The following will discuss traditional and feminist perspectives on women and crime within the social discipline of criminology. Although the title of this presentation may suggest one perspective, in reality there are many viewpoints developed from different feminist writers, some very distinct from each other while others may consist of a collection of ideas from several perspectives. In other words, this presentation will bring into view, different ideas from some prominent feminist writers in the field of criminology (refer overhead 1A). Part 1 intends to introduce criminology as a discipline in its traditional form and discusses why a feminist criminology appears necessary. Until recently, criminology has been primarily focused on men and crime with little reference to women. Feminist criminology developed in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, and was closely associated with the emergence of the Second Wave of feminism at this time. This movement helped to project many issues into the public domain (refer overhead 1B), one of which was women and crime. Like most feminist issues, women and crime was mostly discussed from a male perspective and has been about men, for men and by men. The women's liberation movement having developed almost alongside feminist criminology appears to have blurred some feminist writer's perspectives about women and crime, perhaps none more so than Freda Adler (1975) and her theory of 'Sisters in Crime' as discussed in Part 2. Although the field of criminology comprises of offenders, victims and those who work within the criminal justice system such as the police, judges and various institutions, the following will concentrate on women as offenders.

Part 1 - Why is there a need for a feminist criminology? AND

What have been some of the problems?
(refer overhead 2)

Criminology refers to any kind of study concerned with crime and criminal justice. It is a term used to include a multitude of topics and approaches. Feminist perspectives, over the past thirty years have not only put some new topics under the criminological cover, they have challenged the theories, concepts, methods and assumptions of most of the people already involved in the study of crime. Criminology, has for most feminist writers and researchers been a constraining rather than a constructive and creative influence. Theories of criminality have been developed from male subjects and validated on male subjects. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this, the problem is that these theories have been extended generally to include all criminals, defendants and prisoners. It was assumed that the theories would apply to women; most do not appear to do so (Gelsthorpe and Morris, 1990: xii-8).

Usually feminism is included in chapters about 'Gender and Crime' and woman as offenders are more likely to be discussed within the boundaries of sexual and petty offences such as prostitution and shop lifting (Naffine, 1997: 1). Voigt et al, in their recent book called Criminology and Justice, make particular mention of the inadequacies of criminology texts suggesting that 'criminology is nothing more than specialised theories of male delinquency and crime' (1994: 238-249). In other words, the facts about crime tend to be based on the sex of the offender and not the crime itself. This 'sexism' in criminology is more in keeping with Gelsthorpe's critique of 'accumulated wisdom' about female offenders. She proposes that women are discriminated against in areas such as crime because of their sex and this sexism influences the sentencing, punishment and incarceration of women (1986: 138-149). She accuses many police, welfare institutions and judges among others as assuming 'sweeping generalisations' about crime as something men are expected to do, because they are men' (Gelsthorpe, 1986: 149). Women are not expected to be criminals and if they are, they may be described as 'mad not bad ' (Lloyd, 1995: xvii).

The perception that women may be mad because they 'dared to go against their natural biological givens such as 'passivity' and a 'weakness of compliance' ' appears to originate from the view that women who conform as pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers benefit society and men (Feinman, 1994: 16). Women became 'doubly damned' that is, they are seen as weak and in need of protection while being judged as having 'uncontrollable sexuality' (prostitutes and delinquent girls) (Bottoms, 1996: 1). Results from studies conducted by Gelsthorpe showed how sexual promiscuity amongst girls resulted in them being institutionalised and treated for 'abnormal' behaviour. On the other hand male's sexual permissiveness was encouraged and thought to be 'natural' to the male persona (1989: 34). According to Cain, these equity studies were 'androcentric' as 'women and girls appeared to exist as Other'. Men were used as the 'yardsticks' against which actions and treatment were measured (1990: 2).

Such androcentric studies urged many feminist writers to develop theories that engaged in negative and/or reactive projects and/or criticised social, theoretical, and political relations, thereby challenging theories that currently existed. Critique and construct were important creative alternatives for the production of feminist, not simply anti-sexist theory, and without them according to Grosz, problems of the past, especially patriarchal assumptions, could have been repeated (1990: 59). According to Spelman, feminist theory has not changed all that much and has neglected to include the 'problem of difference'. She suggests that 'feminists have extrapolated the condition of the most privileged type of woman - the white, middle-class, heterosexual - to all women' and the 'conflation of women in feminist theory has not produced a melting pot of different ages, colours and classes' (1988: 4). She also suggests that white feminist criminologists, although objecting to the 'stereotypical representations of female offenders', have had little to say about indigenous women or those from developing countries. To fail to see differences in racial groups is to 'reinstate the white woman's assumption that the problem is always first one of gender, never one of difference' (Spelman, 1988: 57-58). This apparent absence of race and other factors such as employment are mentioned in the following discussion.

 Part 2 - 'Sisters in Crime'

Could women's emancipation account for the apparent increases in crime?

If not, what has?

