Gender has become one of the most reliable predictors of crime, especially violent crime. Governmental, crime victim, public, private, and self-reporting data sources are consistent in indicating adult males commit more crimes and are more likely to repeat their crimes than their adult female counterparts. Even with juvenile data denoting marked increases in girls committing more serious violent crimes, the overwhelming prevalence of male’s criminal involvement continues. This entry begins by reviewing statistical data regarding crime and gender and then examines theories related to criminality among genders as well as the role that genes may play in criminality. The entry concludes with a brief look at gender in the criminal justice system.
Gender and Crime Data
In 2014, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation published its Uniform Crime Report comprising data submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation from more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide. Analysis of these data indicates that males committed 6,021,910 crimes, a reduction of 14.6% since 2010. Females during the same period committed 2,202,349 crimes, a decline of 8.5% since 2010. For the category of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, males committed 6,665 offenses, a reduction of 6.6% since 2010. Females committed 895 crimes, an increase of 2.2% since 2010. In every criminal category, males committed significantly more criminal offenses than did females during the same period. The exception to these findings is data indicating that females commit more crimes of prostitution and commercialized vice than their male counterparts.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010–2012, indicated that female juveniles commit higher rates of forcible rape, aggravated assault, larceny-theft, simple assaults, weapons possession, prostitution and commercialized sex, sex offenses (not including forcible rape and prostitution), possession of alcohol by minors, disorderly conduct, offenses against the family and children, public drunkenness, and all other offenses (except traffic) than do males. However, female juvenile offenders account for only 14% of offenders in residential placement. Their male juvenile counterparts account for 83% of offenders in residential placement.
Gender and Criminality Theories
Most theories—including behavioral, biological, biosocial, cognitive, conflict, criminal justice, criminology, cultural transmission, culture of poverty, deterrence and rational choice, differential association, genetics and evolution, labeling, psychodynamic, psychological, psychosocial, routine activities, self-control, social construction, social control, social disorganization, social l earning, social strain, structural functionalism, and symbolic interaction theories—focus on crimes committed by males. However, such theories fail to consider that gender disparity may account for a correlate of crime. Much of the criminality research, however, has not yet identified specific key causations for criminality, especially for women. This entry reviews a few theories that have attempted to address female criminality.
Masculinity Theory and Marginalization Theory
In the past, it had been assumed that women’s lesser roles in criminality were either a result of their biology or sexuality. For decades, masculinity theory has posited that women who engage in behaviors signifying masculinity, such as crime and violence, are attempting to compensate for a lack of maleness. New research findings, though, indicate that female crimes result from marginalization, discrimination in family and workplace environments, and/or women’s increasingly complex lifestyles as the family’s primary provider. Thus, identifying a woman’s susceptibility to criminal activity would require considering the personal structures, struggles, oppression, and life experiences she has lived through. Other relevant theories related to female criminality include opportunity theory and marginalization theory, with marginalization theory being considered by many researchers to be the most relevant and significant for analyzing causes of female criminality.
Strain Theory and General Strain Theory
Both male and female offenders are susceptible to Robert Merton’s strain theory and Robert Agnew’s general strain theory. These theories take into consideration the pressures placed upon individuals who are socially bound to a life of poverty and to whom a legitimate path to success is inaccessible.
Merton’s strain theory was based on the principles that all Americans are equal regardless of class, gender, or ethnicity and encouraged to pursue success—albeit success in this theory was measured by the accumulation of material possessions and financial wealth. Through progression, Merton identified that this measure of success was not attainable by all Americans. Thus, he introduced anomie, detailing that the imbalance of the societal and cultural goals produces unrealistic goals.
Agnew’s general strain theory evolved from Merton’s strain theory and recognized the societal and cultural limitations placed on all Americans with regard to attaining wealth and resources. Agnew pointed especially to youth and marginalized groups that have had negative experiences, not solely associated with finances. Agnew also pointed out that these limitations, or strains, were unjust, high in magnitude, associated with low social control, and create pressure on and incentives for those experiencing them to engage in criminality.
