Gender Gap In Rates Of Offending

Gender Gap In Rates Of angerTo address this state workforcet and draw a conclusion it is necessary to prospect at changes in society oer succession, as wo hands seduce a dissentent office staff right away than they utilize to. Even though earlier criminology has often been sex blind, criminologist such as Lombroso and Pollak tried to make a connection with male nuisance to rationalize and wait on the question wherefore women do non hal pitiableer-ranking as practically curse ( Messerschmidt, 1993 Biel, 2008). It was non until feminist criminology came into force that it challenged the manlike nature of criminology, pointing to the repeated negligence and disproof of women. As a result of such critique there was append attention to women and girls in criminological theory and research (Messerschmidt, 1993 Walklate, 2005). Additionally as the friendly theatrical role of women began to change, the view of their betrothal in illegal demeanour began to change. As a signification social, biological, economical and psychological ex course of studyations collect been used to developed and explain why women commit villainy and why they commit slight horror than men.A reli commensurate research finding (Parker and Reckdenwald, 2008) is that women be seen to commit fewer and slight(prenominal) serious offences than men, which became known as the gender gap in anger. Re centimely it has been lineed the gap in fierce pique has narrowed (Parker and Reckdenwald, 2008 Rennison, 2009). What is unclear is whether the reported convergence is an accurate look of changes in crazy offending or a manipulation of the selective information used official records and self-report offending data.Determination of disgust problems among women has been neglected within theoretical and empirical research compargond with the disgust problem among men. Womens curse, because of its size and tone was non perceived as particularly dangerous. An import ant reason for this could be the fact that even in the earliest historical sources women often appe ared as an object of the offence and non as it perpetrators (Messerschmidt, 1998). match to Kilday (2005) much of the write up of women remained on the margin of criminological interests. Moreover Kilday (2005) shows that studies that examine women criminals tends to emphasize so called traditional acts of womens deviance such as prostitution, while perception of womens involvement in criminal activity has been dominated by their role as a victim rather than perpetrators of crime . What is to a greater extent during 18th and nineteenth century Britain, criminality was highly gendered and focused on class. The vast majority of women who appeared in advance the court were from the poor and laboring classes, and most effeminate criminals were considered furthest little threatening and problematic than men. As a consequence when women could not be criminalized in their own right it was thought that they must be influenced by men or by severe personal problems such as poverty (Kilday, 2005).One of the most comm scarce observed features of the criminological background is that a bulk of crime appears to be under ramn by men and boys (Messerschmidt, 1993). Fundamentally speaking major criminological theories are alarmingly and radically gender-blind. In another(prenominal) words when men and boys sacrifice been seen as the regular subjects in criminology the girls and women have attracted the attention of criminology lonesome(prenominal) as a particular(a)(a) category that allegedly explains the gender nature of crime (Messerschmitt, 1993) .Lombroso (1911) and Bagnor (1916) (cited in Messerschmitt, 1993 Szczepanik and Pospieszy, 2007) for pattern argue that women commit less crime due to their different biological make-up. They argue that such a woman is nothing but a man backward in the development. The main evidence for this is their busteder weight , height, less body hair and fewer red blood cells. They have argued that the consequence of an organic inferiority is a natural inferiority. Lombroso (1920 cited in Klein,1996) specifies the born womanish offender as a woman, who is characterized by antagonism to motherhood, maturationd libido, disposition to immoral life , enjoys a dependable time, has a tendency to labour part in male sport and wear more than(prenominal) male clothes. They are more possible to be hook to drugs and alcohol and discover hostile behaviour. The most characteristic features of women criminals, they hoped, were a bulky jaw, wild eyes, great cheeks, thin lips and a nap on the face (facial hair). Apart from these masculine traits egg-producing(prenominal) person offenders overly have characteristics typical for females such as cunning, cruelty, amour propre and vindictiveness. What is more womens offences are thought to be influenced by male soupcon and that the female has no resistan ce to this. (Klein, 1996).Bjorqkvist (1994 cited in Howitt, 2009) claims that males and females do not differ in aggressiveness. They only differ in the way in which it is expressed. He hike argues that women are physically seen as the weaker sex and are likely to learn different aggression strategies from those seen as the physically stronger sex universe men. What is more, much of the feminist literature focuses on power relationships betwixt the sexes.Because women have been restricted to domestic work and child-raising duties, their economic productivity was limited, which contributed to their dependent role. Consequently, because women are relegated to the household, they undergo less socialization experiences and that restricts their activities, whereas men maintain their power and confidence over economic resources and hold a position of power over women (Parker and Reckdenwald, 2008).In addition, Messerschmitt (1986) suggests that through sex-role socialization, the fami ly encourages its own members to adjust and conform to paternal ideologies. moreover private patriarchy accounts for the degree to which womens activities are restricted and the extent to which female work is unpaid within the family, when linking womens economic status and crime order (Parker and Reckdenwald, 2008).One aspect of the gender gap in crime that has attracted