In modern society, there has been an influx of television shows and films about ‘life’ inside of prisons. Due to this there have been many questions asked about what life is really like inside. It is an interesting fact that there are more men in UK prisons than women. The general population aged 10 and above, the age at which you are responsible for crimes, is predominantly female with 51% being female and 49% being male. Due to this information you would anticipate the fact that there would be more, or an equal number of, women in prison, however this is far from the reality. As of December 2016, women accounted for 4.6% of prisoners in England and Wales, 3.5% in Northern Ireland and 4.6% in Scotland. Evidently this proves that there is a huge disparity and inequality in the prison populations of men and women. Because of this many social issues have arisen such as the fact that many women have to be moved away from their families due to there only being 12 women’s prisons in the UK. Additionally, this also causes queries as to whether the criminal justice system is biased and women aren’t being prosecuted for the same things as men due to their ‘place’ in society. Having found out this information, I want to try and determine what is causing this. I will begin by studying the sociological reasons that may impact the likelihood of crime happening for men, or whether it is the inequalities in the criminal justice system which means that women are less prosecuted than men. Following on from this, I will look at psychological theories of why crime occurs and apply these to the issue that I am investigating, then from this I will bring in a biological perspective and consider factors such as genetics and hormones.
We are able to explain the inequality between male and female prosecution rates through sexism and traditional gender roles. Heidensohn created a thesis called the chivalry thesis. This is when male police officers feel that they are treating women with respect by not arresting them for the same crime as a male. This is evident within all of the criminal justice system as not only are women not sentenced to prison as much as men, they also receive shorter sentences. The chivalry thesis can be seen to be a substantial argument when we are faced with the inequalities faced in the Criminal Justice System. In 2016 in the UK, only 22/106 high court judges were female, and a similar percentage of women were court of appeal judges with 31/39 being male. These statistics heavily support the idea of a chivalry thesis as having a large percentage of male staff, will mean that women are underrepresented and therefore the male staff feel ‘bad’ for the women. Whereas this sexist bias would not be as prominent if there were more women staff with in the UK criminal justice system, and the prison populations would possibly be more egalitarian.
However, some sociologists do not support the idea of a chivalry thesis, and argue the opposite- that women are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system. Walklate (2007) argues that often women, particularly in rape cases, are the ones on trial. Men are said to be expressing their sexual desires when raping a woman, and they teach women to not be promiscuous, instead of teaching men not to rape. Furthermore, in smaller agencies of the Criminal Justice System women are highly represented. 72% of probation workers are female, and make up 2/3 of the Ministry of JusticeHowever, these statistics seem to be a positive force for women and also suggests that the chivalry thesis cannot be used as an explanation for the inequalities in prison populations.
In addition to the chivalry thesis, it is possible to argue that the differences in gender in prison is due to the socialisation of children. Berkowitz, a sociologist, offered an explanation as to why we see this inequality, he believed that the answer lay in the education of children. In Western society, boys are taught that ‘boys will be boys’ and are encouraged to play with guns and act aggressively to one another. However, if a girl acted in a similar way she would be punished for being too aggressive and violent towards her peers, as this is not ‘typically’ what girls would do. Therefore, from a young age, boys are taught to be outgoing and boisterous and girls are taught to be passive and quiet. Furthermore, parents typically buy toy weapons for their sons and dolls for their daughters, this teaches boys to fight and girls to be caring and motherly. Not only are girls and boys taught different behaviours, they are also portrayed in the media as different in terms of aggression. The men are always the villains or the heroes who have to fight to save the woman. This learned behaviour and outlook on our society could be the explanation needed to explain why men commit more violent acts than women. They see aggression as the norm and it continues into adulthood, and since there will not be anyone telling them that they are acting out of character for their gender, the behaviour will continue to become more and more violent. Whereas, women will be more likely to abide by the law and not get into trouble, and even when they do it is for low level, non-aggressive crimes such as petty theft.