Some studies indicate that females’ likelihood to offend is more about constraint than strain. After attempting all socially approved means of improving their lives without success, some people may determine that nonlegitimate means or selfcreated opportunities are the only options available to them. Under this theory, the constraint, or turnaround point, for females is when either they are prosecuted and incarcerated or they determine their place in society has improved to the point that they reevaluate and accept societal norms.
Genes and Gender Criminality
Nineteenth-century criminologist Cesare Lombroso explained that female and male offenders displayed traits from generations past due to phenotypical markers found in DNA that allow the older genes to override newer traits because of shortening or prolonging fetal development. In the 21st century, research into DNA is revealing more about the links between genes and violent crime. Two specific genes, the MAOA gene and a divergent of cadherin 13 (CDH13), have been linked with substance abuse, and substance abuse is associated with violent crime. Studies also show that offenders of both genders who had committed nonviolent crimes lack this specific genetic profile.
It is important to note, however, that neither an individual’s genetic makeup nor his or her genetic markers should be proffered as evidence of criminality in criminal trials or used to render verdicts because as of 2018, there are no empirical findings demonstrating that a single or combination of genes, alone or combined, correlates with violence. Despite the lack of empirical support for genetic causation, some creative defense attorneys have used this information in an attempt to influence sentencing. In a 2006 U.S. court case, a jury rejected the defense attorneys’ argument that this new genetic research was to blame for their client’s actions. However, in 2009, an Italian jury did rely on genetic research to reduce an offender’s sentence. Many researchers insist that in the future, the fields of genetics, biology, neurology, and anatomy will help to explain violence and aggression with regard to both genders, thus furthering understanding of gender and crime.
Criminal Justice System
With regard to the criminal justice system’s treatment of offenders, investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Civil Rights Division, and various nongovernmental organizations have recognized the existence of disparities between the gender related to socioeconomics, maximum–minimum sentencing relative to drug offenses, and sentencing. Because the criminal justice system in the United States tends to focus its funding on the majority offending group (males), the minority offending group (females) often faces disparity with regard to funding, level of care, and rehabilitative services.
To address such gender disparities as well as to mitigate and reduce crime regardless of gender, criminal justice and social policies must support communities and establish interventions that provide vulnerable populations with realistic and sustainable options for active growth and attainable life goals and subsistence. Moreover, society must dedicate itself to rebuilding and creating communities that care for its citizens and promote social responsibility. Failure to do so could impede the identification of programs that identify causes of criminality and that successfully reduce recidivism rates and incarceration of both genders as well as impact research designed to clarify gender criminality.
References:
- Bernard, A. (2013). The intersectional alternative: Explaining female criminality. Feminist Criminology, 8(1), 17. doi:10.1177/1557085112445304
- Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/ pub/pdf/cpus14.pdf
- Deno, D. W. (1994). Gender, crime, and the criminal law defense. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(1), 80. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/ read/1G1-16632387/gender-crime-and-the-criminal-law-defenses
- Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2014). Uniform crime report 2014—Crime in the United States: Table 35 Five-year arrest trends by sex. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigations. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-theu.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-35
- Guzik, K. (2006, December). Gender and crime: Patterns in victimization and offending. Law & Society Review, 40(4), 967. Retrieved from https://www .questia.com/read/1P3-1193398001/gender-and- crime-patterns-in-victimization-and-offending
- Islam, M. J., Banarjee, S., & Khatun, N. (2015). Theories of female criminality: A criminological analysis. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory. Retrieved from https://ijcst.journals.yorku.ca/ index.php/ijcst/article/view/39737/35977
- Jacobsen, S. K. (2012, February). The differential representation of women and men in crime, victimization, and the criminal justice system. Sex Roles, 66, 293–295. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0065-7
- Sourander, A., Elonheimo, H., Niemelä, S., Nuutila, A., Helenius, H., Sillanmäki, L., . . . Almqvist, F. (2006, May). Childhood predictors of male criminality: A prospective population-based follow-up study from age 8 to late adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(5), 578–586.