pregnant attention within the research community as well as the media is the observation that the gender gap has narrowed somewhat over time ( Parker and Reckedenwald, 2008). Several explanations of this phenomenon have been offered, including legal, social and economical aspects. It was not until 1970 when argument close to whether female offences were raising that it became a criminological issue. When Freda Adler (cited in Heidensohn and Gelstohorpe, 2007) argued that female crime rates had been rapidly rising between 1960s and mid-seventies, she claimed that not only crime rates had changed but patterns of womens offending had also changed to a more masculine style. Women it appeared, were becoming more aggressive and violent, due to the growth of the advanced womens movement. Adler (cited in Heidensohn et al, 2007) put forward the theory that button in brief was the cause of more crime. Granting equal rights to women had allowed them to take action in umteen areas of social life by giving them the chance to take on brisk social roles, which were previously only available exclusively to men. The womens liberation movement brought not only economic independence but also the sensory faculty of psychological independence, with women gaining new aspirations and confidence in their own ability. These changes have created conditions conducive to the activation of women in the employment structure which has led to an increase in social status and more aggression in women. thus far Heidensohon et al. (2007) claims that the visible increase in female offending is that their conviction is by and large for most minor forms of offending which do not include weapons, and further argues that girls behaviour once seen and treated as a welfare issue, is now more criticized, criminalized and punished.It is difficult to determine precisely the extent of crime, due to the bound arising from the analysis made based solely on official statistical sources made up of Police Recorded Data and British hatred Survey. Determination of the size of womens crime whitethorn pose a special kind of difficulty. Firstly, the lack of sufficient empirical data, secondly womens crime is seen to be guided by its own gender-specification. The so called dark figure of crime committed by women whitethorn be caused by the fact that the womens crime is usually crime carried out in private. Pollak (1950 cited in Messerschmidt, 1993 Klein, 1996) claim that womens and mens crime are likely to be equal, but because womens biology interacts with certain social conditions their criminality is largely masked . He argues that women stern be addicted to crime that end be easily hidden such as shoplifting, thefts by prostitutes, abortion. Consequently the crimes women commit are more often unreported. What is more women are biologically more guileful than men and more able to conceal crime (Biel, 2008). relatively speaking womens offending usually take indicate in private (e.g. home) while mens offending usually takes place in populace (e.g. Theft). Pollak (1950 cited in Messerschmidt, 1993 Klein, 1996) believed that a root cause of low rate crime among women is chivalry in the criminal justice system. Relatively speaking women are treated more leniently than the men and Allans discipline (1987 cited in Heidensohon et al. 2007) suggests that violent women offenders received more sympathy for serious crimes than men. similarly that single mothers and pregnant women were better treated then men. On the other hand Walker (2003 cited in Heidensohon et al. 2007) argues that the f act of pregnancy among female offenders does not affect the weight of the punishment and what is more, it is not seen as ethical or indeed successful. He claims more women achieved only temporary acquittal because of the fact of their pregnancy and were later punished.The structure of the crime committed by women is a reflection of their position, and the role of social and environmental influence. Heimer, (2000) claimed that the most widely endorsed dead reckoning in favour of the narrowing of the gender gap is the economical marginalisation hypothesis, which states that reduction in the gender gap in crime is an gear up of financial instability of women. In other words the need to cope from poverty, economical dependency on man and economic hardship. Moreover magnification in the divorce rate and illegitimacy rates in upstart years which have in turn led to more female-headed households where women have greater responsibility for their children resulted in a signifi appriset increase in economic pressure on women.Following this Zaplin, (1998) argues that an increase in female offending is a result of increased opportunity for female types of crime. The increase in the rate of female arrests for minor crimes (especially property crimes) reflects not only economic marginalization, but also an increase in opportunity for those crime categories. Relatively speaking females tend to commit crimes that involve little or no criminal skills, and now their range has expanded due to changes in merchandising and credit, which are easily accessible to women as the consumer and head of a family. As a consequence of this women have more opportunities to commit shoplifting, hindrance fraud theft and welfare fraud.Another possible explanation agree to Zaplin, (1998) is that rises in female arrest is a product of changes in public sentiment and enforcement policies that bring to attention the visibility, reporting and sanctioning of female offenders. Whereas Freda Adl er (Heidensohon et al. 2007) argues that female crime rates has been rapidly rising between the 1960s and 1970s , the Home Office claimed that during this time the prison population of women was so low that they thought it may be possible to end womens imprisonment by the year 2000. However along with the new century , there was a very large growth of overall imprisonment rates for women. According to the Home Office study(Hunter, Hearnden and Gyateng, 2009) the following factors had an impact on the rise of the crime rate for women a growth in the number of women coming before the courts, a rise in the proportion of women getting a protective sentence and an increase in the length of prison sentences being