The subject of male and female criminality is a widely discussed area of criminology. Traditionally, most writers on the subject attribute female criminality to biological or psychological sources and male criminality to social and economic displacement. There are many different theories covering both of these areas, with various explanations of why these gender differences are so great. This essay will address the potential causes of these differences and look at theorists who are interested in the differential offending rates and why they are a topic of discussion for criminologists. We shall discuss the suggested causes of delinquency for both sexes and also look into official statistics and how they are representative of crimes committed by both males and females. Firstly we will be concentrating on the biological and psychological explanations of female criminality beginning with the work of Cesare Lombrosso

Early explanations for female criminality were based on presumed biological differences between males and females. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, Cesare Lombrosso studied the characteristics of criminals. He later explored the emergence of female criminals and concluded that they were abnormal because they lacked natural female traits such as docility and sexual apathy. He theorised that female criminals were very like men in that they had exaggerated sexuality. Lombrosso’s writing can be dismissed as being an historical relic, but in the same vein recent explanations for female criminality use his framework. A study by Cowie, Cowie and Slater (1968) found that females have a higher level of immunity than males towards environmental stress, and only when extraneous circumstances arise will they turn to crime. They concluded therefore that crime was in essence related to biological factors, including differences in hormonal balance (Cowie, Cowie & Slater 1968 cited in Croall 1998). The 1980’s found the first case where pre-menstrual tension was cited as a cause for crime; explaining that menstruation could cause women to behave irrationally and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions (Williams 1997). Biological and Psychological explanations have become closely associated in recent years. Eysenck’s psychological theory of the cause of crime is equally applicable to males and females and is centred on his theory that there are two main personality traits: extroversion and introversion. As a result of his research Eysenck believes that ‘extroverts are more likely to commit crimes’ (Eysenck 1977: 133).

In explanation of female criminality, Eysenck tested his thesis on married and unmarried mothers. He theorised that ‘being an unmarried mother was a sign of promiscuity and they were therefore deviant’ (Eysenck 1977: 134). These biological theories can be heavily criticised. The greatest criticism is that they confuse gender roles with biological sex difference, it is not that females are biologically docile and passive; they are brought up this way through the process of socialisation. It is a standard argument that gender roles are created through socialisation. From infancy children are taught that the two sexes are intrinsically different, and there are certain attributes that each sex needs to hold. Female roles contain elements of attractiveness, softness, caring and domesticity whereas male roles stress elements such as toughness, aggressiveness and domination. This argument in some way supports the low levels of convictions of females for violent street crimes. This is an area where there can be seen the biggest difference in offending rates (Williams 1997) and recent years have seen a flurry of research and debate over the nature of female offending as part of a rising interest in gender stratification (Steffensmeier & Haynie 2000).

As we have seen female criminality has long been traced back to biological and/or psychological sources, with little or no discussion of social-structural considerations like economy, occupation and educational opportunities. The position of functionalism would predict greater gender differences than similarities in the structural determinants of offending, and assumes that causes of female criminality differ fundamentally from those of male criminality. Not only are female crime rates much lower than males, but these variations in male rates are attributable to social and economic dislocation. In particular males are more at risk from economic and status loss than females are. The tendency has been to trace female crime to biological stresses and male crime to environmental stresses. According to Emile Durkheim (1951), women experience less social stress and are less likely to be touched by adverse economical or social conditions. Durkheim states:

Therefore, according to Durkheim, besides being lower than male crime rates, female crime rates will be less influenced by various forms of social and economical displacement and will display greater stability throughout society.

Despite the many theories surrounding female criminality, male criminality has certainly not been absent from criminological thinking. What criminologists have paid little attention to however, are the potentially different ways in which the behaviour of delinquent males might be a direct result of the way that they understand themselves as men. One theorist, Tolson (1977) wrote a book entitled ‘The limits of masculinity’. In this book he explained the different ways in which dominant forms of thinking about masculinity constrained different men in different ways (Tolson 1977 cited in Walklate 1998). Another theorist who looked into understanding gender relations was Messerschmidt (1993), he states: ‘Research reveals that men construct masculinity’s in accordance with their position in social structures and therefore their access to power and resources’ (Messerschmidt 1993: 119).

In his work Messerschmidt provides a detailed account of the variety of ways in which masculinity is given expression, from the pimp on the street to the business practices of the white-collar executive. It could be suggested that the relationship between crime and masculinity is straightforward; men are more likely to commit crimes, therefore crime is related to masculinity. This however is too simplistic an explanation. Not all men commit crimes or are violent, and while crime may be seen as more normal for men, it is still a widely abnormal characteristic as most men do not become involved in crime, or obtain a conviction (Croall 1998). Some sub-cultural theorists state that many delinquent and criminal subcultures that are originating in lower class neighbourhoods are mainly a collective solution to male role problems (Leonard 1982 cited in Walklate 1998).

