X Men X Force Cable Stealth Figure

Find X Men X Force Cable Stealth Figure at Amazon

Women and men both commit, and are victims of, crimes but are their perspectives, understandings and interpretations of crime (either as victim or perpetrator likely to be different)? How and why – or even if – is a matter of debate; theorising on these matters is difficult depending on the perspective of the researcher.

Men and women also commit violence but their motivatings are likely to be different; men may do so to assert their dominance over a situation, a territory, or person; to ascertain that their masculinity is not in doubt. Women may do so in defence of their children, themselves, family, friends and perchance even their property. However, if women are getting as violent as men for the same reasons as men, does this mean we are moving in a direction which is irreversible? Would such a trend, if it genuinely existed, inevitably be a perilous one? More importantly, why does the notion of women getting violent (or getting more violent) cause such consternation in society whilst violence by, and towards, men is accepted as portion of their masculinity?

Women are statistically less likely to commit crimes, specially crimes of violence; however, numbers of women being arrested, admonished and imprisoned for violent offences are rising. Media reports and government stats all appear to show that women are more and more involved in crime, particularly violent crime. In England and Wales, the number of females in custody was 4,445 (24 November 2006) with the most eminent number being attributed to drugs offences whilst violence was second. In Scotland, the figure was 326 (24 November 2006), even though equivocal as it does not specify the gender of (i) ‘lifers’ who have been recalled (ii) those convicted but awaiting sentence/deportation (iii) those beneath sixteen years of age. Williams states that, in a nine year period, there was a rise of 140% for female offenders incarcerated (1993-2001) in spite of the fact that offending rates remained comparatively stable. In the United States, figures show that altho incarceration rates were rising, violent offences by women were going in the opposite direction; women’s involvement in violent offences showed a minimal rise (from 10.8% to 12.3%). This may, however, be reflective of changes in recording, prosecuting and incarcerating female offenders rather than any actual increase in the rate of female offending itself.

Violence is ofttimes fuelled by substance abuse, by way of alcohol or drugs or both and this is the case both for men and women. Males perpetrate the most eminent numbers of crimes, violent or otherwise, and they also account for the most eminent number of victims of violent assaults; women, however, as perpetrators of violent crimes in queer are on the nevertheless women are apparently working hard to catch up. Certainly, the media portrays young women as being ‘as bad as boys’ when it comes to violence, exceptionally when fuelled by alcohol; city centres throughout the UK have a big problem with violence but this is perchance due to an increasing culture of binge-drinking. Indeed, as lately as December 2006, reports of violence fuelled by alcohol were in the news again; this time, however, the focus was not the violence as such, but that the perpetrators of the violence were female.

A BBC article quotes Dr Jon Cole of Liverpool University who believes that, whilst it does not cause aggression, alcohol stops sensible selections being made “You make the easiest choice, which is ofttimes aggression”. The same article refers to a study by The Glasgow Centre for the Study of Violence which showed that women were involved in closely half of all the pub fights observed. Further, medical exploration shows that testosterone levels in women rise by fifty percent in females, but is lower in males when they become drunk.

Violence nevertheless is a term which may be interpreted in a great deal of ways: one peculiar study shows females’ understanding and interpretation of violence is strange (see Burman below). There are accepted definitions of violence or aggression: crime is “an action which constitutes a severe offence versus an person or…state…”; violence: “behaviour involving physical strength intended to hurt, damage, or kill; strength of emotion or of a detrimental natural force”. Aggression: “hostile or violent behaviour or attitudes; the act of attacking without provocation…”.

In the study undertaken by Burman et al, verbal abuse and the disseminating of rumours was seen as ‘violent’ or more aggressive than physical violence (such as being punched). If verbal, rather than physical, violence causes more concern girls, ought to we take this as an indication that girls consider violence to be a psychological rather than physical problem? Why do a good deal of girls have a more outstanding fear of violence which is spoken whilst most people, and specially boys, are more inclined to class violence as a physical assault?

Fear of violence is often times more potent as it is the ‘unknown’; the precise time and place of being the recipient of violence is unknown with domestic violence victims, but they are held on alert because they know it is going to take place at some point. However, from a legal point of view, violence and violent crime, is where physical injury is inflicted and only in recent years was psychological trauma accepted as a ‘violent offence’ (see Protection from Harassment Act 1997).