enforce on women. As an example they state that in 1996-7, 95 per cent of the rise was in effect more women coming before the courts. What is more the Home Office argues that now courts tend to impose harsher sentences on women for less serious crimes. The growth of the crime ra te among women may also be due to the impacts of new legislation, which has created new offences, hence it may indicate that the offending rate for women is growing. Another factor influencing the growth of the offending rate in women may be seen in social changes and social attitudes towards particular offences. Szczepaniak and Pospieszy (2008) argue that since the equal opportunity for men and women came into force, women started to be seen not only as a victims of domestic violence but also as perpetrators. What is more, men are now encouraged and willing to talk about and report to the police domestic violence against themselves.Zaplin, (1998) argues that the ability and willingness of women to commit crime is powerfully pressured by social control, especially during their formative years. Females are more close supervised and their misconduct discouraged by negative sanctions. Risk-taking behavior that is rewarded among boys is censured among girls. measured observation of gir ls companions reduces the danger for influence by delinquent peers. Even as adults, women find their freedom to explore worldly temptation constricted by social control. Also females are far more likely than males to be motivated by relationship disturbances to commit an offence and they need a higher take aim of provocation before turning to crime. A sense of danger and threat to significant relationships play a greater role in female offending. If their close relationship with those who commit crime is threatened, they may be unwilling to compromise these relationship by abstaining from crime and thence take part in criminal activities Zaplin,(1998).Despite the fact that the gender gap of offending is narrowing and women commit much more crime than they used to, women are far less likely to be relate in serious crimes, regardless of data sources and level of involvement ( Maguire et al 2007). According to the findings of the Ministry of Justice (200915) females aged between 10 and 25 were less likely than males to say they had committed a serious offence (eight per cent compared with twelve per cent). They were also less likely to be classed as give away offenders (three per cent compared with eight per cent) and less likely to be categorized as serious and frequent offenders (five per cent compared with three per cent). Further findings show that males were more than twice as likely as females to have carried a clapper (five per cent compared to two per cent) more males (15 per cent) than females (10 per cent) said they had committed a violent offence (defined as robbery and assault) males were more likely than females to have handled stolen goods (22 per cent compared to 16 per cent) and over a quarter of males (26 per cent) had committed at to the lowest degree one of four types of anti-social behaviour, a higher proportion than females (18 per cent).The girls and women who make up the greatest part of the criminal justice workload commit average c rimes mostly minor crimes such as theft and fraud, low level drug dealing, prostitution and simple assault against their children or partners. Additionally much of the time, a large majority of these women are associated with men who are without good prospects, are not ambitious and who often themselves are involved in some kind of criminal acts . Consequently these men along with the children are the main focus of these womans lives. The world of these men tends to be an extreme patriarchal one in which women are demoted to subordinate roles, exploited and treated with stoicism by their male partners causing the women to lead lives that are often measly and difficult. Routinely, it is they who are left to cope with the consequence of these mens unsuccessful escapades and the incarceration this can bring Szczepaniak and Pospieszy (2008).Lastly we should note that most of the criminological theories were developed by men specifically to explain male involvement in criminal behavio rs. As a consequence it raises the question of whether such theories are useable in explaining female crime or whether female crime can be only explained by so called gendered-specific theories. Therefore some criminologist believe that the traditional theories developed to explain male crime are not well-suited to explain female crime.Zaplin (1998) argues that their andocentric origin, traditional, structural and social process theories are more or less gender neutral. As a consequence these theories may be useful in understanding overall male offending as well as overall female offending. What is more they can be also helpful in explaining why females commit less crime than men. Also he argues that many another(prenominal) of the delicate and deep differences between male and female crime patterns may be better explained by gendered approaches.In conclusion it is difficult to find a clear answer to female offending and to the rise of the crime rate among them. Despite many studi es and research papers founded on this topic there is still no consensus among professionals. We cannot hide the fact that female criminality is a social phenomenon that has many differences compared with the crime of men. The structure of the crimes committed by women is a reflection of their position, their role in society and environmental influences. Usually women commit crimes which are associated with low risk detection or lower sentences. They do not plan the commission of the crime as male criminals do, rather they use timeserving situations. Many women scientists involved in the studying of crime and the demoralization among women, explain it as the process of emancipation. Along with gender equality, women began to take action until which lately was reserved only for men. There are also those who blame the new fashion for being strong as a reason for female involvement in crime .As the weaker sex becomes old-fashioned, the so called miming of male behaviour by women allo w them to occupy leadership positions in the group.