eBook - ePub
The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology
On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality
Kevin M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, Brian B. Boutwell
This is a test
Share book
- 472 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology
On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality
Kevin M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, Brian B. Boutwell
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality takes a contemporary approach to address the sociological and the biological positions of human behavior by allowing preeminent scholars in criminology to speak to the effects of each on a range of topics. Kevin M. Beaver, J.C. Barnes, and Brian B. Boutwell aim to facilitate an open and honest debate between the more traditional criminologists who focus primarily on environmental factors and contemporary biosocial criminologists who examine the interplay between biology/genetics and environmental factors.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology by Kevin M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, Brian B. Boutwell in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Social Sciences & Criminology. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
PART I
KEY CRIMINOLOGICAL CORRELATES
1
Sociological Explanations of the Gender Gap in Offending
University of Florida, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law
Gender differences in the perpetration of illegal acts, with males much more likely to offend compared to females, are widely recognized in criminology. What is less clear is why this gender gap in offending exists. Biological, physiological, psychological, structural, and social factors have all been used to explain gender differences in offending. Although more investigation is needed to fully understand why males commit more crime than do females, this chapter contends that biological factors cannot adequately account for the gender gap in offending and that social factors influence males and females to engage in crime at different rates. After documenting the size and nature of the gender gap in offending, this chapter summarizes sociological explanations that have been put forth and tested in empirical research to explain this gap and identifies critical next steps needed to increase knowledge regarding gender differences in offending.
The Gender Gap in Offending
How large is the gender gap in offending? According to official records, in 2009, females accounted for 18% of all juvenile arrests for serious violent offenses and 38% of all arrests for serious property offenses (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011). Of all the offenses tracked, femalesâ rates exceeded malesâ for only two delinquent acts: prostitution (78% of all arrestees were female) and running away from home (55% of arrestees were female). Similar proportions are recorded for adults. The 2010 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) indicated that women comprised 25% of all adults arrested for serious violent offenses and 38% of those arrested for property crimes; only 11% of homicide arrests involved women. Although official records indicate that the gender gap has been narrowing (Steffensmeier, Zhong, Ackerman, Schwartz, & Agha, 2006), males continue to be overrepresented in offending.
Given that not all crimes come to the attention of the criminal justice system and that there may be bias in determining who is arrested, it is also important to assess the gender gap using self-reported data. These sources also indicate that boys are more likely than girls to break the law and especially to engage in violence (Elliott, 1994; Jang & Krohn, 1995; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Peterson, Esbensen, Taylor, & Freng, 2007). According to over 15,000 12th-grade students participating in the Monitoring the Future national survey, in 2010, males reported more property crimes and more violent offenses compared to females (Bachman, Johnston, & OâMalley, 2010). Likewise, among high school students participating in the 2009 Youth Risk Behavioral Survey, males were more likely than females to report carrying a weapon (rates of 27% and 7%, respectively) and getting into fights (39% vs. 23%) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). According to adults interviewed in the National Crime Victimization Survey, only 17% of all those perpetrating simple and aggravated assaults from 1979 to 2003 were females (Steffensmeier et al., 2006).
Gender Similarities in Offending
Despite overwhelming evidence of a gender gap in offending, biological sex is typically not considered to âcauseâ crime. If this were the case, evidence would indicate that all males engage in crime and all females do not. Because this is clearly not true, gender is usually referred to as a âcorrelateâ of crimeâa variable showing an association with offending, but not a deterministic influence. That is, it is recognized that being male does not automatically lead to or necessarily cause an individual to break the law.
In fact, the disparity in offending between males and females is not uniform across all offenses or across all individuals, which suggests that biological differences between males and females cannot fully account for differences in crime rates. Official records uniformly report larger sex differences in offending than do self-reported data, suggesting that sex disparities may be due more to official and social responses to crime than to actual differences in behavior (Elliott, 1994; Steffensmeier et al., 2006). In addition, according to official and self-report statistics, the ratio of male to female offenders is larger for violent (about 3:1) than nonviolent (about 1.5:1) crime (Peterson et al., 2007). In fact, some property offenses show minimal gender differences. According to UCR data, the proportion of females arrested in 2010 for fraud (40%), larceny/theft (44%), and embezzlement (51%) approached that of males.
