As item A suggests women are treated more leniently than men by the criminal justice system which is supported by the official statistics; for example women are more likely than men to be cautioned rather than prosecuted. According to the Ministry of Justice, 49% of females recorded as offending received a caution in 2007, whereas for males the figure was only 30%, this suggests that women are less likely to be sent to prison or even prosecuted in the first place. Similarly, Roger Hood’s study of over 3000 defendants found that women were about one-third less likely than males to be sent to jail. Also typically female crimes such as shoplifting are less likely to be reported. For example, property crime is less likely to be reported than the violent or sexual crimes more often committed by men and when women’s crimes are detected or reported they are less likely to be prosecuted or are let off lightly. This suggestion therefore supports the items belief that women are treated more leniently than men by the criminal justice system.
The chivalry thesis argues that most criminal justice agents – such as police officers, magistrates and judges – are men, and men are socialised to act in a chivalrous way towards women. Otto Pollak (1950) argues that men have a protective attitude towards women therefore men hate to accuse women, send them to their punishment, arrest them, prosecute them or find them guilty. Men feel sympathy towards women and do not wish to cause them hurt or upset something arrest, prosecution or prison would cause them. A police officer may also believe that convicting a woman of petty theft is not worth it. The criminal justice system is therefore more lenient with women and so their crimes are less likely to end up in the official statistics. This then gives an invalid picture that exaggerates the extent of gender differences in rates of offending. John Graham and Ben Bowling’s (1995) research suggests that female offenders are treated more leniently. On a sample of 1721 14-25 year olds they found that although males were more likely to offend, the difference was smaller than that recorded in the official statistics. This suggests that official statistics are not accurate as not every crime is recorded or reported; therefore suggesting that the female crime rate may be higher than it was first thought to be. Similarly, Flood-Page et al (2000) found that, while only one in 11 females self-reported offenders had been cautioned or prosecuted, the figure for males was over one in seven.
To conclude the chivalry thesis has led to the understanding that the number of females that commit crime may be higher than first thought as male criminal justice agents feel protective towards women, do not wish to cause them physical or emotional harm or upset, may feel sympathetic towards women with families leading to many women being let off with a caution and the crime is therefore not reported or recorded in the official statistics. However, there is considerable evidence against the chivalry thesis. For example, David Farrington and Alison Morris’ (1983) of sentencing of 408 offences of theft in a magistrates court found that women were not sentenced more leniently and if women appear to be treated more leniently, it may simply be because their offences are less serious and this may be why women are less likely to go to prison or even be prosecuted. For example, Steven Box’s (1981) review of British and American self-report studies concludes that women who commit serious offences are not treated more favourably than men. Women offenders also seem more likely to show remorse and this may help to explain why they are more likely to receive a caution instead of going to court. Abigail Buckle and David Farrington’s study of shoplifting witnessed twice as many shoplifting as females – despite the fact that the number of male and female shoplifters in the official statistics is more or less equal. This suggests that women shoplifters are more likely to be prosecuted than males. Many feminists would also argue that the criminal justice is far from being in favour of women, Heidenson (1996) suggests that courts treat females more harshly than males when they deviate from gender norms. For example: courts punish girls but not boys for premature or promiscuous sexual activity. Women who also do not conform to accepted standards of monogamous heterosexuality and motherhood are punished more harshly. Pat Carlen (1997) suggests that when women are jailed, it is due to the courts assessment of them as wives, mothers and daughters. Feminists argue that these double standards and harsher punishment of women who do not conform exist because the justice system is patriarchal. Evidence of this comes from rape and sexual harassment cases, Sandra Walklate (1998) argues that it is not the defendant but in fact the victim that is put on trial. Adler (1987) suggests that women who are deemed to lack responsibility find it hard to have their testimony believed in court. The chivalry thesis has drawn attention to the fact that there are in fact gender differences in crime and this may be because women are treated more leniently or in fact there crimes are less serious or they do not commit crime as much as men do. Whether or not the criminal justice system is more lenient towards women, in general women do have a lower crime rate than males. Some would suggest this is due to socialisation or crime may be innate and there are very few female born criminals.