Although female crime is a topic that is not often researched – especially by male sociologists, there a number of studies relating to this area of crime I am interested in. Early attempts to explain female crime was based on bodily or biological theories. Lombroso, an Italian criminologist during the 19th Century, experimented with to explain female offense. He compared physical highlights of female criminals and so non-criminals; for example the guy reported data comparing heads and skulls, the thickness of cheekbones and that size of jaws.

Lombroso argued which usually instead of biology being the cause of female criminality, it actually prevents women from becoming a criminal. He said that women are not true, biological criminals, they break the law, but only occasionally and their crimes are not serious. Despite this, he did believe that a few women are born a criminal and tended to be more masculine than other women, they also tended to lack some of the natural female traits for example docility and sexual apathy. This study does not really help answer my objective of WHY women commit crime.

Lombroso’s initial idea of female crime being a biological reason was proved incorrect as he found that actually biology stops women becoming a criminal. This theory has enabled me dismiss biology as a cause from female criminality and a great area to avoid during my questionnaire and that rest of my analysis. Lombroso’s theory may have got been a well known explanation from female crime in that 19th Century, but I actually found that it is definitely not a valid principles that can be utilized to female criminality from the present modern world since it is out from date and not genuinely valid.

Heidensohn (1985) stated that Lombroso’s work was ‘fanciful rather than scientific’ which in turn gives the impression which usually his work is certainly not reliable or plausible. One more study that is strongly related my chosen area from female crime is by simply Freda Adler, who performed a study referred to as ‘New Female Criminal’ (1975). Adler rejected biological theories which usually suggested that there is your direct link between human hormones, aggression and criminality. The lady argued that the distinctions in the behaviour from males and females happen to be socially determined, and which usually within society have red to within that behavior.

Adler cited statistics, which appear to help you show increasing female participation in crime, particularly on some crimes that possess traditionally been committed simply by men. She said the fact that in the USA, among 1960 and 1972, robberies by women went ” up ” 227%, for men this was only 169%. Embezzlement by women rose simply by 280% inside the same period period, whereas for guys finally, the figures rose by just 50%. Adler found the fact that basically, female rates intended for crime were rising a few times as fast because those for guys.

She believed that finally, the reason for this was first that, women were acquiring on male social functions in both legitimate and then illegitimate areas of process. These findings by Adler have helped me solution my objective of obtaining out WHY women make crime. She argues the fact that the change of behavior of females is because of adjustments in society and the fact that women are taking upon roles that are traditionally connected with men, which is usually the reason why they will commit crime. From Adler’s study, customer questions to inquire in my questionnaire possess risen.

Queries such as, asking the two males and females what kind of activities do they take part in during their free period and why. This will test whether females happen to be taking on male tasks, or whether there happen to be will no longer male or feminine roles. Although Adler provides brought up the condition of changes in world and male roles getting the reason for feminine criminality, it is arguable as to whether it is ideal as it is old. The study is certainly not entirely reliable either, since she has used established statistics as the foundation her research, which simply counts for recorded offense.

I in person believe despite the criticisms, that she does present a reasonable and possible explanation for why females commit crime. In 85 Pat Carlen conducted your study of 39 females aged between 15 and so 46 who had also been convicted of one or maybe more crimes. She taken out in-depth unstructured tags interviews with each from he women. The females were from the London, uk area and 20 had been in a prison or perhaps youth custody centre in the time of finally, the interviews.

The majority of of women were working-class (as are majority of the women by way of criminal convictions) plus they experienced committed various offences. twenty six had convictions for robbery or handling booty, sixteen for fraud, 15 intended for burglary, 14 for assault, 8 for arson, six for drugs offences and then 4 for prostitution- pertaining crime. Carlen argued the fact that the working-class background on most of her sample is rather typical of female offenders convicted of more severe crimes, but she was first also aware that ‘white-collar’ female criminals might become escaping conviction for his or her offences.

She stated that when women perform break the law, all those from lower socio-economic organizations may be branded a good criminal than women who also commit a similar crime whom are middle-class. Of that women that Carlen questioned, 32 had for ages been negative, 4 were unemployed for the time and simply 2 had good professions, also almost all of the women (22) had spent parts from their lives in proper care. In Carlen’s study the lady adopted ‘control theory’ since her theoretical approach. That control theory starts due to the assumption that individuals are neither naturally negative nor prone to conformity.

Instead, individuals are rational and simply turn to crime in the event the advantages outweigh the down sides and are more interesting than the likely advantages of conformity. Carlen’s examine has allowed me to resolve 2 of my targets: WHAT crimes women dedicate and WHY they dedicate crime. The most well-liked crimes numerous women the lady interviewed were theft and then fraud, as well as the reason because to why they dedicated the crimes is since of poverty as they will are working-class and likewise very likely to get convicted when compared to the middle-class.

From this study, We have found that queries about socio-economic groups can be possible on my questionnaire, as it will allow me to determine myself whether female criminality is a class issue. Carlen only interviewed convicted women, who were working-class, I aim to avoid that in my own research as I feel that it will only make generalisations about the working- class without looking at the middle-class. The problem with Carlen’s study is the same as with the other 2 study’s, which is that it is out of date.

She used a small sample of working-class women included in quite serious offences, so therefore generalistions will be hard to make coming from her findings, making this less valid as this can not be used to ladies who commit much less serious offences. On finally, the positive side, it is just a comprehensive piece of research that delivers a strong support intended for the view outside the window that criminal behavior becomes more likely once social control breaks straight down in society. It is just a credible study that highlights finally, the criminality of working-class ladies.

<