Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court Outcomes

This paper discusses the gender difference in crime analysis and court outcomes. It explains the behavioral and structural explanations for the implication of gender in the crime processing and the social control argument. It also highlights the feminist explanation of crime analysis and the presentation of the court outcomes.

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 1
GENDER DIFFERENCE IN CRIME ANALYSIS AND COURT OUTCOME
By (Student Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 2
Executive summary.
Gender differences in crime analysis for both female and males are almost self-evident in
present-day criminology. The rate at which men commit offenses is higher than that of women in
all offense types excluding prostitution associated mostly by women. The behavioral concept
suggests that women are less involved in crimes compared to men. Their crimes are less severe,
and most often women act as accomplices other than the chief initiator of the offense. The
structural explanation for the implication of gender in the crime processing states that women
and men are dealt with differently where women are prosecuted and convicted less compared to
men. Judicial paternalism can be denoted as the differential treatment of women concerning the
power relations that looks into women inferiority to men. The concept is mainly focused on the
desire of the judge to protect women in the ruling. Protective paternalism is evident where
women are protected from the stigma of a criminal record as well the reality of prison life. Social
control argument gives an explanation of the gender difference in offending as well as in court
systems in the category of men, women, and juveniles. Feminists explanation of crime analysis
and the presentation of the court outcomes, it is essential for consideration to be made on women
since they are the sole carers of children. Indirect impacts of features that create a justification of
conditions can result in shorter sentences that lead to differences in sentencing consequences for
women and men. With these concepts, it is advisable to consider gender difference in crime
analysis and its presentation to avoid biases.

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 3
Introduction.
Gender differences in crime analysis for both female and males are self-evident in
present-day criminology (Skilbrei 2013). Discrimination has been evident in crime analysis as
well as court sentencing to both men and women offenders. In the aspect of offending, women
have been reported to register a higher number in prostitution and property offenses such as
fraud, embezzlement, and forgery. Research studies have indicated that men are involved in
complex crimes against individuals like assault to a person (Embry and Lyons 2012).
Criminologists have acknowledged that gender difference in crime analysis, as well as
the sentencing, is universal. The rate at which men commit offenses is at a higher rate than that
of women in all offense types excluding prostitution done mostly by women. The gender gap in
criminal offending is greatest concerning severe crimes as well as the minor ones. This paper is
in line with the concept that gender differences should be a critical aspect to consider in crime
analysis and its representation (Doerner and Demuth 2010).
Explanations for the gender difference in crime analysis
There have been two explanations for the gender difference on criminal investigation and
processing. The reasons are behavioral and structural explanations. The behavioral concept
suggests that women are less involved in crimes compared to men. Their crimes are less
dangerous, and most often women act as accomplices other than the chief initiator of the offense.
The structural explanation for the implication of gender in the crime processing states that
women and men are dealt with differently where women are prosecuted and convicted less
compared to men. After the analysis of the crime, women are likely to receive less harsh penalty
than men in the same crime committed by both genders (Harvey 2000).

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 4
There has erupted various theoretical explanation on why women receive less severe
sentences than men on a similar type of crime (Else-Quest, Higgins, Allison and Morton 2012).
Paternalism.
Judicial paternalism can be denoted as the differential treatment of women concerning the
power relations that looks into women inferiority to men. The concept is mainly focused on the
desire of the judge to protect women in the ruling.
Protective paternalism is evident where women are protected from the stigma of a
criminal record as well the reality of prison life. Since women are referred as a weaker sex, there
is a need to take care of them concerning the judgments are given to them on crime they have
committed (White and Mason 2006)
Patronizing paternalism is a concept which views women as less in enduring
punishments, less aggressive and less accountable than male counterparts. The paternalistic
approach is reserved for those females charged with feminine crimes (Howe 2009). Those
women that commit masculine crimes like robbery with violence are denied paternalistic
treatment. These women are sentenced harshly for violation of sex role belief. With the
confidence in our societies of women being the weaker sex, then in the analysis of crime and the
court outcome should be considered on the gender difference despite having involved in a similar
offense with a man. Men are known by their biological makeup to be masculine thus the ability
to endure severe punishments. Sentencers are interested in the protection of women hence
impose lighter penalties (Purvanova and Muros 2010).
Social control explanation.

