Criminological Debates On Gender And Crime

To explore the key criminological debates regarding gender and crime, firstly we must probe the idea of gender itself- its interpretations and meanings. The Oxford dictionary defines gender as: ‘Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.’ The term ‘gender’ has changed overtime, it no longer denotes biological sex, as ‘gender’ in today’s post-modern society is fluid. Both male and females can act in ways of the opposite gender. Statistics show that every area of the Criminal Justice System, for example arrests, trials, and even professionals, is heavily dominated by males, even though there are more women in the United Kingdom to men (Census

These explanations are based on the presumed ‘scientific’ differences between the sexes. Famous criminologist and physician Cesare Lombroso, the ‘father’ of modern criminology, proposed that there are minimal amounts of ‘born’ female criminals in comparison to men. The limited number of female criminals, according to Lombroso and Ferrero, were ‘abnormal’, and lacked the ‘natural’ female traits such as obedience, and a submissive nature. They had an excess of male characteristics, and biologically ‘more closely resembled males’. Freud further illustrates, building on Lombroso’s work, arguing that female crime results from a “masculinity complex”- this supposedly stems from a ‘penis envy’. Those women of whom cannot successfully resolve their penis envy, and cope with the fact that they are the inferior gender, overidentify with maleness, and are likely to react in erratic criminal ways. Other biological approaches regarding gender and criminality, explain male offending in terms of factors such as testosterone levels. Controversial evidence suggests that individuals with high testosterone levels are more likely to be aggressive, and with Males inherently having higher levels than females, explains male criminality, particularly those with a violent nature. These Positivist/ Biological theories of gendered criminality have come under mass amounts of scrutiny, as they tend to be overtly sexist, assuming that

The male partakes in the instrumental role, where he is supposedly meant to work, to financially provide for the family. The female adopts the expressive role, where she must cook, clean and emotionally look after the family. If the female isn’t acting in her reproductive expressive role, then there supposedly must have been some problem in the socialisation process, in the latency period. Males can commit crime because they have the means to- utilitarian crimes are likely with males, because there is the incentive of monetary gain to provide for the family. This, in Parson’s view explains gender and criminality. Parsons argument however, can be critically evaluated as it’s incredibly aged point of view- in today’s post-modern society, gender is a social construct, and a choice. There are no longer insistent instrumental and expressive roles within society, what men and women ‘should’ and ‘should not’ do is determined by social forces, rather than biological ones. This can undermine Parson’s