The idea that men want to be seen as masculine and they must conform to traditional gender roles is supported by Messerschmidt who created the idea of hegemonic masculinity, which is the traditional man, who has a ‘good’ body and is accomplished in his career. The inability to achieve hegemonic masculinity through legitimate means often means that a lot of men turn to crime to achieve it. For example, they will turn to white collar crime in order to get a promotion at work so they achieve more, and earn more money. However, the goals that women must achieve, to be the ‘traditional woman’ often cannot be achieved through crime. This concept by Messerschmidt can explain why more men are in prison for crimes which can be seen to be masculine.
It is obvious that within the field of sociology there is a theme surrounding why crime occurs in different genders. The ideas of Messerschmidt and Berkowitz are loosely based on the ideas of Parsons and his Sex Role Theory. Parsons argued that men and women are socialised differently, women in particular have to adhere to a set of rules so that they can be a ‘good wife and mother’. They are taught to be passive and caring rather than outgoing, like men should be. Parsons argues that women commit less crime than men as by taking the children to school and doing the shopping, they create a relationship with the wider community. This relationship and their caring nature, according to Parsons means that they will not commit a crime as this would hurt the community and jeopardise their relationship with them.
A criticism of this idea by Parsons is that he was writing his Sex Role theory in 1937, meaning that it is highly outdated in today’s society. This neglects the idea that today women have more choice to choose whether they have a family, and there is less pressure for them to conform to traditional gender roles.
Although, sociological factors are important in crime, we cannot account for all
of the gendered differences being due to stereotypes and socialisation. A study by Hassett et al proves this. They gave male rhesus monkeys a choice of some toys, some traditionally feminine and motherly such as dolls and some traditionally masculine toys such as trucks. The male monkeys played with the male toys for longer than they did with the female toys, this therefore suggests that, when free from any stereotypes, male mammals will choose toys that correlate with their gender. This therefore throws into question Berkowitz’s theory as it is not through socialisation alone that males become more aggressive.
Women also serve less of their sentence compared to men. Women on average in the UK only serve 48% of their sentence whereas men serve 53% of theirs. It wouldn’t be foolish to argue that this could a result of their good behaviour within prison, however this is another part of prison in which there is a discrepancy, females commit larger numbers of disciplinary offences. In 2009, there were 150 offences per 100 female prisoners, whereas this number is a lot lower for men with there only being 124 offences per 100 prisoners Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this is the cause of the lesser sentences for women.
However, looking in greater detail at these statistics and breaking them down into different categories, it is evident to see that men commit more serious offences in prisons such as assault, with 97.8% of all serious prison assaults coming from men. Whereas women typically commit lower level acts such as disobedience. This evidence suggests that although women have higher disciplinary offences, men have more serious offences. Therefore, we can conclude that low level disobedience will not prevent women’s sentences becoming longer, however offences such as assaults may.
Maybe we shouldn’t be arguing as to why there are fewer women in prison, and more as to why there are more men in prison. They are also subject to discrimination in the CJS. If men were treated in the exact same way as women when going through the CJS, 68,000 men wouldn’t be in prison leaving only 13,000 men being incarcerated. This figure is a lot closer to the female prison population of 4,200.
Psychology can be used as an explanation for the reason that so many men are in prison compared to women. Freud argues that in the psychosexual stages of development, in the phallic stage, children have to overcome the Oedipus(boys) or Electra(girls) complex. When they overcome this they form the last part of their personality which is the superego- this is the morality complex, children internalise the morality principle of their same sex parent. A psychodynamic psychologist named Ronald Blackburn (1993) applied this theory to criminality. He said that in the absence of a same sex parent between the ages of three years old to five years- the phallic stage, a superego will not be fully internalised. He calls this idea the weak superego, as the superego is unable to prevent the id (another part of the tripartite theory of personality) from committing immoral acts. As the id is highly selfish and demands immediate gratification. This idea is supported by Iain Duncan-Smith, who found that only 30% of youth offenders came from a household that contained 2 parents and that children from broken homes are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned. Additionally, ¾ of children within the criminal justice system in 2010 had no father growing up, compared to 1/3 of children having absent mothers. Freud and Blackburn would argue that this could be the cause of the disparities in gender within prison. Furthermore, research by Kolvin found that boys who experienced separation from their parents in the first five years of their life had a doubled risk of becoming a criminal in their later life. This supports Blackburn’s weak superego thesis as if the father wasn’t there in the phallic stage of development, which ends at 5, then the son wouldn’t be able to go through the Oedipus complex and thus couldn’t internalise a fully functional morality complex- the superego.
