Introduction
Starting from the early 1970s, there has been the emergence of a female dimension to most of the theories that have been in existence. This is what came to be referred to as the feminism theory. This development led to the emergence of a new crop of theorists referred to as feminists. These theorists were challenging male dominance in most of the fields in society. The new crop of theorists was fighting for the recognition of the female as an important part of society.
The major role of these scholars is to interpret social and other realities in society from a female perspective. At times, the feminists engage the other conventional theorists and scholars in the society in an open and overt confrontation. At other times, their engagement with these scholars and the riding confrontation is more subtle but aggressive all the same.
Feminism was initiated mainly by the emancipation and liberation of the women’s movement that started in the early 1970s. This movement recognized that woman was capable of playing other roles in society apart from those that are conventionally allocated to them. The woman could perform as effectively as a man in the business world.
Criminology is one academic field that has been flooded by feminist theorists in the past few decades. Many theories in the criminology field seek to explain the dynamics of crime in society. Feminist theorists try to explain this phenomenon from a female perspective. The visibility of these theorists has especially been enhanced by the visible increase in the number of female individuals that are engaged in criminal activities, a hitherto preserve of the male figures in the society. The women are not only claiming their rightful place in the legal spheres of the community; they are also emerging and becoming visible in the criminal world, attracting the attention of the theorists in the criminology field.
Freda Adler is one of the most prominent and most vocal feminists in the field of criminology. In the year 1975, this scholar wrote a book that represented her stand on the female individual and crime in the community. The book was titled Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal, and in it, this scholar sought to explain her views on female criminality. In this book, Adler puts forth and defends her belief that the rise in the number of females involving themselves in crime can be explained by the fact that the liberation of this segment of the society has given them the right to engage in almost every economic activity, crime been one of such activities.
This paper is a review of this book. In this paper, the researcher will try to analyze several arguments made by Adler, and compare this with the opinion of other scholars in the field. The researcher will try to analyze the thoughts of Adler in this book within the context of social reality in the community today.
Sisters in Crime: Review
Criminology can be conceptualized variously depending on the orientation and the interests of the scholar defining it. But many scholars in this field agree that it is viewed as the comprehensive study of various aspects of crime together with other law-breaking acts. This includes the extent, nature, control and cause of crime in the society (Harden 1998: 2). For several years, criminology scholars have wanted to explain the difference in statistics of crimes committed by men in comparison to those committed by women.
Several explanations have been put forth in efforts to define and deal with crime and criminal elements in society. One of the ancient theories in this field is what Siegel (2008) refers to as the demonic theory which was used to explain the dynamics of crime in ancient society. It focuses on supernaturalism in the definition and address of crime in society (Siegel 2008).
The second most influential theory in this field is the classical perspective (Cote 2002). The shortcomings of the demonic theory were the impetus for the formation of this theory. Subsequent scholars felt that the assumptions of the demonic theory were very unscientific, and they felt that it was important to introduce a scientific dimension to the study of crime in society. The theory focused on idealistic conceptions of the social contract and free spirit (Cote 2002).
Its current application popularly recognized as rational choice theory, broadens the focal point for free will and makes analysis on the reasons for committing crimes (Chapman 1980). It tackles choice structuring by arguing that individuals will commit a crime if they believe that their net gain will offset their potential losses and risks.
The classical theory initially accentuated the criminality of males in society, given the assumption that males were more attracted to risk than women. however, upon women achieving greater economic and social rights, their reasonableness made them commit crimes like those committed by men (Adler 1975).
In the book Sisters in Crime, Dr. Adler describes in some detail the social and legal discrimination previously practiced in opposition to women. A greater portion of this discrimination was previously designed as a fortification of the idea that women are the vulnerable and weaker sex (Adler 1975). Notably, the most blatant discrimination by the law against the woman is the handling of prostitutes by the legal justice system in early society. A case in point is the juvenile licentious of girls who are often institutionalized for a crime that does not exist for males (Adler 1975).
Sisters in Crime: Analysis
Dr. Adler, in her book, deals elaborately with the shocking increase in girl gangs and female violence and views this as a predictable consequence of women’s approval as the equivalent of men (Adler 1975). She projects that the liberation of women during the 1970s improved their economic opportunities and allowed them to have a high affinity for crime just like their male counterparts. Many women are of the view that engaging themselves in crime is a sure sign of their liberation. This is for instance white-collar crimes such as robbery, murder and other crimes that were traditionally associated with men in the society (Adler 1975: 3). Her suggestion is that as a greater number of women make their way up the success ladder, they make use of their economic liberation to further their careers in the field of white-collar crime (Zaplin 2007).