This delinquent subculture according to Cohen ‘is not appropriate to the problems of adjustment and social expectations of the female role’ (Cohen 1955: 147). Although adverse social conditions may affect the status of females through relational issues, family situations or personal issues, they are more insulated from the negative social forces. This is because the delinquent or gang subcultures that exist are generally irrelevant to the vindication of the female status. According to Thrasher (1963) ‘women remain relatively untouched by the changing forces of an industrial world because ‘zones of transition’ harbouring most delinquent gangs are only disorganised for males’ (Thrasher 1963: 161). Therefore the reasons that females do not generally form gangs is that even in urban, disorganised areas, females are much more closely supervised and guarded than males, and are usually embodied within the family group or some other social structure (Thrasher 1963). As a result of his research into 1,313 gangs in America, Thrasher could only find one delinquent female gang, however this appears to be changing rapidly.

It would seem that female gang related crimes are not a recent occurrence. During studies into female gangs in Manchester, Davies (1999) found that young women formed only a small minority of those convicted of gang related crimes centred on violence during the last three decades of the 19^th century. Despite these facts, press reports and court records document both their occasional participation in confrontations between rival gangs, and their more frequent involvement in assaults upon local people and the police. This led to female gang members being loudly condemned as ‘Vixens’, ‘Viragoes’ and ‘Amazons’ in the local press and stern lectures from magistrates who deplored any evidence of ‘unwomanly behaviour’. However, they generally received lighter sentences than their male counterparts with magistrates following trends that women are marginal figures in local gang conflicts and see them as more malleable creatures than men (Davies 1999: 78). Because of the way females are socialised, any crime or deviance committed by a female will tend to be hushed up by family members and close friends. Whereas males committing acts of deviance is sometimes seen as a macho image whereby they are trying to prove themselves to their peer groups, and to the rest of society.

Further studies centred on adolescent delinquent behaviour have produced consistent findings with regard to differences between male and female criminality. In general young boys are more likely to get involved in antisocial or deviant activity than young girls are (Henggeler 1989). The persistence of gender differences has stimulated wide interest among social scientists. Research over the past couple of decades reflects two general trends; each attempting to uncover the dynamics behind these gender differences. One group has attempted to address whether traditional theories of crime and delinquency can be applied equally to females as well as males. The other group has insisted however that theories generated from male criminality cannot be applied to female criminality, and have called for special theories of crime more applicable to female criminality alone (Yiaoru & Kaplan 1999).

Despite the different theories surrounding differential rates of female and male criminality, we still need to look deeper into the source of these offending rates. Even when the crimes are known to the police only a small proportion lead to arrest, conviction and sentencing or other outcome which closes the case. This leads to a number of crimes being left uncleared and fall into the ‘dark figure of crime’ about which very little detail is available, such as sex, age or social status of the perpetrator. A number of writers have suggested that the criminal statistics do not reflect the extent of female crime. Pollack (1961) argued that female crimes were increasing, and much of the crime was masked. He gave examples of prostitution and shoplifting which are commonly not reported to the police, yet there was no serious evidence for this contention. With the defects of crime statistics so well known, attempts have been made by both policy makers and academics to supplement and correct them. These attempts take two main forms: Crime Surveys and Self-Report Studies.

Crime Surveys can either be large scale like the British Crime Survey (BCS), or smaller such as local observations into shoplifting etc. The former, the British Crime Surveys are not very helpful to criminologists unless the victim of a crime actually saw the individual involved, as it would give no indication as to the perpetrators sex. In addition, the BCS is based on households, omitting business or institutional victims. Early surveys also only interviewed those over the age of 16, omitting child and teenage victims. The second form, those of Self-report Studies, are a more rewarding area to examine. Most of these studies are conducted en masse in schools and colleges and tend to show the age ranges in which peak offending is found. They aim to find out how many times an individual has participated in criminal activity and can provide the age, race and sex of those who admit to offending. However, even when anonymity is assured, certain participants, especially schoolchildren fear that a parent or teacher will see the answers and they become reluctant to reveal any previous crimes, whereas others, especially boys, may exaggerate. Mawby (1980) conducted a self-report study in Sheffield, which showed:

Mawby’s findings also demonstrate that boys commit more offences than girls and that class alone cannot explain the sex difference. This confirms largely what we know from official sources, that women commit very little crime. Most female offences (about 80%) relate to property or fraud and forgery. Males and females are convicted for different kinds of offences, with women having extremely low rates for murder, serious violence and professional crime. In general terms women are convicted of less serious offences than men. They are convicted of physical harm or damage infrequently and in general commit only petty and trivial offences. According to official statistics, overall, men are five times more likely to commit a crime than females. By the age of 28, when levels of offences fall to an extremely low level, 33% of males and 6% of females have been convicted of a serious offence. This shows, according to Braithwaite (1989), that males disproportionately commit crime. Further, in 1992, of all those found guilty of, or cautioned for indictable offences, 81% were male and 19% were female (Crime Statistics for England and Wales 1993 adapted from Braithwaite 1989: 44).

More recently, looking at prison populations in November 2000; 4,100 inmates were female compared to 63,000 males. Twelve years previous these figures were 1,500 females to 48,000 males. To highlight this there are a few examples of the differences in crimes committed with male to female ratios: Serious Motoring offences (20.6:1); Burglary (23:1); Robbery (13.5:1); Violence against a person (5.7:1); Theft and Handling (2.8:1); TV Licence evasion (0.5:1) and Prostitution (0.01:1)(Coleman & Moynihan 1996 cited in Croall 1998: 137). The only crimes where females exceed males in figures are TV license evasion and prostitution. The high figure for not paying a TV licence is primarily due to the fact that women are more likely to answer the door, thus being held responsible and prosecuted. However these figures are based on convictions and are therefore not an indicator of true crime.

All of the arguments presented in this essay are clear on one point; overall the proportion of female to male offences is extreme and may be underestimated by the official statistics. There are many arguments as to the causes of female and male crimes, ranging from biological to social economic sources, but none are clear as to the actual causes of differential offending rates. What is known is that both female crime and male crime is rising, with females especially crossing the line from petty crimes into more serious offences. Despite this male rates are still disproportionately higher as shown in the male female ratio’s for certain crimes, yet females still exceed males in crimes such as prostitution and shoplifting. The assumptions that women are naturally less likely to commit crimes is related to biological differences and hormones and according to Lombrosso the female criminal is abnormal and unnatural. A question rarely asked though is if crime is an unnatural trait for women, is it natural for men? If the gender gap was not biologically determined however, it was therefore explained in the different social roles of males and females, and how they were brought up. Masculinity was also discussed, as an important element in male criminality with the assumption that men are more criminal and therefore crime must be related to masculinity. Yet expressing masculinity is not an indicator of delinquent behaviour, and need not involve crime, violence or aggression. Regardless of the supposed causes of male and female criminality, it is clear that crime in general is on the increase for both sexes and will undoubtedly continue to be a topic of much debate amongst sociologists, psychologists and criminologists alike.

Braithwaite, J (1989) Crime, Shame and Regeneration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p 44).

Cohen, A. K. (1955) Delinquent Boys. London: Free Press. (p 147).

Croall, H (1998) Crime and Society in Britain. New York: Longman.

Davies, A (1999) ‘These vigaroes are no less cruel than the lads’: Young women gangs and violence in late Victorian Manchester and Salford. The British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 39: Issue1: p 72-89. (p 78).

Durkheim, E (1951) Suicide. New York: Free Press. (p 272)

IBID: (p 299)

Eysenck, H (1977) Crime and Personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (p 133)

IBID: (p134)

Henggeler, S. W. (1989) Delinquency in Adolescence. Newbury Park.CA: Sage.

Mawby, R (1980) Sex and Crime: The results of a Self-Report Study. The British Criminology of Sociology. Vol.31: Issue 4. p 537-543. (p 541)

Messerschmidt, J (1993) Masculinities and Crime. Langham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield. (p 119)

Pollack, D (1961) The Criminality of Women. New York: A. S. Barnes

Steffensmeier, D & Haynie, D (2000) Gender, Structural Disadvantages and Urban Crime: Do Macrosocial Variables also Explain Female Offending rates. Criminology. Vol. 38: Issue 2. P 403-438

Thrasher, F. M. (1963) The Gang. Chicago: Phoenix Press. (p 161)

Walklate, S (1998) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates. Philadelphia.PA: Open University Press.

Williams, K. S. (1997) Textbook on Criminology (3^rd Ed.). London: Blackstone Press.

Yiaoru, L & Kaplan, H. B. (1999) Explaining the Gender differences in Adolescent Delinquent Behaviour. Criminology. Vol. 37: Issue 1. P 195-215