ITEM A3

Official crime statistics indicate that there are significant gender differences in the
commission of a crime. Only about 20% of convicted offenders are female, and they are
far less likely to commit homicide, carry out violent crime than repeat offenders. However,
some sociologists believe that these statistics underestimate the true extent and
seriousness of female crime. They argue that the leniency of the criminal justice system
may result in fewer girls and women ending up in the crime statistics being met.

Applying material from item A3 and your own knowledge, evaluate sociological
explanations of female crime.

The intricate discourse of crime is not confined to any specific gender. However, when
examining crime statistics, a considerable disparity emerges between male and female
offenders. Official crime statistics, as presented in Item A3, indicate that only about 20% of
convicted offenders are female, suggesting a lower rate of crime commission among
women. Some sociologists propose that these figures might significantly undervalue the
actual extent and severity of female crime.

Item A3 elucidates an essential point: the noticeable gender difference in the commission of
a crime. It is a persistent theme in crime statistics that women are far less likely to commit
severe crimes such as homicide or violent offences compared to repeat offenders. The
reasons for this stark difference are manifold and complex. Various sociological theories
attribute this to the traditional gender roles that society imposes on women via primary and
secondary socialisation, which reinforces the traditional ideas of what a woman ‘should be’
despite society moving forward and adapting to more modern ideas and concepts. Women
are generally expected to embody nurturing, caring, and non-aggressive behaviours, being
disciplined to behave as such. Consequently, women are less likely to engage in violent
crime. However, it is crucial to note that these statistics might not fully capture the actual
picture. There might be a significant amount of unreported or undetected female crime that
these statistics overlook, this is also known as the ‘dark figure’. To support this, Heidensohn
(1968) argued that women's lower crime rates could be attributed to the patriarchal control in
society. Women, she argued, are controlled at home, in public, and at work, thus limiting
their opportunities to commit crimes. However, some critics argue that this explanation is
outdated as women's roles in society have significantly evolved since the 1960s.

Numerous sociologists argue that conventional crime statistics might grossly underestimate
the true extent of female crime. A potential explanation for this could be the perceived
leniency of the criminal justice system towards women, resulting in fewer girls and women
appearing in crime statistics. The chivalry thesis, created by Pollak, suggests that police,
judges, and juries are often more lenient with females. They view them as less of a societal
threat than their male counterparts. This leniency could result in fewer convictions and
consequently lower crime rates among women. However, this hypothesis, if accurate, raises
serious questions about the fairness and equity of the criminal justice system. Conversely,
other sociologists argue that the criminal justice system could be biased against women. The
double deviance theory proposes that women are punished not just for their crimes, but also
for deviating from their expected gender roles, potentially leading to harsher penalties. This
double punishment could result in an overrepresentation of women in crime statistics.

Another explanation for female crime is the Liberation Thesis proposed by Adler (1975). He
argued that as women gain more rights and freedoms in society, they also gain more
opportunities to commit crimes. This explanation challenges the notion that women are
'naturally' less likely to commit crime and argues that societal changes are responsible for
any changes in crime rates. However, this theory has been criticized for over-generalizing
the impact of women's liberation and ignoring the complexity of the relationship between
gender and crime. However, this doesn’t take into account ‘bedroom culture’ which is highly
practised among girls, where social activity predominantly takes place within the home
setting, with activities such as ‘sleepovers’ and ‘self-care’ even now shopping taking place
within the safety of the home as the outside is perceived as a danger for girls with the
ever-rising rates of male violence against women.

In conclusion, evaluating sociological explanations of female crime necessitates a critical

and nuanced approach. While crime statistics suggest a lower rate of crime commission
among women, the potential underestimation of female crime by the criminal justice system
poses a significant challenge to the accuracy of these statistics. Therefore, to gain a
comprehensive understanding of female crime, it is essential to consider the potential biases
inherent in crime statistics and the role of the criminal justice system in shaping these
statistics. Furthermore, this discussion underlines the pressing need for more rigorous
research to unveil the true extent and nature of female crime. Only then can society begin to
address the issue of female crime effectively and equitably.