Causes of Crime: The Sisters in Crime Perspective
According to Adler (1975), the increase in the number of female criminals in society can be traced back to the early 1970s. This is the period that saw the emergence of feminism as a school of thought in many fields. This development brought about the emancipation of women in society. This emancipation enabled the women to realize that they can engage themselves in varying economic activities, including in crime (Adler 1975: Werner and Einstadter 2006: Stuart 1998). The women felt that they had the right to engage in any economic activity that they have been shunned from in the past. The rational woman felt that crime is as well paying as going to the office (Thomas 1969)
Girl’s Criminality
On the girl’s criminal activities, Adler argues that the women’s lobby group seems to be having a two-fold effect on juvenile crimes (Adler 1975: 95). According to her, the girls get drawn into criminal activities such as stealing, violence, gang activity, and alcoholism in their efforts to adapt to the newfound masculine roles (Hurwitz 1983). The deviation from the safety of conventional female roles and the trying of doubtful alternative roles correspond to the turmoil of puberty (Hagan 2010). It creates criminogenic threat factors for the girl child which is eventually bound to create this increased criminal activity.
Legal Injustices against Women
Adler also tries to address the issue of injustices meted to the woman by the legal system in the society. This legal injustice has a bearing on the criminal activities of the woman (Belknap 2001).
This book is remarkably well written and is highly sophisticated as far as the presentation of the ideas and arguments is concerned. It details the social and legal inequities that have been conducted against women in the history of human society. Most of these injustices were initially designed to defend the woman as the vulnerable and weaker sex in the community (Bhosle 2009). For example, Adler (1975) notes that women in the US can be sentenced to longer jail terms than their male counterparts for the same crime. Additionally, the prisons for women are further isolated with fewer facilities for rehabilitation and education than those reserved for the male offender (Carlen 1983).
In a dreadfully sympathetic section of her book, Adler addresses the issue of black criminality. She illustrates that both the extremely high black redundancy rate and the slave tradition have contributed to black women becoming the prevailing members of their social order (Adler 1975). This means that they have always been more involved in crime than their better-protected white sisters. This does not however mean that the white woman is not a criminal. Adler (1975) notes that a number of white women who are currently moving into higher rating grade jobs also end up getting into white-collar offenses (Meda 2004). This is for example fraud and embezzlement, some of the most serious crimes in the society (Meda 2004).
Biological Explanations of Female Criminality
It should be noted that scholars in this field rarely address the issues which may provide an explanation for female criminality in contemporary society. Denigration of the criminological depiction of female crime is its continued presumption concerning the natural history of females and their predilection away from offense (Wilcox 2010).
This determinate replica of female criminality assumes that differences between the criminality of the man and that of the woman are based on their biological differences. There is an intrinsic and natural variation between the female and male ability and temperament as far as crime is concerned (Carlen 1983).
According to this biological theory, women have little ability to commit crimes given their biological makeup. They have a gentle temperament as compared to their male colleagues and are easily socialized to abide by the law than men (Downes 2007).
Adler is of the view that previous studies on females have come up with theories about feminine criminality (Adler 1975). Criminologists conceptualize female criminals to be more sinister and cruel than male criminals. This perspective has been criticized for its assumption that any female who deviates from the conventional female role is likely to be criminal. The perspective also assumes a large and significant disparity between women and men (Adler 1975. Smart (1976) argues that the disparities existing between females and males are of little significance in the study of crime since the factors causing crime are “culturally determinate rather than an indication of the ordinary qualities of the sexes” (176).
Feminists have rejected this view of criminology for its assumption that females are mainly controlled by their biology and incapability to think for themselves (Kumar 2003). The feminists are of the view that while criminological philosophy has surpassed the gloomy period of biological determinism and the prearranged actor model of crime, criminological illustrations of female crime have not (Simon 2005).
Why Women Commit Fewer Crimes- The Traditional View
Lombroso, one of the most prominent scholars in the field of criminology, opined that criminals are generally of lower intellectual capacity than the average person in society (Lombroso 2004). He was of the view that crime was committed by those individuals who have failed to develop intellectually in tandem with the rest of society. These people continue to be stuck in their primitive past, and as such, have a higher tendency to engage in such acts than the other members of the society who have developed normally (Lombroso 2004).
The scholar was of the view that female criminals were physiologically different from their non-criminal counterparts, and one can easily identify them by merely looking at their physical features. Lombroso suggested that the rate of women’s involvement in crime is lower than that of men for various reasons (Lombroso 1980). He imagined criminal women were slightly stronger than men and could therefore handle pain better, which translates into less effect of imprisonment on them.
Sigmund Freud gives another view of crime and is quoted by Adler (1975) severally. His theory proposed that all women experience envy for penis yet they continue suffering an inferiority complex over it (Adler 1975). As a result of this, they try to get compensation by being narcissistic and exhibitionistic (Adler 1975).
W.I. Thomas in his book The Unadjusted Girl gives another classical view of women and crime. Pollak (1961) claims, for instance, that women prefer occupations such as teaching, nursing, home keeping and such others so that they can be able to engage in untraceable crimes (Lombroso 1980: Carlen 1983). The theories presented above, according to Adler (1975), were the ones that informed lines of thinking within the criminology field. This is as far as women and crime are concerned. However, feminist theorists led by Adler have rejected the arguments made by these theories. This opposition has led to the controversy that surrounds feminism and crime.
