There are various explanations offered by criminologists when it comes to gender and crime. One of the most influential explanations comes from Lombroso and Ferrero. Over the years, different theorists have criticised theories created by classics of criminology for being too simplistic and have offered alternative explanations. Feminists critique the theories on the basis that crime is seen as something that men do- men studying men, and as a result women are treated as a specialty. There have been further criticisms for ignoring the differences in the experiences of various social groups.This includes inequalities within race and gender, for example the queer experiences and the hierarchy of masculinities. Overall the criticisms come from the understanding that the explanation involves a lot more intersections and complexities than traditional criminologists offer.
This essay will discuss the main theories proposed by the classics of criminology and explore the criminological and alternative critiques against the theories.
The most influential theories in relation to gender and crime come from Lombroso. Lombroso and Ferrero (1914) identified criminals from their physical stigmata and claimed that individuals with the identified characteristics had an increased propensity for being a criminal (Rock, 2007: Lombroso-Ferrero, 1914). They identified physical features from investigating prisoners and patients in psychiatric institutions which was used to confirm the theory. The features within the criminal classification were, a small skull, large eye socket, asymmetrical face, unusually sized ears , lower forehead , lump on lower part of head (Lombroso, 2019). He called the abnormalities found in born criminals, atavistic characteristics. This said that the characteristics found in criminals appear in early primitive humans, they are seen as throwbacks of the early stages of mankind and that these abnormalities were innate and difficult to resist, causing the individuals to commit crimes (Lombroso, 2019). This theory claims that criminality is inherited and individuals are born criminal and from a biological point of view, implies that a person couldn't become a real criminal if they didn't have the specific characteristics outlined.
A critique of this theory stems from criminologists who argue that very few theories attempt to explain the reasons for the disparity between male and female crime. It is critiqued on the biologically reductionist nature of the theory and its failure to consider the impact of nature and socialisation on criminality. Parsons and Sutherland are influential for being one of the first to make a distinction between masculinity and femininity and identify the differences in male and female crime through their engagement in sex-role theory. For example Sutherland (1947), argues that criminal behaviour is learned in the same way that any other response is and that instead of it being an innate drive , it is a product of the interactions. He argues that boys are more likely to be delinquent because they aren’t controlled as strictly through formal and informal socialisations. For example they are encouraged to be risk takers and are exposed to situations where criminality becomes a possibility. He proposes a theory of differential association which states that a person is likely to become criminal if he or she receives an excess of definitions favourable to the violations of law over unfavourable definitions (Sutherland, 1947). These may vary in frequency and duration, priority and intensity but childhood socialisation to Sutherland (1947) is more important than other points in life (Matsuedea, 2010: Sutherland 1947). This suggests that a formula can be derived from the theory to predict whether a person will commit a crime. Parsons (1937) further adds that the family is the heart of the unit and is where children learn their gender roles. He argues that women learn nurturing characteristics and men learn to be the breadwinner which reflects the gendered notion of maleness. These theories provide an alternative explanation for crime, one that considers the impact of socialisation and identifies the differences between masculinity and femininity in a way that biological explanations fail to account for.
Feminists have frequently criticised criminology for its lack of gender analysis and the fact that even when women are studied, it is in a limited manner. Feminists like Carlen argue about the visibility of women and in 1985 stated that women in criminological studies have always been presented as other, rather than real criminals. This can be seen in the fact that Lombroso's 'Criminal Woman' came out many years after the publishing of 'The criminal man' . Another critique comes from Carol Smart (1978) who rejects Lombroso and Ferrero’s (1914) positivist account stating that their theories are based on a misconception on the nature of women which is rooted in biological determinism. She argues that their claims are based on the popular view that women don’t commit crime form cognitive responses but rather physiological basis. Further, she argues that criminology and the sociology of deviance must become more than the study of men and criminality if it is to play a significant part in the development of our understanding. Therefore whilst Lombroso does discuss female crime in an era where females were ignored altogether, his explanations suggest a female criminal that demonstrates an inversion of all of the qualities which distinguish ‘normal women’ namely reserve apathy.
The explanation for female crime proposed by Lombroso can also be criticised on various scientific grounds. Feminist empiricists claim that criminologists, such as Lombroso, don’t consider the effects of their own biases and viewpoints when deciding their research method and subjects. As a result , they offer what they consider a more scientific understanding of women through documenting their lives both as offenders and victims. They object to the empirical claims made about women which are more often than not, approached with prejudice and a lack of evidence. Ann smith (1962) in her study finds that on a whole, the accounts made by Lombroso and Ferrero (1914) offer little evidence to prove that the physical size and developed of the skill actually has an influence on the propensity of female crime (1962:5). There are claims that the work put forward was abstracted empiricism that had no form of theoretical commitment and the control groups used were a mix of different types of people including wrongly convicted inmates (Rock, 2007). Further, from his own research on English inmates, Charles Goring (1913) was able to prove that there are no significant physical differences between criminals and non criminals. Finally, the distinction between criminal and non criminal is politically problematic as the allusion to a biological predisposition suggests that there is no chance of recovery for an offender and further allows individuals who don’t fall into the identified categories, to be overlooked. One example which can be seen in the case of Ted Bundy who was overlooked as a criminal because he had symmetrical features outside of those not outlined by Lombroso.
