportion of men in prison have the XYY gene reinforcing ideas of this leading to violence. This is not the ‘serial killer gene’ that is just a myth! Riverdale, believe it or not, is not a true reflection of reality and it just a work of fiction, much like the Serial Killer Gene. The XYY “…may act on the brain's limbic system (which regulates man's most primitive drives, including his impulses toward violence) and somehow help trigger violent criminal acts” (Jeffrey and Jeffrey, 1975). Parson’s Biological Sex Role theory could be used as evidence here, as he often discusses the idea of differences in biology between men and women leads to different expected behaviours. The breadwinner role aka instrumental role lives up to the ‘hegemonic’ masculine idea (Connell) and one element of this is strength… what do you think? Is the supermale gene real? Does it lead to violence?
