For many years there has been sharp criticism of the mainstream criminology system by feminists. This discussion looks at some of the areas in criminal justice where feminist critique of mainstream criminology has proven most successful and which areas have not felt much effect of the criticism (Yvonne, J. 2002).
There are five major areas that have been greatly criticized by feminists as far as the mainstream criminology system is concerned. To begin with the mainstream criminology system has been accused of focusing on male offenders while totally ignoring female offenders. Perhaps this was because majority of criminals were men. This not withstanding, feminist critic has argued that both low rate offenders and high rates offenders must be studies if the actual causes of crime are to be identified. Feminists argue that it is important that criminologists should also find out the reasons why females are less or more likely to commit crimes that their male counterparts. It is further argues that most of the theories regarding crime that have been advanced have used male samples as the basis yet have been cited as general kind of theories (Britt, C. 2003).
In this regard therefore female offenders have been seen to be sidelined by the mainstream criminology system. A perfect example is the theory of delinquency that was developed by Travis Hirschi did not include female data in the sample that he initially complied. In all discussions that have been advanced as far as causes of crime are concerned men and male offenders in general have been at the center with their female counterparts been seen as invisible. After numerous criticism there has been a slight change and female offenders are now been included in the various data that re being taken (Anthony, T. 2008).
The second issue of contention as far as the mainstream criminology system is concerned is the understanding and interpretation of crime by the mainstream system. According to feminists although a few works have been complied regarding lawbreaking by females, it has been discussed from a males perception. Otto Pollak and his counterparts attempted to group women into two major categories which are the bad women and the good women. In this kind of categorization, there was no room for those at the middle which in actual fact form the majority of women. In this categorization stereotyping was greatly visible and thus the information therein is misleading. An example that has been constantly cited by feminists is the crime of prostitution which most women fall prey. It was argued that while this crime was discussed in great depths the pressures of economy that force the women to resort into prostitution are rarely highlighted.
It is not included in the discussion that prostitution involves two parties, the man and the woman (Walter, S. 2006).
In crimes of prostitution, it is only the women that are blamed while the men are exonerated from the crime. In the light of the foregoing one major failure of the mainstream criminal system is that female crimes have always been interpreted from the point of view of males. Despite the various criticisms that have been cited by feminists the interpretation of crime still revolves around the male perception. The main stream system has not as yet accommodated the interpretation of crimes from a general perception as opposed from a patriarchal kind of view. This therefore is not one of the areas that the feminist criticism has not had much effect (Yvonne, J. 2002).
The mainstream system has also seen as one that does not pay much attention to victims of crime. Instead the mainstream system put the victims on the spot as the ones to blame for what happens to them. A good example is that of the rape victims who instead of being given the justice they deserve they are blamed for having been raped. However as a result of consistent criticism by feminist groups, this is slowly changing and victims of crime are now being treated in a fair manner. However more needs to be done to ensure that victims of crime are accorded the justice they deserve.
The fourth criticism on the mainstream system is that during the processing of criminal justice sex differences have been ignored totally. Assumptions have been made in regard to the punishment given to both male and female offenders Many criminologists argue that women offenders are given lenient punishments without empirical data to back up the same assumption. Unfortunately this has been the case even after a series if criticisms by feminist movements (Peters, E. 2006).
The last criticism be feminist movements is in regard to the dynamics of power and gender. Although the mainstream criminal system initially presented itself as an objective system it has been as one that is biased against women with the main agenda being to perpetuate male power and oppress the voice of the women. Thus the system has been said to advocate for the subordination of women instead of ensuring that there is gender equality. This has however changed as a result of continued criticism. This is thus another area that feminist criticism has had an effect on the mainstream criminal system (Tierney, J. 2006).
There are five major areas that have been greatly criticized by feminists as far as the mainstream criminology system is concerned. To begin with the mainstream criminology system has been accused of focusing on male offenders while totally ignoring female offenders. Perhaps this was because majority of criminals were men. This not withstanding, feminist critic has argued that both low rate offenders and high rates offenders must be studies if the actual causes of crime are to be identified. Feminists argue that it is important that criminologists should also find out the reasons why females are less or more likely to commit crimes that their male counterparts. It is further argues that most of the theories regarding crime that have been advanced have used male samples as the basis yet have been cited as general kind of theories (Britt, C. 2003).
In this regard therefore female offenders have been seen to be sidelined by the mainstream criminology system. A perfect example is the theory of delinquency that was developed by Travis Hirschi did not include female data in the sample that he initially complied. In all discussions that have been advanced as far as causes of crime are concerned men and male offenders in general have been at the center with their female counterparts been seen as invisible. After numerous criticism there has been a slight change and female offenders are now been included in the various data that re being taken (Anthony, T. 2008).
The second issue of contention as far as the mainstream criminology system is concerned is the understanding and interpretation of crime by the mainstream system. According to feminists although a few works have been complied regarding lawbreaking by females, it has been discussed from a males perception. Otto Pollak and his counterparts attempted to group women into two major categories which are the bad women and the good women. In this kind of categorization, there was no room for those at the middle which in actual fact form the majority of women. In this categorization stereotyping was greatly visible and thus the information therein is misleading. An example that has been constantly cited by feminists is the crime of prostitution which most women fall prey. It was argued that while this crime was discussed in great depths the pressures of economy that force the women to resort into prostitution are rarely highlighted.
It is not included in the discussion that prostitution involves two parties, the man and the woman (Walter, S. 2006).
In crimes of prostitution, it is only the women that are blamed while the men are exonerated from the crime. In the light of the foregoing one major failure of the mainstream criminal system is that female crimes have always been interpreted from the point of view of males. Despite the various criticisms that have been cited by feminists the interpretation of crime still revolves around the male perception. The main stream system has not as yet accommodated the interpretation of crimes from a general perception as opposed from a patriarchal kind of view. This therefore is not one of the areas that the feminist criticism has not had much effect (Yvonne, J. 2002).
The mainstream system has also seen as one that does not pay much attention to victims of crime. Instead the mainstream system put the victims on the spot as the ones to blame for what happens to them. A good example is that of the rape victims who instead of being given the justice they deserve they are blamed for having been raped. However as a result of consistent criticism by feminist groups, this is slowly changing and victims of crime are now being treated in a fair manner. However more needs to be done to ensure that victims of crime are accorded the justice they deserve.
The fourth criticism on the mainstream system is that during the processing of criminal justice sex differences have been ignored totally. Assumptions have been made in regard to the punishment given to both male and female offenders Many criminologists argue that women offenders are given lenient punishments without empirical data to back up the same assumption. Unfortunately this has been the case even after a series if criticisms by feminist movements (Peters, E. 2006).
The last criticism be feminist movements is in regard to the dynamics of power and gender. Although the mainstream criminal system initially presented itself as an objective system it has been as one that is biased against women with the main agenda being to perpetuate male power and oppress the voice of the women. Thus the system has been said to advocate for the subordination of women instead of ensuring that there is gender equality. This has however changed as a result of continued criticism. This is thus another area that feminist criticism has had an effect on the mainstream criminal system (Tierney, J. 2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment