Read Item B below and answer the question that follows.
Item B

According to crime statistics, men are more likely than women to commit crime. However, this statistical difference may be due to the way in which the criminal justice system deals with men and women. In some cases, the nature of female crimes means that they are less likely to be recorded.
Men and women seem to commit different types of crime. Those committed by women are seen as more serious if they go against expected gender norms. For men, crime can be seen as an expression of masculinity and a way of gaining social status.

Using material from Item B and elsewhere, assess sociological explanations of gender differences in the patterns of crime.

There are an array of sociological explanations and theories as to why there is a significant difference not only in the crime rates of different genders but also in the crimes committed by each.

Firstly,item B states that men are more likely to commit crime than women, official statistics support this statement as they show that of the 1.2 million criminals convicted and sentenced in 2011, only 24% of those were women and 72% were men; this shows that men are 3x more likely to be convicted and sentenced than women. There are a variety of explanations for this significant difference in criminal convictions; Parsons, and other functionalists, argue that this difference is due the Sex Role theory which states that men and women have different roles within the family, the women has the expressive role which causes her to be more caring and nurturing where as men have the instrumental role and that children learn these roles during primary socialisation, the girls are socialised into the expressive role causing them to be more empathic where as boys are socialised into the instrumental role (the breadwinner) this causes them to be more competitive and violent, thus as a result of this men are more likely to commit crime as they socialised to be more aggressive and commutative where as women are less likely to commit crime due to the fact that they have more empathy so they would understand how it would feel if they were the victim. Also, Charles Murray argues that the increase in matriarchal focused families has left many boys without a positive role model and thus this has resulted in these boys not understanding how to channel their aggression and competitiveness productively and therefore has lead gangs and “street culture”. Albert Cohen also elaborated upon this point stating that young boys turn to gangs as a source if masculine identity as there is no positive male role model around to show them how to create a positive masculine identity. On the other hand feminists criticise this view as Walklate argues that it is based upon biological reasons and it is deterministic the theory suggests that roles are natural and that lone parent families are negative when intact they create a very positive, strong role model for girls.

Secondly, Heidensohn provides another key sociological explanation as to why men commit more crimes that women; Heidensohn suggest that it is the patriarchal nature of our society that means that women are less able to commit crime due to the way that are controlled by men in all aspects of their life. In the home it is mainly women who due the domestic labour and child care which means that they simply have less time available to be able to commit crime, in addition to this, surveys have shown that in general, daughters are granted less freedom by the family than sons, this means that are unable to commit crimes due to the lack of freedom. Furthermore, women are also controlled by men in pupil due to the fear of male sexual violence and at work women are prevented from being able to commit “white collar” crimes such as fraud due to the “glass-ceiling” which prevents women achieve promotions which would put them in higher positions and therefore more able to commit crimes such as fraud. Dobash and Dobash also provide an elaboration upon this point with the explanation of how domestic violence prevents women committing as much crime; they state that men con toll woman’s freedom and hat domestic violence may be a cause of the men's dissatisfaction of the woman’s domestic labour. In addition to this, Dobash and Dobash also state that the power of money also allows men to control women and their active both in and out of the home due to the fact that on average women are less money that men which means that women have less money which means the active they due are limited which may restrict them to the home, ultimately isolating them and causing them to be unable to commit crime. In contrast to this, feminist argue that this theory assumes that women are constantly and passively controlled in all aspects of life, it also assumes that no women become successive in highly powerful jobs when many do and the theory is also becoming out of date as it ignores recent changes in society such as lone parent families.