Even for violent offenses, the gender gap is largely nonexistent among some populations, particularly when comparing White males and African American females (Laub & McDermott, 1985) or high-risk females and low-risk males (e.g., female gang members and male non-gang members; see Kruttschnitt, Gartner, & Ferraro, 2002). In the National Youth Survey, in early adulthood when violent crimes peaked, about 25% of White males reported one or more serious violent offense compared to 20% of African American females (Elliott, 1994). Likewise, White males and African American females living in urban areas have been shown to have similar rates of arrest for some violent crimes (Chilton & Datesman, 1987; Sommers & Baskin, 1992). Geographical residence also seems to impact the gender gap. In a study of 5,935 8th-grade students from 11 communities, females living in each of two urban cities reported more violence than males living in the nine other rural or suburban locations (Peterson et al., 2007).
Gender similarities in offending are further demonstrated by evidence that trends in crime tend to be the same for males and females: when male offending rates are increasing, female rates are increasing, and vice versa. Patterns in offending are also similar. For both sexes, property offending far exceeds violent offending, and early antisocial behavior is associated with longer and more serious criminal careers. Last, the demographic characteristics of male and female offenders are similar; both groups are typically younger and from low-income and minority racial/ethnic groups (Kruttschnitt, 2001; Steffensmeier & Broidy, 2001).
Social Influences on Offending
Taken together, these data suggest that the gender gap is more âa difference in degree than in kindâ (Lanctot & Le Blanc, 2002, p. 115) and further, that male overrepresentation in crime cannot be attributed solely to biological factors; social influences must play a significant role. This hypothesis is supported by evidence that rates of conduct disorder are similar for females and males during early childhood (ages 0â4). After this developmental period, there is a marked decline in behavioral problems for females compared to males (Keenan & Shaw, 1997; Zahn-Wexler, Shirtcliff, & Marceau, 2008). This stage of life coincides with childrenâs entry into school and increased social interactions with peers, teachers, and other adults. According to feminist research, such interactions provide individuals with critical information on how to âdo genderâ; that is, how to display behaviors consistent with cultural stereotypes of femininity and masculinity (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Not coincidently, norms regarding acceptable male behavior stress attributes like rebelliousness and aggression, which may promote their involvement in crime, while norms regarding acceptable female behavior emphasize conformity and empathy, which may inhibit offending.
The remainder of this chapter reviews the principal sociological explanations that have been posited to account for gender differences in offending and summarizes how well these factors have been shown to account for the gender gap. This research evaluates macro-level political and social influences; peer, school, and family factors; and some individual attributes that are likely to be influenced by social interactions (e.g., attitudes regarding the acceptability of illegal behavior).
MACRO-LEVEL STRUCTURAL AND CULTURAL INFLUENCES
To date, much of the empirical research examining gender differences in offending has focused on psycho-social influences, such as parenting practices, exposure to delinquent peers, and academic achievement. Although some research has indicated that males are more likely to encounter such factors (Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Flannery, 1995; Smith & Paternoster, 1987), which could result in their overrepresentation as offenders, this work has typically left unanswered the question of why males would be differentially exposed to risk factors. Feminist criminologists have critiqued this exclusive focus on individual-level criminological influences and called for increased attention to macro-level power structures and social dynamics that may differentially affect male and female involvement in crime (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). In particular, feminists emphasize the need to critically examine how patriarchy systematically constrains women and allows men greater power and control, and how these dynamics shape offending.
Following this perspective, some research contends that male and female offending is contingent on the opportunities each group has to engage in crime. In patriarchal societies, women are forced into the domestic sphere of society and are disproportionally responsible for child and family care, while males are more likely to be in the public (work) domain (Figueira-McDonough, 1992). This division of labor results in fewer opportunities for females to engage in crime. Data support this view. Violent offenses are disproportionately committed by males, who are also more likely to assault strangers and acquaintances, those encountered in public settings. When women engage in violence, they are more likely to attack family members (children and husbands). Males are also more likely to perpetrate sexual assault, which reflects their greater sexual power (Kruttschnitt, 2001).
While recognizing that females are underrepresented as offenders, current macro-level theories emphasize that when women do break the law their reasons for doing so are tied to their social and economic marginalization. Such work is in contrast to the âliberation hypothesesâ proposed in the 1970s, which predicted that as women gained more social and economic equality their crime rates would increase and become more similar to menâs (Adler, 1975; Simon, 1975). Liberation hypotheses have not been well supported. Instead, female poverty has been tied to female crime rates (Hunnicutt & Broidy, 2004; Parker & Reckdenwald, 2008), and official statistics indicate that incarcerated women are disproportionately from low socioeconomic backgrounds and racial/ethnic minority groups. The types of property crimes committed by women also reflect their marginalized position in society (Chesney-Lind, 1997). Women are most likely to be arrested for offenses such as embezzlement, shoplifting, passing bad checks, credit card theft, theft of services, and welfare fraud, consistent with their greater likelihood of being both consumers (i.e., shoppers) and single parents, as well as their overrepresentation in low-paying jobs and as welfare recipients (Steffensmeier, 1993). Interviews with female offenders often indicate that their crimes are committed out of economic necessity, particularly if they have children to support (Gilfus, 1992).