The basis on which the weak superego theory is formed is flawed, therefore meaning we cannot form a complete argument about gender on this theory. Freud said for the superego to be formed children must overcome the Oedipus or Electra complex. Boys must only get over the fear of castration from their father and incestuous feelings towards their mother, then they will have a superego that functions normally. However, girls must not only get over the desire they feel towards their father- penis envy, and the jealousy they feel towards their mother, but also they must overcome the desire they have for a baby. Therefore, according to Freud, women are less moral than boys because they have a weaker superego, this does not correlate with the situation that is emerging within the prisons in the UK relating to gender.
Another Psychological factor that we can bring in to explain why there is such an inequality in the number of men vs women in UK prisons is mental health. Although, generally more women than men in prison suffer from some type of mental health condition such as psychosis (25% of women and 15% of men) and personality disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar (62% of male and 57% of female). We are able to explain how these numbers do not always mean that more women will end up in prison than men. Women are significantly more likely to seek treatment for their mental health than men, with 81% of women in the UK population getting help for their mental disorder, compared to 72% of men. Furthermore, the suicide rate both in and out of prisons is considerably higher for men. In the general population 78% of all suicides were male, meaning only 22% were female. This therefore suggests that many men may be struggling with a mental illness however it has gone undiagnosed, either due to a failure to recognise it by doctors, or the stereotypical idea in our patriarchal society that men are presumed to be strong and are embarrassed to see a doctor about their mental health.
Finally, I will consider biological factors which could cause the inequality of the genders in prison. Even though women have been socially emancipated and aren’t held to the same standards that they used to be, evidently the crime rates among women are not changing, in fact they are decreasing, therefore, it could be suggested that something biological is playing a role in the gender disparity. Biological Psychologists, Buss, Duntly and Gat, suggest that higher aggression in males is an evolutionary trait. They believe that in the past, men were very aggressive towards each other as they had to fight for women to impregnate to pass on their genes to the next generation. Consequently, this idea can be applied today, suggesting that aggressive behaviour which leads to crime is an evolutionary tactic only found in men and not women.
The most obvious assumption that most people would make when considering the gendered differences in crime is that it is down to hormones, particularly testosterone. Testosterone is a neurotransmitter which sends signals to certain parts of the brain, particularly the amygdala, hypothalamus and the frontal cortex. An influx of testosterone to the amygdala and hypothalamus causes emotional changes, particularly that of an aggressive nature, then testosterone prevents neurons firing in the cognitive frontal cortex of the brain, leading to less control over these emotions. Meaning that men are more likely to act aggressively. A combination of these two functions of the brain means that aggressive behaviour has a higher likelihood of occurring. With it being eight times higher in men than women this could explain why more crimes are committed by men than women. Moreover, the female hormones particularly oestrogen has been proven to elicit feelings of happiness, therefore females are less likely to act out in aggressive ways.
However, conflicting evidence from Finkelstein shows that in certain levels in the body oestrogen can cause aggression, which is more likely physical that verbal in girls. Therefore, this evidence contradicts the idea that it is just male hormones that can cause aggression and thus more crime.
However, if aggression and crime were seen to be biological, then surely the amount of crime committed by men and women would be almost the same in every country. This is not the case, in Kenya, who’s population demographic is almost identical to ours, 50.1% female and 49.9% male, have an almost equal split between the amount of men vs women in their prisons. 42% of all prisoners in Kenya are female. This throws into question the idea of crime being a biological drive which is more present in men than women, because if this was the case then Kenya’s prison population would be similar to ours with only 5% of our prisons being filled by women.