The word 'feminism' today remains entrenched in some people's minds as the 'cause of most of societies problems'. Chesney-Lind suggests that 'the invention of the liberated woman' has forced women to bear the brunt of the hostility towards the women's movement (1980: 15). Prominent feminist theorists such as Freda Adler (1975) and her 'Sisters in Crime' seems to have done little to alleviate these negative assumptions. Real problems within the criminal justice system appear to have been obscured and such deflection may have provided those opposed to the women's movement with scientific evidence of the 'dark side of liberation' (Chesney-Lind, 1980: 16-17) as is discussed below.

Freda Adler believed that the arrival of the Second Wave of Feminism during the 1970s consequently coincided with a 'dramatic' upsurge in women's criminal activity. She claimed while 'women have demanded equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavours, a similar number of determined women have forced their way into the world of major crime such as white collar crime, murder and robbery' (Adler, 1975: 3). That women criminals today represent a 'new breed' can be demonstrated, according to Adler, by evidence of the changing nature of female involvement in a wide variety of crimes. The emergence of this 'new female criminal' engaged in predatory crimes of violence and corporate fraud has broken into a man's world (Brown, 1986: 373). For example, female white-collar crime has increased since the 'liberation' of women. Adler suggests that as women are 'climbing up the corporate business ladder', they are making use of their 'vocational liberation' to pursue careers in white-collar crime (1975: 83-84)
(refer overhead 3).

Adler's theory has invited much criticism from other feminist writers (refer overhead 4) such as Brown. She describes it as an 'embarrassment to feminism' and argues instead that feminism has made female crime more visible through increased reporting, policing and sentencing of female offenders. She mentions that the degree of sentencing (more severe penalties) would be a more acceptable index of increases in offences among women rather than statistical measures as adopted by Adler (1986: 374). Carol Smart argues that Adler's theory is based on 'statistical illusions caused by a smallness of the base' (1979: 53) (refer overhead 5). Carlen argues that Adler's 'new female criminal' is cast as the 'biological female' who is essentially masculine. The 'new female' criminal turns out to be the 'old maladjusted masculinist female' of traditional criminology, rejecting her proper feminine role (1983: 376-377) such as institutionalising rather than incarcerating women who commit 'male' offences such as robbery. In other words, Adler's 'sisters in crime' appears to work within the frameworks of traditional criminology rather than a feminist one.

Her perspective also seems to exclude factors such as race, ethnicity, age and class. Many feminist writers see these factors as very important. For example, Jane Chapman's (1980) studies of the connection between labour force participation and female crime revealed an increase in criminal activity during times of economic hardship (refer overhead 6). The smallest increases in arrests coincided with periods of the greatest increase in economic activity with the most common offence being that of shop lifting. These findings would seem to support a theory of a relationship between employment and crime (economic perspective) rather than that offered by the 'women's liberation thesis'. When times are good, the offending woman appears to stabilise rather than escalate. An absence rather than availability of employment opportunities (liberation thesis) would seem a more plausible explanation for increases in female crime. Naffine believes the criminal woman's motive appears more rational and straight forward than manifesting her gender-role concerns or seeking to compete with the criminal male (1987: 99).

Giordano and Cerkovich conducted studies in 1979 involving women between the ages of 17 and 29. Their findings suggested that the 'more liberated' the response to questions, the less delinquent participants were. For example, they found that women who believed women should enter the workforce and a woman's role was not necessarily that of housewife and mother, were the least delinquent (1979: 477). James and Thornton revealed from studies involving women prisoners that those incarcerated were primarily from impoverished and uneducated backgrounds. When asked why they offended, responses did not appear to be 'liberation' motivated (1980: 240) (refer overhead 7). In other words, contrary to Adler's theory of emancipation, feminism appeared to be a positive force for conformity when there was opportunity to offend.

 Part 3 - Conclusion

When a woman is seen to be physically, sexually or psychologically dominant, even violently aggressive, she tends to be treated as unusual, a freak of female nature or as mentioned previously, 'mad'. Many women appear to be encouraged to fear men and to circumscribe their public behaviour. The customary association of men with the use of force and power is not confined to the criminal population. Female vulnerability is often invoked to strengthen both the senses of male power and the need for its considered use, that is, to protect women.

The agenda for feminist criminology is to demonstrate to the more traditional members of the discipline that the conventional view of women is inaccurate. Women are to be observed behaving in ways that do not fit the theories. It tends to be the theories not the women that have been found to be deficient. Results from studies as mentioned in Part 2 suggest that women are not thinking nor acting in ways which criminologists have normally assumed. Such discoveries do much to contradict the idea of the passive and compliant female contained in many standard accounts of crime. For example, the complex hypothesis that white-collar female crime is expanding because of improved occupational opportunities for women is undermined by crime statistics which show that women are still principally shop-lifters.

Some feminists such as Freda Adler, have not helped the female fight for equality and individual circumstance; instead they appear to have entrenched existing views of women and the women's movement. The women's movement has born the brunt of much criticism as causing an increase in crime amongst women, especially those of a more serious nature. Contradictory to Adler's theory of female emancipation as the cause, it appears from other studies to be a case whereby women are forced to commit offences as a result of impoverished and oppressed conditions due to unemployment, a lack of educational opportunities, domestic violence, and divorce or separation. This may explain the apparent increase in petty theft, robbery and homicide.