Standpoint feminism claims that classics of criminology often take the standpoint of men, which can be seen as a function of power, and as a result women are forced to create their own explanations of the criminal experience. Carol Smart (1990) argues that an account by feminists who are fighting a struggle against oppression is a more complete explanation than the perspective of the men who are ruling. She states that it offers a more accurate version of the reality. Standpoint feminists argue for an understanding of the crime from the perspective of those which are socially subjugated. Further, Carlen (1983) in her ethnographic research of 4 women who partake in lawbreaking actions uses standpoint theory in her research when trying to understand the rationality behind female crime. She allows them to be the authors of their stories in an attempt for society to realise that the crimes of women are serious and require more cognition than male theories of gender and crime, seem to let on. The standpoint approach offers more insight into the specific realities of the various disadvantages and oppression that women face, an experience that couldn’t be specifically acknowledged from a male standpoint. This is something that both biological theorists like Lombroso (2019), and social theories like Parson (1937) and Sutherland (1947), are unable to account for.
However, while standpoint feminism can be praised for offering personal insight into the female criminality, the theory has been criticised by black and third world criminologists for generalising the category of a woman. It is argued that there is a hegemony of feminism which focuses on white women assuming that women as a category share the same experiences and view of the world often negating to consider the intersections of women such as class and race and the fact that experiences differ between these groups. Thus, they fail to ‘examine gender In the context of other locations of inequality’ (Burgess-Proctor , 2006: 34).
Critical race scholars such as Carbado and Roithamayr (2014) believe there is a continuous dialectic relationship between race and crime which can be seen in modern society and the way that crime is often associated with black people and vice versa (Phillips and Bowling ,2003). This can also be seen in the rhetoric of otherness and non-whiteness being seen as a threat.
Race scholars criticise classic theorists like Lombroso on the lack of theorising on the complexity of race and focusing on a positivist lens of quantification (Bosworth et al 2008 , Parmar, 2016).
Lombroso and the rise of positivism has long been criticised for being intrinsically racist. Lombroso (2019 ) claimed that Mongolian characteristics and features found in black people were also an indication of criminality. It was said that thieves were notable for their expressive faces, thick and close eyebrows, beards and hair (Lombroso, 2019). While the article was later retracted, the features identified have been used in research by Hashemi and Hall (2020) who discuss the capability of identifying potential criminals by facial recognition. Modern facial recognition, which is notorious for its increased likelihood to misidentify people of colour, has been triggered by Lombroso’s criminal type and this raises certain moral problems. Aside from the misidentification of individuals there are various potential social and political consequences of the positivist approach (Colajanni, 1999). Links can be made between the idea of the ‘criminal beast’ that reigned through the colonialist period, and Lombroso’s conclusions. Post-colonialism, the suggestion that born criminals have certain facial features can foster discrimination and intensify harm towards particular groups of people. It is likely to have had sinister consequences for people who were criminalised and punished, many of which may have been innocent, as a result of the findings. This is further legitimised by the actual publication of the theory which deems it as academic, science and thus a universal truth, therefore justifying discriminatory actions by law enforcement agencies as they consider the claims to be authority. A contemporary example which can be seen in the over criminalisation of black males with research showing that nearly half of all African American men will have been arrested for a non traffic violation by their 23rd birthday (Taylor et al, 2018 :Brame et al, 2014). As Virdee (2019:6) notes, it is important we consider the colonial contexts within history, including the racial domination and violence that pervaded the time. The conclusions reached by Lombroso (2019) are argued to be nothing more than a racist theory put forward under the guise of developing the field.
Since the theories of classics of criminology, gender has been a growing platform within the discipline and other intersectional research has led to the recognition of different types of gender identity. This has resulted in the deconstructing of our understanding of sex and gender and how it is performed in our society.
One of such research finds that masculinity is socially constructed and performed in many different ways that isn’t biological. Morgan (1992) locates the issue of masculinity and crime in gender relations. Many crimes involve an expression of masculinity for example joyriding and burglary. Connell. (2009:9) argues that masculinity is institutionalised in structures and relations both large and small. She proposes a hierarchy of masculinity which has a continuum of masculinity from one end to the other. It is suggested that hegemonic masculinity is the ideal type of masculinity and is how people claim a position of power in society. Developing on from the work of Connell (2009), Messerschmidt (1993) identifies the way in which expressions of masculinity constitute a continuous thread of behaviour from street crime to white collar crime.Therefore classic criminology can be criticised for its gender blindness and reluctance to ask why not all men offend. The gendered understanding of criminology calls into question the idea of what it is to be male, the construction of being men and their relationship with, and their expression of their masculinity, an aspect that the classics of criminology fail to explore
Further critique comes from queer theorists who argue that criminology has often put criminal and homosexuality together in research (Groombridge, 1999). Brown (1986) has critiqued certain aspects of Lombroso’s writings for oversimplifying the role of biological sex differences. The gender and sex stereotypes have been argued to have had a role in the way that Lombroso treated different LGBTQ groups ( Woods, 2015). For Lombroso, homosexual men which he called ‘Pederasts’ emerged as a group of criminals who were biologically inferior and perverse, and lesbians which he called ‘Tribadismo’ were rarely discussed ( Woods, 2015). In doing this, Lombroso’s typology assumed that deviant sexuality in men defined their criminality (Woods, 2015)
Groombridge (2012:331) writes that homosexuality has haunted criminology from the pathologies of positivist of Lombroso to the appreciative ethnographies of social deviance. Early criminology saw that those displaying characteristics of homosexuality were considered as defective species that required curing and treatment. Research in all fields of criminology lacks focus on LGBTQ people. Ferrero and Sanders (1995:318) makes the point that criminology ‘needs to be able to understand the criminal worlds of lesbians and gays’ and that lesbian and gay subcultures have developed codes of conduct. Classics within criminology make straight assumptions within the discipline without engaging in the wider issues that surround queer theory (Ball , 2014). Thus, we are urged to look at the complexity of sexuality within the research of gender despite how difficult it may make things (Groombridge,1999).
Further critique in the biologically deterministic approach can be drawn from the fact that there are various interpretations of crime. The most commonly used definition of crime is to view it as an infraction of the criminal law that leads to certain consequences often taking the form of prosecution or punishment (Collins, 2020). Crime is a social construct and a contested subject. It is influenced by society and experiences, the positions of those defining crime, as well as the cultural and historical context in which laws and offences are created. Crime, the idea of crime and criminal behaviour is an expression of popular views as to what constitutes right and wrong behaviour. The consensus within society regarding what is wrong or unacceptable often affects the law. Various examples can be drawn when analysing the historical punishment of women. The cangue, ducking stool, the scold’s bridle and various other mechanisms were used to punish women who were considered to be disorderly and served the purpose of both physically and symbolically silencing women. Additionally, we only know about certain crimes through the media. Chambliss (2002) theorises the media as a giant myth-making machine (Potter, 2019). Further evidence can be seen in Hall et al’s (1978) ‘Policing the crisis’ which demonstrates the construction of mugging and the way in which it and black crime influenced people's views within wider aspects of society such as politics and economics within the 1970’s. To conclude, although there may be some biological correlation between people who choose to partake in what we define as ‘acts of deviance’, general conclusions shouldn’t be drawn as crime is not a universal concept and so biological similarities found under one definition of crime may not be present in another.
Lombroso is considered to be the father of criminology and for the longest time, his theory and classifications were unquestioned by many and taken to be authority. The effect of his findings can still be seen in some aspects of present society. However different theorists have criticised the approach on various grounds. These criticisms include social theorists who propose alternatives to looking at gender and crime, such as the effect of socialisation and the family unit; scientific criticisms questioning the credibility of the research and methodology including standpoint feminists who argue against men doing research on women due to their biases; and other feminists who critique the lack of visibility of women in theories and the fact that when criminal women are mentioned, they are seen as something that is unconventional as opposed to a norm or the standard. Further criticism comes when considering the intersectionality of gender, race and sexuality. Traditional criminology rejects the socially marginal such as women, black and non-binary confirming individuals, and paints them as deviants or other.
Race theorists critique it on its innate racism in the classification of criminal characteristics which has very dangerous social and political consequences. It can often be used in a discriminatory nature and be used to justify actions by local authorities.. This is especially dangerous when the socially constructed nature of crime and various historical and cultural contexts are taken into account. In their arguments against the heteronormativity of criminology, queer theorists seek to expose its heterosexist nature and argue that in ignoring queer identities, criminologists operate under the assumption of universalism representing normality and the construction of theories as universal. Overall research of gender and crime has proven to be much more complex than is offered by the classics of criminology who tend to overlook the differences that exist between certain groups of people. However, it is important that the different experiences and inequalities are properly acknowledged within research in order to fully understand their relation to criminological issues.