Given the low numbers of women who offend, both with respect to history and in recent times, it is not surprising that studies into female criminality were either ignored or undertaken in relation to their fundamental interaction with, and response to, male violence and criminality. It is also no surprisal that female criminologists found the need to fill this gap. In the past, women were classified into two types: crazy or bad. Most female offenders convicted of violent crimes were seen as women who fought back versus domestic violence or who protected their children; others were considered ‘evil’ and historically, were considered witches or concubines of the devil. We may now have a better understanding of criminality, but this has not stopped the ‘bad’ or ‘mad’ viewpoint from being represented by the media, the public and in some quarters of the criminal justice system when females are involved.

Women are viewed as more deviant than their male counterparts as they have not only offended versus the criminal code but likewise versus social convention. Whereas social rules and convention have changed over time, women are still considered to be mothers, wives, lovers and laborers but not offenders; seldom do we suppose women to commit violent offences. Those who do are vilified for years perchance serving longer terms than male counterparts, peculiarly when they offend versus those they are supposed to protect.

Myra Hindley and Beverley Allit both murdered children; Allit did so as a nurse so could be again seen as doubly deviant as her occupation – as well as her gendered role – was one of carer.

It is difficult of course to do a proper comparative analysis without knowing the details of the ‘violence versus the person’ offences consecrated by both men and women. There are a number of ‘assaults’ consecrated by women which may well not have been prosecuted had they been committed by men; it is inconceivable to say without knowing more regarding both the offence and the offender (regardless of gender). Obtaining goods for sale (to provide cash to recompense bills/food) or obtaining goods – such as shoplifting food/clothing is more mutual amidst female offenders than males. Analysis of current stats shows that the most eminent number of female offenders consecrated ‘drugs offences’ with the second most eminent being for ‘violence versus the person’ followed by ‘theft and handling’. For many, women who commit violence do so mainly in self-defence or shelter of a child; females are not seen as inherent violent. But is this sensing untrue or misleading?

Most studies of the culture and phenomenon of gangs tend to focus on males (though numerous do mention ‘girl gangs’ or girls in gangs as a peripheral but without doubt or question intricate percentage of a predominantly male gang). However, a problem arises which is twofold: in the first place and perhaps obviously, not all female offenders – violent or other than as supposed or expected – are in gangs. Secondly, there is a danger that the study will invent results more likely to provide an clear or deep perception into gang culture rather than any comparative study of female and male criminality.

Current stats show the most eminent number of female offenders committed ‘drugs offences’ with the second most eminent for ‘violence versus the person’ followed by ‘theft and handling’. For many, women who commit violence do so principally in self-defence or shelter of a child; females are not seen as inherent violent. But is this sensing false?

One of the possible reasons behind women committing less ‘serious’ offences could be their role as mother/carer. Given that a big symmetry of children are either brought up by single mothers or by mothers due to fathers working longer hours (or being the sole breadwinner) women in general have the main, if not sole, obligation for child rearing. Therefore, the capacity for women commit crimes – unless they left their children elsewhere, or were childless – was badly restricted. The peril of being caught and sent to prison – and violent offences in general attract higher tariffs – meant that any gain of committing a crime seemed unattractive. Of course, this assumes that women who commit offences chose to do so for pragmatic/rational reasons; classicists will be jumping for joy!

In terms of victimisation, women are largely accountable for rape or other sexual assaults but even here the amount of disproportionate statistical analysis is difficult given that male rape and male sexual assault is under-reported and (in numerous countries) legally ignored. Stigma attached to victims of sexual assault is horrendous for female victims but this is more so when victims are male. This is largely due to men being sensed as (i) the aggressors or (ii) physically capable to fight off an assault.

In England and Wales, legislation is rather specific in terms of the crime of rape in that a penis must be inserted into either a vagina or the anal passage (or mouth); so whilst a victim may be either male or female, the perpetrator ought to be male. In Scots law, the act of rape may only be consecrated by a man on a woman; male on male sexual assault is just that – sexual/indecent assault but not rape. Where victim and perpetrator are one and the same (e.g. an maltreated wife retaliates versus her husband) there are inconsistencies amid the genders. According to CEDAW, women are more likely to ‘to be killed than to kill’ but the legal scheme discriminates; women who kill their [often abusive] husbands are convicted of murder whilst men who kill their wives are convicted of manslaughter. Thus, if convicted of murder which women are, the only sentence available is life; even when convicted of murder, men and women are still treated differently with tariffs higher for women than men.

Male perpetrators may be more selfish in their approach to crimes; committing offences which are directly of gain and which give an prompt sense of gain. In violence, men use violence as a first, rather than last resort, as it on two levels it gets them what they want: the initial is the object of their attention, the second is status and self-belief in their own ability. Violence for a heap of men seems to be a way to [re]assert their masculinity. Violence committed by women – on the whole – appears to be a last resort; there was no other way to get either in or out of a circumstance and therefore violence was used.