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 5
Social control argument gives an explanation of the gender difference in offending as
well as in court systems in the category of men, women, and juveniles. The relations between the
formal and informal social control and their impacts on offending crime, arrest and judgment
outcome is the central aspect of this argument. People with close ties such as the family are
bound to higher levels of informal social control thus such people will avoid recidivism bearing
the discontentment of the essential others about their aggressive attitude (Vannini 2016).
Differences in the level of closeness and family ties in the lives of men and women can
indicate the amount of social control specific individual is subjected to (Hayward and Fenwick
2000). For the reason of women being closer and economically dependent on their families than
men, lower levels of formal social control are preferred on women during crime analysis and
sentencing outcome. With the social control concept, women tend to be treated differently in
sentencing outcomes (Brennan et al. 2012).
The social control bears the argument on the assumption that the families where the
woman belongs will provide with guidelines towards the change of the unaccepted behaviors. A
hypothesis is also deduced that the families of the offender acknowledge that the offender is in
the wrong and therefore aims at helping the offender to change by guiding their behavior. With
the support provided by the family, the offender is believed to make a turnover of her criminal
offenses based on the bonds between them (MacKinnon 2018).
Feminists explanation.
In crime analysis and the presentation of the court outcomes, it is essential for
consideration to be made on women since they are the sole carers of children. The result of the
court has been lenient to women considering the dependent children on the mother. Researchers
have shown that women with children are judged less harshly and serves fewer sentences in

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 6
courts (Rafter and Brown 2011). In working of the analysis of a crime committed by a woman
and more so a mother, there are three considerations like circumstances of the incident,
defendant's workplace and the situation of the family as well as the defendant's prior record. That
defendant with financial responsibility was sentenced fewer penalties than those with no
dependents (Barak, Leighton and Flavin 2010).
When family offenders are judged harshly like being sent to prison and serve many years
would also punish the dependents especially the children. Shorter sentences are administered to
such people t avoid broken families. The effect was experienced by many women than men
(Yavuz and Welch 2010).The difference comes in considering the responsibilities attached to the
offender. Some factors leading to these differences;
 Women are in charge of care to their children than men.
 Families women are more responsible in family matters more than familied men.
 Breadwinning is essential but not as much as child care provided by family’s
women.
Traditional theory suggests that the sentences should be more concerned in protecting the
weak in the society who in this case are women. The social institution, the family, should be
protected by maintaining social order (Kolsky 2010). Thus, families should not be broken by
separating one member. Justice should also prevail to the innocent by punishing the guilty. Those
who are dependent on care or economic support to the offender should also be protected. A
general argument can be deduced that the aim of the fewer penalties on women is not to benefit
women per se but the families. The explanation can be termed as the familial paternalism where

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 7
both men and women are sentenced differently according to the familial responsibility (May,
Rader and Goodrum 2010).
Gender differences have also led to a difference in imprisonment. Women are sent to
prison for short periods, unlike men (Harvey 2000). Reason being the fact that women crimes are
often an offense towards property such as fraud compared to men whose crimes are more severe
and an assault mostly on people such as murder. With the nature of the crime committed by the
two genders and their criminal record history, women tend to be on the safer side concerning the
type of sentence administered (Walklate 2013).
Conclusion.
The findings of the research show that gender is a key issue to be considered in crime
analysis which affects the outcomes of the sentencing. From the research study conducted,
several conclusions can be made. The crimes committed by women are less offending compared
to men regarding tendency and nature of the offense. In crime analysis, it should be eyed on to
avoid harsh penalties for fewer crimes and serious crimes having less penalty. Women are less
likely to be imprisoned, and it is community's responsibility to enact change onto the offenders.
Also, the duration of women imprisonment is shorter compared to men. Behavioral theory
explanation is supported by many researchers that women engage themselves in less severe
crimes with few convictions and less offending severe compared to men (McMillan 2004). Also,
the biographies of female offenders are different to those of men (Smart 2003). This donates to
their indistinct position of being offenders as well as victims at the same time. Women are in a
likely hood of having a history such as physical harassment, sexual victimization in early age and
also in marriages. With these reasons, sentencing is not direct (Nayak and Kehily 2013).

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 8
Indirect impacts of features that create a justification of conditions can result in shorter
sentences that lead to differences in sentencing consequences for women and men. These
differences appear defensible but not any form of being bias. Hence, the differences in
sentencing consequences for both men and women are not biased but a reflection of gender-
based features. The differences are experienced because of the influences associated with being
feminine but not gender based. With these concepts, it is advisable to consider gender difference
in crime analysis and its presentation to avoid biases (Doerner and Demuth 2010).

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 9
References
Barak, G., Leighton, P. and Flavin, J., 2010. Class, race, gender, and crime: The social realities
of justice in America. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., Dieterich, W., Salisbury, E.J. and Van Voorhis, P., 2012.
Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating
gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), pp.1481-1508.
Doerner, J.K. and Demuth, S., 2010. The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender,
and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), pp.1-27.
Else-Quest, N.M., Higgins, A., Allison, C. and Morton, L.C., 2012. Gender differences in self-
conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 138(5), p.947.
Embry, R. and Lyons Jr, P.M., 2012. Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between
male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), pp.146-162.
Harvey, I., 2000. Youth culture, drugs and criminality. Youth justice: Theory and practice.
London: Cavendish. pp.111-143.
Hayward, K.J. and Fenwick, M., 2000. Youth crime, excitement and consumer culture: the
reconstruction of aetiology in contemporary theoretical criminology. In Youth justice (pp. 31-50).
Cavendish.
Howe, A., 2009. Sex, Violence and Crime: Foucault and the'Man'Question. Routledge.
Kolsky, E., 2010. ‘The Body Evidencing the Crime’: Rape on Trial in Colonial India, 1860–
1947. Gender & History, 22(1), pp.109-130.

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 10
MacKinnon, C.A., 2018. Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination [1984]. In Feminist
legal theory (pp. 81-94). Routledge.
May, D.C., Rader, N.E. and Goodrum, S., 2010. A gendered assessment of the ‘‘threat of
victimization’’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and
defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), pp.159-182.
McMillan, N., 2004. Beyond representation: Cultural understandings of the September 11
attacks. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(3), pp.380-400.
Nayak, A. and Kehily, M.J., 2013. Gender, youth and culture: Young masculinities and
femininities. Palgrave Macmillan.
Purvanova, R.K. and Muros, J.P., 2010. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), pp.168-185.
Rafter, N. and Brown, M., 2011. Criminology goes to the movies: Crime theory and popular
culture. NYU Press.
Skilbrei, M.L., 2013. Sisters in crime: Representations of gender and class in the media coverage
and court proceedings of the triple homicide at Orderud Farm. Crime, media, culture, 9(2),
pp.136-152.
Smart, C., 2003. Feminist Approaches to Criminology or Postmodern Woman meets Atavistic
Man‖. Crime: Critical concepts in sociology. London: Routledge, pp.153-169.

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 11
Vannini, P., 2016. Body/embodiment: Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body.
Routledge.
Walklate, S., 2013. Gender, crime and criminal justice. Willan.
White, R. and Mason, R., 2006. Youth gangs and youth violence: Charting the key
dimensions. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), pp.54-70.
Yavuz, N. and Welch, E.W., 2010. Addressing fear of crime in public space: Gender differences
in reaction to safety measures in train transit. Urban studies, 47(12), pp.2491-2515.

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 12

Gender Difference In Crime Analysis And Court
Outcomes 13