Abstract
The field of criminal justice has, historically, been a male-dominated field. Until the 1970s, the majority of research conducted in the criminal justice field was led by male researchers who focused almost exclusively on male participants. Traditional theories of criminality, such as cultural deviance theory and social strain theory, often ignored female criminality because it represented such a small percentage of overall criminality. In addition, many early researchers believed that male criminal behavior was normal and thus did not feel that female criminal behaviors warranted research. However, it should be noted that this attitude was not limited to criminal justice research. Many fields, during the 1800s and early 1900s, focused almost exclusively on male participants including medical and sociological research. Women’s Crimes, Criminology, and Corrections provides a comprehensive look at female-oriented research and theory as well as a thorough review of female juvenile delinquents, the practices of sentencing female offenders, and female prisoners, parolees, and probationers.
Although there has been little research that directly examines female criminality, crime statistics for both male and female offenders are collected by several avenues, most notably the Uniform Crime Report and the National Crime Victimization Survey, that offer an examination of the course of female criminality. The most striking finding discussed by Pollock is the fact that female rates of property crimes are converging with male rates yet female rates of violent crime remain steadily lower than male rates. Utilizing multiple methods of data analysis, it becomes clear that the convergence of rates is due to many factors, including better reporting methods, mandatory arrest policies, mandatory sentencing policies, and a larger decline in male crime rates compared with female crime rates. The notion that female criminals are simply becoming more violent is unfounded.
Perhaps the weakest areas of the book, three chapters are dedicated to traditional and current crime theories. Instead of simply explaining the most noteworthy and relevant traditional theories of criminality and how they may, or may not, explain female criminality, Pollock chastises early theorists for excluding female participants resulting in theories unable to explain differences in crime rates between males and females. Theories developed after the 1970s are more capable of explaining female criminality and the differences between male and female offending than earlier theories. For instance, the general theory of crime, general strain theory, and social support/social disorganization theory are better able to explain female criminality. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that sex differences remain even after controlling for every factor discussed by leading theories providing support for the notion that males and females are inherently different resulting in different rates of criminality.
Female juvenile delinquents are discussed at length, including female juvenile crime rates, female gangs and gang membership, and female delinquents in detention centers. The rate of female juvenile offender arrests has increased over the last 30 years in many crime categories including violent crimes. Yet, female juvenile delinquency is still only a small percentage of overall juvenile delinquency. Pollock provides an extensive look at female gangs and female gang members; a subject often lacking when discussed alongside male gangs. Although the research is mixed, female gang members appear to commit less crime than male gang members but more crime than non-gang-affiliated youth. Juvenile detention centers often house female delinquents for status offenses and male delinquents for actual offenses. In addition, female delinquents are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, to have more severely disordered backgrounds, and are more likely to be the victims of sexual abuse.
Sentencing guidelines have resulted in longer sentences for female offenders and fewer female offenders receiving probation in lieu of incarceration. This finding is in direct contrast to the often-held belief that the court system treats female offenders “chivalrously.” The “war on drugs” has also had an adverse effect on female offenders who have higher rates of drug use and drug-related offenses than male offenders. Once sentenced, female offenders also have a difficult time with incarceration because of their unique needs, such as gynecological health care and parental responsibilities, and the limited resources available to women’s prisons resulting in more health issues and fewer opportunities for personal growth through prison programs. The relatively small number of female offenders also creates a system where women’s prisons are less abundant than male prisons creating a distance barrier between female offenders and their friends and families.
Female prisoners are also quite different from male prisoners. Racial segregation is much less common among female prisoners who often prefer to form makeshift “family” units while incarcerated, although this practice is becoming less common with the advent of advanced technologies that allow prisoners to more effectively communicate with others outside of the prison facility. Pollock also offers a vast description of women’s prisons throughout history. Early prisons housed females alongside male offenders but this practice was replaced with a gentler approach to female offenders. Starting in the late 1800s, female offenders were housed in separate units ran by female guards in many areas of the country. The practice was later abandoned and female prisons once again more closely resembled male prisons. Regardless of the type of institution, female prisoners are often less violent than male prisoners but described as harder to manage by prison guards because of their additional emotional needs.
Several instruments are commonly used to predict the likelihood that a female offender will recidivate either while on probation or after parole release. The most commonly used instrument is the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) that utilizes the Risk/Needs/Responsivity (R/N/R) approach, which attempts to identify risks and criminological needs and then provide an appropriate intervention based on those factors. However, these tools were originally designed for male offenders, and research is mixed on their effectiveness with female offenders. The most often cited criticism of R/N/R approaches is the exclusion of common risk factors for criminality and recidivism for women that differ from those of men. As a result of improper risk assessments, female prisoners are often classified a higher risk than they truly are which results in confinement at a higher risk facility.
Female parolees and probationers face a number of challenges that male offenders either experience at lower levels or not at all. First, female offenders have higher rates of mental health issues that require mental health services in the community and may also require the use of prescription medications. Second, female offenders have higher rates of drug dependency and may require additional care after release to ensure sobriety. Third, reunification with children is often difficult requiring an adjustment period for the offenders and their children. Fourth, female offenders who are released to halfway houses or treatment facilities may not be able to bring their children with them or may only be able to bring their younger children. Fifth, it is often difficult to find adequate housing and employment that would allow the offender to properly care for themselves and their children.
Overall, Women’s Crimes, Criminology, and Corrections offers a comprehensive overview of all areas of female criminality from juvenile delinquency to adult criminality and from arrest through release. This complete review of female criminality would be suited to complement a more seasoned criminal justice or criminology text to offer a better understanding of female criminality. However, this book would be difficult to use as a stand-alone text for several reasons. First, the referencing system used is cumbersome. Second, the review questions presented in each chapter offer a review of the chapter material but provide little basis for additional discussion of the material. Third, the chapters that focus on theory are preoccupied with theory limitations without providing context for these limitations. Additionally, female-centered theories are limited with no single theory able to explain male and female criminality differences.