Gender Differences In Crime Analysis And Sentencing: Exploring Feminist Approaches And Postmodern Perspectives

Behavioral and Structural Explanations for Gender Differences in Crime Analysis and Sentencing

Discuss About The Feminist Approaches Criminology Postmodern.

Gender differences in crime analysis for both female and males are self-evident in present-day criminology (Skilbrei 2013). Discrimination has been evident in crime analysis as well as court sentencing to both men and women offenders. In the aspect of offending, women have been reported to register a higher number in prostitution and property offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, and forgery. Research studies have indicated that men are involved in complex crimes against individuals like assault to a person (Embry and Lyons 2012).

Criminologists have acknowledged that gender difference in crime analysis, as well as the sentencing, is universal. The rate at which men commit offenses is at a higher rate than that of women in all offense types excluding prostitution done mostly by women. The gender gap in criminal offending is greatest concerning severe crimes as well as the minor ones. This paper is in line with the concept that gender differences should be a critical aspect to consider in crime analysis and its representation (Doerner and Demuth 2010).

There have been two explanations for the gender difference on criminal investigation and processing. The reasons are behavioral and structural explanations. The behavioral concept suggests that women are less involved in crimes compared to men. Their crimes are less dangerous, and most often women act as accomplices other than the chief initiator of the offense. The structural explanation for the implication of gender in the crime processing states that women and men are dealt with differently where women are prosecuted and convicted less compared to men. After the analysis of the crime, women are likely to receive less harsh penalty than men in the same crime committed by both genders (Harvey 2000).

There has erupted various theoretical explanation on why women receive less severe sentences than men on a similar type of crime (Else-Quest, Higgins, Allison and Morton 2012).

Judicial paternalism can be denoted as the differential treatment of women concerning the power relations that looks into women inferiority to men. The concept is mainly focused on the desire of the judge to protect women in the ruling.

 Protective paternalism is evident where women are protected from the stigma of a criminal record as well the reality of prison life. Since women are referred as a weaker sex, there is a need to take care of them concerning the judgments are given to them on crime they have committed (White and Mason 2006)

Judicial, Protective, and Patronizing Paternalism

Patronizing paternalism is a concept which views women as less in enduring punishments, less aggressive and less accountable than male counterparts. The paternalistic approach is reserved for those females charged with feminine crimes (Howe 2009). Those women that commit masculine crimes like robbery with violence are denied paternalistic treatment. These women are sentenced harshly for violation of sex role belief. With the confidence in our societies of women being the weaker sex, then in the analysis of crime and the court outcome should be considered on the gender difference despite having involved in a similar offense with a man. Men are known by their biological makeup to be masculine thus the ability to endure severe punishments. Sentencers are interested in the protection of women hence impose lighter penalties (Purvanova and Muros 2010).

Social control argument gives an explanation of the gender difference in offending as well as in court systems in the category of men, women, and juveniles. The relations between the formal and informal social control and their impacts on offending crime, arrest and judgment outcome is the central aspect of this argument. People with close ties such as the family are bound to higher levels of informal social control thus such people will avoid recidivism bearing the discontentment of the essential others about their aggressive attitude (Vannini 2016).

Differences in the level of closeness and family ties in the lives of men and women can indicate the amount of social control specific individual is subjected to (Hayward and Fenwick 2000). For the reason of women being closer and economically dependent on their families than men, lower levels of formal social control are preferred on women during crime analysis and sentencing outcome. With the social control concept, women tend to be treated differently in sentencing outcomes (Brennan et al. 2012).

The social control bears the argument on the assumption that the families where the woman belongs will provide with guidelines towards the change of the unaccepted behaviors. A hypothesis is also deduced that the families of the offender acknowledge that the offender is in the wrong and therefore aims at helping the offender to change by guiding their behavior. With the support provided by the family, the offender is believed to make a turnover of her criminal offenses based on the bonds between them (MacKinnon 2018).

In crime analysis and the presentation of the court outcomes, it is essential for consideration to be made on women since they are the sole carers of children. The result of the court has been lenient to women considering the dependent children on the mother. Researchers have shown that women with children are judged less harshly and serves fewer sentences in courts (Rafter and Brown 2011). In working of the analysis of a crime committed by a woman and more so a mother, there are three considerations like circumstances of the incident, defendant’s workplace and the situation of the family as well as the defendant’s prior record. That defendant with financial responsibility was sentenced fewer penalties than those with no dependents (Barak, Leighton and Flavin 2010).

Social Control Arguments and Familial Responsibility as Factors in Sentencing Outcomes

When family offenders are judged harshly like being sent to prison and serve many years would also punish the dependents especially the children. Shorter sentences are administered to such people t avoid broken families. The effect was experienced by many women than men (Yavuz and Welch 2010).The difference comes in considering the responsibilities attached to the offender. Some factors leading to these differences;

• Women are in charge of care to their children than men.
• Families women are more responsible in family matters more than familied men.
• Breadwinning is essential but not as much as child care provided by family’s women.