Critiques of Traditional Theories
Social disorganization theory suggests a subcultural convention of criminal values existing in an area. This theory is of the view that everyone living within this area is likely to become a criminal, regardless of their status in the society (Wilcox 2010). This theory is furiously opposed by feminists because of various reasons. For example, the theory single-handedly makes universal allusions to women (Wilcox 2010). Thrasher, a principal proponent of the social disorganization theory, linked the ability of women to commit crime with the closer supervision of their male counterparts (Zaplin 2007).
Learning theories, for example Sutherland’s differential association hypothesis, are not spared by the feminists. The view is also criticized for regarding the male criminal as having a minimum, sociable, active, athletic and gregarious personality (Robert and Boeckmann 2003).
Criticism of Adler’s Theory
Adler’s theory has not gone unchallenged in the field of criminology and female offenders (Pollak 1961). Over time, her perspective has drawn significant opposition from other scholars in the field, especially those with a feministic orientation. For example, Brown refers to Adler’s theory as an embarrassment to feminism as a discipline, advocating that it be shunned from the mainstream feminism theories due to the various weaknesses.
Brown argues that feminism as a way of thinking has greatly increased the visibility of female crime in society. This is through amplified exposure for example by the media, given that a female criminal attracts more media attention than the male criminal (Siegel 2009). The female criminals are also given undue attention by the policing and sentencing agents in the society, given that even the players in these agencies are mesmerized by the female criminal (Francis and Cullen 2006).
Brown further asserts that the extent of sentencing would be a further acceptable index of adjustments in offenses amongst females rather than statistical procedures as portrayed by Adler (1986: 374). According to Smart (1986), Adler’s perspective is based on a foundation that can only be described as shaky. For example, the theory relies largely on statistics, and fails to delve into the dynamics behind these dynamics.
Put differently, according to these critics, Adler operates from within a limited area, defining the concept of female criminality narrowly. Her perspective also appears to ignore several issues that are taken very seriously by feminists in this field and other intellectual areas. This is for example the race and ethnicity of the woman, her age and her economic and social status among others (Carlen 1983). Lack of focus on these issues or little focus on them forms the basis for many attacks leveled against this feminist scholar.
Conclusion
Female susceptibility to crime is frequently invoked to make stronger both senses of male control and call for its careful use, explicitly, to protect women. This is the controversy around which feminism in criminology revolves. The view of women as the weaker sex in society has informed intellectual discourses in society for a long time. The apparent weakness of the woman has been used by the male chauvinists to justify their oppression against the woman.
References
Adler, F. 1975. Sisters in crime. the rise of the new female criminal. New York: McGraw Hill.
Belknap, J. 2001. The invisible woman: gender, crime, and justice. 3rd Ed. London: Wadsworth.
Bhosle, S. 2009. Female crime in India and theoretical perspectives of crime. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
Carlen, P. 1983. Women’s imprisonment: a study in social control. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Chapman, J. R. 1980. Economic realities and the female offender. New York: Lexington Books.
Cote, S. 2002. Criminological theories: bridging the past to the future. London: SAGE.
Downes, P. E. 2007. Understanding deviance: a guide to the sociology of crime and rule-breaking. London: Oxford University Press.
Francis, T., and Cullen, J. P. 2006. Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. New York: Transaction Publishers.
Hagan, F. E.2010. Introduction to criminology: theories, methods, and criminal behavior. London: SAGE.
Harden, M. H. 1998. Breaking the rules: women in prison and feminist therapy. London: Routledge.
Hurwitz, K. O. 1983. Criminology. London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Kumar, A. 2003. Women and crime. New Dehli: Anmol Publications PVT. LTD.
Lombroso, C. F. 2004. Criminal woman, the prostitute, and the normal woman. New York: Duke University Press.
Lombroso, C. 1980. The female offender. Oklahoma: Wm. S. Hein Publishing.
Meda, C. P. 2004. Girls, women, and crime: selected readings. London: SAGE.
Pollak, O. 1961. The criminality of women. San Diego: A. S. Barnes.
Robert J., and Boeckmann, C. T. 2003. Understanding the harm of hate crime. Georgia: Wiley-Blackwell.
Siegel, L. J. 2009. Introduction to criminal justice. London: Cengage Learning.
Siegel, L. J. 2008. Criminology. London: Cengage Learning.
Smart, C. 1986. Law, crime and sexuality: essays in feminism. London: SAGE.
Simon, H. A. 2005. The crimes women commit: the punishments they receive. New York: Lexington Books.
Stuart, H. M. 1998. What is crime? controversies over the nature of crime and what to do about it. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Thomas, W. I. 1969. The unadjusted girl: with cases and standpoint for behavior analysis. New York: Patterson Smith.
Werner, J., and Einstadter, S. H. 2006. Criminological theory: an analysis of its underlying assumptions. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wilcox, F. T. 2010. Encyclopedia of criminological theory. London: SAGE.
Zaplin, R. T. 2007. Female offenders: critical perspective and effective interventions. Boston: Jones & Bartlett Learning.