Of course, there are criminal couples: men and women who work together – though not inevitably in concord – to make financial and other gains. Prostitutes have for a lot of years applied (and been used by) male pimps. The men offer protection, security from harassment whether this is from other working women, volatile clients and other pimps who want to ‘muscle in’ on the cash earned by the prostitute.

The pimp will use violence as a means of asserting his status has being in control of both the woman and the environs within which they work. Of course, the prostitute herself is committing a criminal offence in soliciting on the street and may herself use violence versus her client and other working women. The implied consent that women give to men who pimp them is that violence is acceptable: they will not want nor like the violence employed versus them but most receive it as portion of their lives and also want the volatility of the pimp to be known to others as a way of protecting themselves from other females and clients.

Theorising regarding the motivations which drive offenders, male and female, have a tendancy to mean that we encapsulate whole groups of humans by defining them on the basis of person psycho-social profiles. This may be applicable for instances where groups commit crimes on a big scale, over periods of time, such as ethnic cleansing (which often times entails the mass slaughter of males and systematic rape and impregnation of females – as seen in Bosnia for example).

Of course, systematic rape of females – and once in a while males – is a form of violence often employed by groups of people sanctioned by the state (as seen in war situations) and also humans in a domestic setting (the husband who forces his wife, girlfriend, etc.) and sexual violence is closely distinguishable in that women – specially in Scots’ Law – are not convicted of rape. There are cases where accomplice of facilitation of rape is conducted by a female versus another female but these tend to be rare. One example would be the sexual abuse of young women by Fred West who raped and mistreated women with his wife; even here, however, the case showed that Fred West has systematically maltreated his wife and thence she may have complied and committed these acts to reduce her own victimisation.

Crime in general, whether violent or otherwise, may be more without apparent effort identifiable as a male characteristic in society rather than female plainly because of historical social conventions. Women had to care for their homes and families; probabilities for women to offend were minimal in that they had fixed access to places which would grant them to commit crimes. Men, on the other hand, were often the workers, the drinkers, the socialisers (women pleasantly occupied their friends, but this was many times in homes rather than public houses, etc.) and therefore probability was dandier for them. If not one thing else, in historical times, the costume a woman wore would make burglary (e.g. entering a house thru a window and then removing goods) rather difficult altho perchance not impossible! Even in more recent times, women were seen to steal for ‘good’ rather than ‘bad’ reasons: they stole feed from supermarkets rather than goods to be sold for hard cash.

Those who were caught may cry and reduce themselves to the ‘helpless desperate female’ and an without variation male security guard or store manager, may find himself torn among chivalry or sympathy towards the woman and his job. If a man was caught in the same act of theft, it is possible that (if denial did not work) then aggression would result in a negative reaction from staff and therefore prosecutions of males were more likely.

Given that males in general appear to be more confrontational – and this may be anthropological in origin – whereas woman appear to take the path of least resistance, it is possible that perpetrators of crimes (particularly non-violent crimes) are likely to find that their gender reflects their culpability in the eyes of the law and any enforcement officers.

Over the last few years, and in peculiar in relation to younger offenders, females are less likely to be capable to use their gender to escape punishment (though there may be numerous instances were this still applies, for instance speeding in cars). Whereas throughout history women might have been viewed as immoral, but not inevitably criminal, recent years have seen a shift so that they are not only immoral but most unquestionably criminal and thence must be treated evenly by the criminal justice system. Inevitably, however, the public will view the criminal female as more criminal or more deviant than her male counterpart.

Women may likewise have a more pragmatic approach to criminal activity, violent or otherwise. It might be that they are more careful in regards to exposing themselves to temptation for sure crimes (such as theft, fraud, etc.) or are so careful that they may go undetected. Men may well approach crime with a more arrogant attitude and feel their capacity to escape detection is more outstanding than male or female counterparts.

What theories accordingly may be applied, if any whether partially or wholly, to violence and the men and the women who use it? It is difficult to state which ‘criminological theory’ may in truth be employed exclusively to criminality without being considered either aligned to one discourse or another even if the intention is to keep out of the way of this. It may be totally unlikely to implement the same theories of criminality for men and women given that attempts thence far have failed to provide any conclusive answer into the causation of criminality in female or male crimes.