Traditional theory suggests that the sentences should be more concerned in protecting the weak in the society who in this case are women. The social institution, the family, should be protected by maintaining social order (Kolsky 2010). Thus, families should not be broken by separating one member. Justice should also prevail to the innocent by punishing the guilty. Those who are dependent on care or economic support to the offender should also be protected. A general argument can be deduced that the aim of the fewer penalties on women is not to benefit women per se but the families. The explanation can be termed as the familial paternalism where both men and women are sentenced differently according to the familial responsibility (May, Rader and Goodrum 2010).

Gender differences have also led to a difference in imprisonment. Women are sent to prison for short periods, unlike men (Harvey 2000). Reason being the fact that women crimes are often an offense towards property such as fraud compared to men whose crimes are more severe and an assault mostly on people such as murder. With the nature of the crime committed by the two genders and their criminal record history, women tend to be on the safer side concerning the type of sentence administered (Walklate 2013).

Conclusion.

The findings of the research show that gender is a key issue to be considered in crime analysis which affects the outcomes of the sentencing. From the research study conducted, several conclusions can be made. The crimes committed by women are less offending compared to men regarding tendency and nature of the offense. In crime analysis, it should be eyed on to avoid harsh penalties for fewer crimes and serious crimes having less penalty. Women are less likely to be imprisoned, and it is community’s responsibility to enact change onto the offenders. Also, the duration of women imprisonment is shorter compared to men. Behavioral theory explanation is supported by many researchers that women engage themselves in less severe crimes with few convictions and less offending severe compared to men (McMillan 2004). Also, the biographies of female offenders are different to those of men (Smart 2003). This donates to their indistinct position of being offenders as well as victims at the same time. Women are in a likely hood of having a history such as physical harassment, sexual victimization in early age and also in marriages. With these reasons, sentencing is not direct (Nayak and Kehily 2013).

Indirect Impacts of Features That Create a Justification of Conditions

Indirect impacts of features that create a justification of conditions can result in shorter sentences that lead to differences in sentencing consequences for women and men. These differences appear defensible but not any form of being bias. Hence, the differences in sentencing consequences for both men and women are not biased but a reflection of gender-based features. The differences are experienced because of the influences associated with being feminine but not gender based. With these concepts, it is advisable to consider gender difference in crime analysis and its presentation to avoid biases (Doerner and Demuth 2010).

References

Barak, G., Leighton, P. and Flavin, J., 2010. Class, race, gender, and crime: The social realities of justice in America. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., Dieterich, W., Salisbury, E.J. and Van Voorhis, P., 2012. Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), pp.1481-1508.

Doerner, J.K. and Demuth, S., 2010. The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), pp.1-27.

Else-Quest, N.M., Higgins, A., Allison, C. and Morton, L.C., 2012. Gender differences in self-conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 138(5), p.947.

Embry, R. and Lyons Jr, P.M., 2012. Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), pp.146-162.

Harvey, I., 2000. Youth culture, drugs and criminality. Youth justice: Theory and practice. London: Cavendish. pp.111-143.

Hayward, K.J. and Fenwick, M., 2000. Youth crime, excitement and consumer culture: the reconstruction of aetiology in contemporary theoretical criminology. In Youth justice (pp. 31-50). Cavendish.

Howe, A., 2009. Sex, Violence and Crime: Foucault and the’Man’Question. Routledge.

Kolsky, E., 2010. ‘The Body Evidencing the Crime’: Rape on Trial in Colonial India, 1860–1947. Gender & History, 22(1), pp.109-130.

MacKinnon, C.A., 2018. Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination [1984]. In Feminist legal theory (pp. 81-94). Routledge.

May, D.C., Rader, N.E. and Goodrum, S., 2010. A gendered assessment of the ‘‘threat of victimization’’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), pp.159-182.

McMillan, N., 2004. Beyond representation: Cultural understandings of the September 11 attacks. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(3), pp.380-400.

Nayak, A. and Kehily, M.J., 2013. Gender, youth and culture: Young masculinities and femininities. Palgrave Macmillan.

Purvanova, R.K. and Muros, J.P., 2010. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), pp.168-185.

Rafter, N. and Brown, M., 2011. Criminology goes to the movies: Crime theory and popular culture. NYU Press.

Skilbrei, M.L., 2013. Sisters in crime: Representations of gender and class in the media coverage and court proceedings of the triple homicide at Orderud Farm. Crime, media, culture, 9(2), pp.136-152.

Smart, C., 2003. Feminist Approaches to Criminology or Postmodern Woman meets Atavistic Man?. Crime: Critical concepts in sociology. London: Routledge, pp.153-169.

Vannini, P., 2016. Body/embodiment: Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body. Routledge.

Walklate, S., 2013. Gender, crime and criminal justice. Willan.

White, R. and Mason, R., 2006. Youth gangs and youth violence: Charting the key dimensions. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), pp.54-70.

Yavuz, N. and Welch, E.W., 2010. Addressing fear of crime in public space: Gender differences in reaction to safety measures in train transit. Urban studies, 47(12), pp.2491-2515.