However, it is possible to argue that since Kenya is a third-world country and women there are seen as second class citizens. Therefore, many women may be in prison for things which are not seen as illegal in our country, or prosecuted more harshly than British women. Therefore, using Kenya as an example to compare to the UK and to argue against the biological theory of crime may be flawed.
Using genetic findings, we can also explain how crime could be separated by gender. Scandinavian scientist found that we have certain genes which make us more likely to have traits linking to crime such as aggression and mental health conditions such as schizophrenia. One of the most famous genes for this is monoamine oxidase A or MAOA. The genes MAOA and variants MAOA-L have been found to make carriers more susceptible to aggressive outbreak, especially with the MAOA-L genotype, when it is mixed with intoxicants such as alcohol or drugs. This gene makes the brain produce neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin which when mixed with the male hormone testosterone, in the frontal cortex of the brain, makes individuals commit acts such as crime. Serotonin is the ‘feel good’ chemical, meaning that when it is in high levels in the human body it elicits feelings of elation and happiness. However, when paired with testosterone, the ‘feeling good’ that comes from serotonin may be associated with the aggression and committing of crime, therefore it is more likely to continue occurring so that individuals can continue to feel good. We can apply the MAOA/MAOA-L genes to the question proposed in this dissertation, and it can allow us to see why men are in prison more than women and why they commit more crime. The MOAO gene is only carried on the x chromosome, and since men have an XY chromosome, it only needs to be on one chromosome for it to be able to have an effect. Whereas with women who have XX chromosomes, the MAOA gene must be on both of their chromosomes for it to have a full effect on them. Therefore, the consequences of carrying the MAOA gene, is more fully realised in men as it is significantly easier for them to be a carrier of the gene.
Furthermore, through the use of twin studies it is clear to see that criminal behaviour is not purely genetic and thus weakens the biological argument as it is not universal. Christiansen found that in a study using monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (non-identical twins) that only 35% of monozygotic twins had both been in prison and only 13% of dizygotic twins had both been in prison. If crime was purely genetic, then the percentages would be 100% and 50% respectively, due to the fact that monozygotic twins share 100% of their DNA and dizygotic twins share just 50% of their DNA. However, it is not, meaning we cannot say that all crime is due to genetics.
In addition to this, the concordance rates for monozygotic twins are higher than those of dizygotic twins, thus meaning we cannot completely discredit the idea of genetics in crime.
In summation, although each individual argument forms a solid answer to the question I posed for my EPQ- ‘Why is there such an inequality in the number of men in UK prisons vs the number of women?’, I personally believe that we cannot take just one argument as the truth, as each point has its flaws which I addressed throughout the dissertation. We cannot conclusively say that one factor in someone’s life has lead them to be more susceptible to commit crime. I believe that we should combine some of the aspects of each argument and form one argument which encompasses all of them together. In psychology, theories are generally more valid if they are a diathesis-stress theory, this is when a biological, underlying condition is triggered by a certain external situation causing a reaction from the individual. In this case, the diathesis is the biological point of view, that of hormones, evolutionary responses and genes, and the stressor is circumstances such as socialisation, lack of parents or mental health issues. The combination of these factors can lead us to a conclusion that men are generally more aggressive than women, and do have more circumstances which lead them to crime. Overall, we cannot say why crime occurs more in men than women, as it will be different for each individual person, however, we can make general statements saying that it is due to an underlying vulnerability (the diathesis) which is triggered by a stressor. Although the query at hand is not a new phenomenon, as in 1900 women made up 17% of the prison population, still a minority, however, in prisons today they make up just 5% of the prison population we cannot be sure as to whether the female population will continue to shrink, or whether the number of women in prison will begin to grow again and reach almost equal rates as men. We can be sure that there are many different reasons that men commit more crime than women and are also in prison more than women.