The problem with analysing the comparison amidst male and female offenders is that whilst their motivatings might appear different, this is not inevitably the case. Influences such as biology, psychology, economic and education as well as society in standard will have an affect on each individual’s behaviour and their understanding of what is acceptable. Violence is so many times applied as a means for dispute solution – in particular in the younger generation – that we may be on an irreversible path.

As seems mutual within criminology, in order to explain criminality, attempts are made to partly include a broader causation with one peculiar idealisti or theory; it is due to this undertake to treat theories as in exchange exclusive which results in failure.

Women are dissimilar in terms of their responses to crime and in queer violence, their use of violence versus others and their understanding of violence and crime in general. Women have been eclipsed for so long and now they choose to fight back, they are regarded as more dangerous. They are altering perceptions kept over a long amount of time of time; that is not to say women will turn into Amazonian women ready to dominate the world and make men submissive creatures! However, if we – as women – want equality, it seems we have to fight twice as hard (even if that fight turns physical).

The criminal justice system now deals with far more women offenders than former decades, but this is likewise likely to be in part attributable to the medicalisation of female offenders in the past. Now that this is no longer the case, women are identified as criminal not [mentally] ill and thence dandier numbers are being included in criminal offending statistics. Greater reporting to the police, due to insurance requirements amid other things, means that whereas those offences which may have been overlooked for being petty no longer are treated as inconsequential.

Whether one looks at the lack of implementation of equality for women, or whether men’s masculinity is eroded by women’s empowerment, whether abuse victims abuse others so they may gain control and power over another, a good deal of people commit crimes for reasons understood only by them – and perhaps not even then. Theories of crime, causation and criminality will be at ever increasing odds as constituents of classicism, positivism, strain theory or a ‘pick-and-mix’ approach to all three are rejuvenated depending on the year or decade.

Advances in sciences (natural and social) may likewise play a percentage in the future of how criminality is considered; genetic or even social predisposition for criminality is not something which is seen on the movie screen, it is a reality which will be hitting us very soon if without doubt it has not already done so.

Indeed, September 2006 saw the Labour Government publish their plans to improve families’ potential for accomplishment by the possible local or even governmental intervention for ‘problem families’. Critics were reported as fearing that the Government was entering the dangerous field of eugenics (so fatally but efficaciously seen for the duration of the Holocaust) or by creating ASBOs for children who were yet to be born on the basis of their parents’ socio-economic status.

Where does this leave the field of criminology? Governments may look to criminologists and other social scientists to address the question of crime and criminality and causes thereof but they may give fixed terms of reference for exploration projects.

Criminology seeks to provide a definitive, precise answer to an inexact and (at times) inexplicable question: why do people (whether male or female) commit crime? Perhaps this is it is failure and why, in spite of a growth of writers on the matter, not anyone has arrived at an answer (which I argue is not possible in any event). Sociological, economical, psychological and biological elements all have to be considered and taken into account when dealing with any offender, male or female. Many treat criminal causation theories as in exchange exclusive.

Criminological theory – even when taking into account all the constituents therein – seeks to find a definitive answer where it is likely that none exist. Lack of a definitive answer, however, does not inevitably mean criminology has failed; it needs to evolve again. Perhaps for criminological theory, answers to questions are as liquid as the times in which they are considered. Evolution of criminology and the theories therein mean criminologists will have to choose the most logical and pragmatic elements, and discard parts which are plainly flawed (whether in whole or in part). This may be the way forward.

Word Count: 3613

Bibliography

“Textbook on Criminology” Fifth Edition. Williams, K: Published by Oxford University Press: 2004

“Race, Gender & Class in Criminology: The Intersections”. Edited by Milovanovic D & Schwartz M D Published by Garland Publishing in 1996. Chapter 7: “Sentencing Women to Prison” by Chesney-Lind, M

Concise Oxford English Dictionary: 11th Ed. Revised. Oxford University Press (2006).

“‘Taking It To Heart’: Girls and the significances of violence.’ The Meanings of Violence” Burman, M, Brown, J & Batchelor, S. Published by Routledge in 2003.

England & Wales Official Prison Statistics: HM Prison Service: October 2006 Official Population Figures

Sexual Offences Act 1956; Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994; Sexual Offences Act 2003. Produced by HMSO.

“Violence Against Women in the UK” Kelly, L; Humphreys C; Sen, P & Womankind Worldwide. CEDAW Thematic Shadow Report. Published in 2003.

BBC News Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5312928.stm dated 5th September 2006

BBC News Online Magazine: ‘On The Lash’ by Megan Lane & Tomiko Newson (see link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6213686.stm) dated 8th September 2006.