Official statistics show that 72% of convicted and sentenced criminals are men, however, this does not necessarily prove that men commit more crime than women, it just proves that more men are convicted. Item B states that “statistical difference may be due to the way in which the criminal justice system deals with men and women. In some cases, the nature of female crimes means that they are less likely to be recorded.” This statement is reflected by the Leniency, or Chivalrly, thesis which suggest that women are treated more leniently by the criminal justice system; many sociologists suggest explanations for this theory such as Campbell who performed a self report study within which the results displayed that women were more likely than men to be cautioned and not prosecuted, these results also showed a significantly smaller difference in the number of women and men prosecuted than the official statistics; the official statistics showed the ratio of men to women prosecuted was 8.95:1.00 where as Campbell found a much smaller difference of 1.33:1.00 which also shows that official statistics may be exaggerated. Furthermore, Hood states that men are more likely to be given custodial sentences than women which also supports the Chivarly thesis. In addition to this, Graham and Bowling also completed a self report study which showed that men aged 14-25 were 2.33 times more likely to offend where as official statistics showed a difference of 4 times. Therefore this proves that men and women are treated differently by the criminal justice system, it shows that there is a certain amount of “leniency” towards women and thus this displays that the system is sexist; however this could also be linked to the fact that 80% of judges are men which may cause sexual attraction to be a influencing factor within these statistics. In contrast to this Farrington and Morris agree that men did receive more sever sentences than women however they felt that the sentences were justified when the severity of the crime was taken into account. However; Heidensohn rejects this statement and argues that the criminal justice system is influenced by societies stereotypes towards gender roles, she argues that women are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system due to the fact that they are venturing away from their gender norms and thus as a result of this the system treats women more harshly as a way of restoring these norms (as mentioned in item b). Carlen also supports this Anti-Chivarly thesis by stating that women are likely to be sentenced according to the courts assessment of them as wives and mothers than the severity of their crime.

Moreover, item B also states that “Men and women seem to commit different types of crime.” There are an array of explanations for this statement which include the biological reasons, suggests by Dabbs and Carr, such as the Testosterone thesis which states that men are more likely to commit violent and sexual crimes due to the higher levels of testosterone, the findings also show a difference between the levels of high and low testosterone and the patterns in misbehaviour. However, this thesis is rejected by some due to the fact that there was no control group within the study and not all men with high levels of testosterone commit crimes. Also official statistics show that 52% of thefts are committed by women, this could be due to the requirement to provide for their children is they do not have the money to do so honestly. In addition to this women are more likely to commit violent crimes than “planned” crimes such as fraud due to another biological explanation put forward by Moir and Jessel which suggests that some violent crimes are linked to PMS which is where the oestrogen levels are higher which means that women are more likely to have a shorter temper during this time and thus “flip” more easily. In contrast to this some sociologists argue that this is very deterministic.

Additionally, item B says that “For men, crime can be seen as an expression of masculinity and a way of gaining social status.” There are a wide variety of sociological explanations for this which include the masculinity and crime theory; this theory suggests that different types of crime are committed by different classes of boys and men as a way of achieving different forms of masculinity. White middle class boys already have status within school as they already have academic status therefore they need to find a way to gain status outside of school and therefore they commit “petty” crimes such as vandalism, disorderly, drunken behaviour and pranks in order to gain an accommodating masculinity. In addition to this, white working class boys have less chance at academic success and therefore they construct their masculinity around physical aggression which includes being “tough” and opposing authority which allows them to adopt an positional masculinity. Finally, Lower working class, ethnic minority boys don’t expect to have a steady job or family and therefore use violence to express their masculinity through more severe crimes, usually in order to achieve material success. In contrast to this Messerchmidt uses the concept of masculinity in a very fluid way to explain all crimes, not just violent ones.

In continuation from my previous point Winlow argues that the loss of traditional male industry jobs and the socialisation of de-industrialisation has lead to the loss of the traditional ways of which men used to achieve status and masculinity, which was through hard, manual, physical jobs. In post-industrial society men now have to find new ways to achieve status and masculinity which can be through jobs such as bouncers; in positions such as these men can gain masculinity through violence; additionally bouncers have “body-capital” which is a sign that is very important to their masculinity as it gives them power and status over others. These jobs allow sub-cultures to continue which allows criminal subcultures to continue. Winlow’s explanation provides us with a new explanation of crime in post-modern society. However, it is only based upon a small sample size in one area of the UK and it only explains certain types of crime.