While this evidence suggests that female criminals are not economically liberated, there is some evidence that social equality could be associated with increased female offending. Consistent with the liberation hypothesis, some research suggests that girls who are less likely to endorse traditional views regarding gender (e.g., that females should be passive, accommodating, and empathetic, while males should be aggressive, dominant, and risk-seeking) are more likely to engage in delinquency (Heimer, 1996) and violence (Heimer & De Coster, 1999; Simpson & Ellis, 1995). However, other studies have shown the opposite: that female offenders are more likely to report traditional views of masculinity and femininity (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Hill & Crawford, 1990; Steffensmeier & Broidy, 2001). In addition, power control theory (Hagan, Gillis, & Simpson, 1987), which contends that both male and female delinquency will be fostered in more âliberatedâ and nontraditional (i.e., female-headed) homes, has not been well supported (Kruttschnitt, 2001; Lanctot & Le Blanc, 2002).
While macro-level explanations offer great potential for discovering the root causes that may give rise to gender differences in offending, these structural and cultural variables are difficult to operationalize and test empirically. Thus, a larger body of research has examined more proximal social influences on male and female offending, including family, peer, and school factors. Much of this research has focused on processes influencing the onset of offending during childhood and adolescence.
FAMILY INFLUENCES
Family factors have likely received the most attention in sociological explanations of the gender gap in offending. In particular, differences in how parents socialize their male and female children are thought to differentially impact their propensity for deviance. It has been posited that parents more closely monitor girlsâ behaviors, keep girls closer to home, and reinforce conformity and punish deviance more often for daughters than for sons (Keenan & Shaw, 1997). Conversely, boys are subject to less social control and monitoring, and parents are more likely to endorse (or passively accept) deviant behaviors in their male children. As a result, boys have more opportunities to engage in delinquency and receive fewer reprimands for doing so compared to girls. Some also assert that parents teach girls to place more importance on family relationships. Greater attachment to the family may serve as a protective factor, reducing the likelihood of female offending, and may also strengthen the effects of parental monitoring and other family factors (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Keenan & Shaw, 1997; Kroneman, Loeber, Hipwell, & Koot, 2009; Kruttschnitt & Giordano, 2009). Thus, even if boys and girls received similar levels of social control from parents, such practices would reduce delinquency more for girls than boys.
In fact, evidence of marked gender differences in parental socialization practices and in their effects on delinquency is mixed. Some studies have shown that girls are subject to more parental monitoring and control and have greater attachment to parents (Canter, 1982; Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Crosnoe, Erickson, & Dornbusch, 2002; Fagan, Van Horn, Hawkins, & Arthur, 2007; Jang & Krohn, 1995; Junger-Tas, Ribeaud, & Cruyff, 2004). Other research, however, has indicated that males and females receive similar levels of monitoring, discipline, and emotional support from parents (Daigle, Cullen, & Wright, 2007; Huebner & Betts, 2002; Rowe et al., 1995). Likewise, effects of family factors on delinquency often do not vary by sex (Daigle et al., 2007; Fergusson & Horwood, 2002; Hartman, Turner, Daigle, Exum, & Cullen, 2009; Hoeve et al., 2009; Rowe et al., 1995; Zahn, Hawkins, Chiancone, & Whitworth, 2008). In addition, while some research has shown that girls are more strongly influenced by parenting practices (Blitstein, Murray, Lytle, Birnbaum, & Perry, 2005; Bottcher, 1995), other studies have indicated that males are more affected (Canter, 1982; Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Fagan et al., 2007; Moffitt et al., 2001).
Heimerâs research (Heimer, 1996; Heimer & De Coster, 1999) has identified more complex mechanisms linking gender, parenting practices, and delinquency. Consistent with a gendered socialization process, she contends that parenting practices produce differences in girlsâ and boysâ endorsement of traditional gender roles and in their attitudes regarding the acceptability of deviant or violent behavior, and...