Skip to main content

“Is criminology androcentric? Can general theories of crime, developed by men to explain male criminal behaviour, be applied or generalized to explain female criminality? Discuss the reasons for the disparity in crime rates between men and women.”



QUESTION 5 (DETAILED ANALYSIS)

“Is criminology androcentric? Can general theories of crime, developed by men to explain male criminal behaviour, be applied or generalized to explain female criminality? Discuss the reasons for the disparity in crime rates between men and women.”


1. Meaning of “Androcentric Criminology”

Androcentric means male-centered.
Criminology is called androcentric because:

  • Most theories were developed by male criminologists,
  • Based on male criminal behaviour,
  • Using male crime statistics,
  • Ignoring women’s experiences and motivations.

Thus, early criminology treated men as the norm and women as exceptions.

Examples:

  • Lombroso studied “born criminal” males.
  • Merton studied strain among men in economic pressure.
  • Sutherland studied male delinquent gangs.

Women were hardly studied, so their crime patterns were misunderstood.


2. Can Male-Based Criminological Theories Explain Female Criminality?

(A) Limited Application

Most general theories can partially explain female crime but cannot fully explain it.

Why?
Because women commit crimes due to different social pressures, such as:

  • domestic abuse
  • economic dependency
  • gender discrimination
  • emotional victimization
  • limited social power

(B) Examples:

1. Strain Theory (Merton) – Partially Applicable

Men experience economic/achievement strain → crime
Women face family strain, abuse, victimization, which Merton did not consider.

2. Differential Association (Sutherland) – Partly Applicable

Women also learn crime from peers and partners.
But women’s social circles are more controlled → less exposure to criminal peers.

3. Subculture Theory (Cohen) – Not Fully Applicable

Focused on young male gangs, masculinity, aggression.
Does not explain women’s involvement (which is usually non-gang-based).

4. Control Theory (Hirschi) – More relevant for women

Women are given more supervision, parental control, social monitoring → lower crime rates.

5. Feminist Criminology – Best Explanation

Developed because male theories failed to explain women’s lived realities.


3. Why Crime Rates Differ Between Men and Women?

Crime is higher among men globally. Reasons:


(A) Biological Factors

(Not dominant but sometimes discussed)

  • Men have higher testosterone → higher aggression
  • Women biologically more risk-averse

(B) Socialization Differences

Society teaches men:

  • to be aggressive
  • to take risks
  • to dominate
  • to prove masculinity

Women are taught:

  • to be soft
  • nurturing
  • obedient
  • relational

This shapes their criminal behaviour.


(C) Gender Role Expectations

Men are expected to:

  • earn money
  • compete
  • show power

This creates pressures leading to:

  • violence
  • theft
  • gang involvement
  • drug dealing

Women are restricted into:

  • domestic roles
  • caregiving
  • controlled lifestyle

So opportunities for crime reduce.


(D) Social Control and Surveillance

Women face higher informal control:

  • parents monitor girls more
  • society restricts their movement
  • fewer late-night activities
  • less time outside home

This limits criminal activity.


(E) Economic Dependency

Women often depend on:

  • husbands
  • fathers
  • family income

Economic dependency = fewer crimes like robbery, extortion, etc.

But when women do commit crime, it is often:

  • shoplifting
  • prostitution
  • domestic cruelty
  • poisoning

(F) Victimization and Abuse

Women who commit crimes often have a background of:

  • sexual abuse
  • domestic violence
  • psychological trauma

This explains offences like:

  • killing abusive partners
  • running away
  • prostitution for survival

Male theories ignored these aspects.


(G) Opportunity Structure

Men have more access to:

  • criminal networks
  • public spaces
  • illegal markets
  • gangs

Women have limited access → fewer crimes.


4. Feminist Criminology: Correcting Male Bias

Feminist criminologists argued:

  • Male theories ignored women
  • Women’s crime must be studied separately
  • Crime by women is often linked to patriarchy, gender inequality, and powerlessness

They introduced new ideas:

  • Women commit crime due to survival needs
  • Domestic violence contributes to crime
  • Patriarchal control suppresses women’s criminal opportunities
  • Female offending is shaped by gender oppression

5. Case Laws Relevant in Understanding Gender and Crime

(1) Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura rape case)

Showed how patriarchy and bias in law enforcement affects women.

(2) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh

Courts recognized women’s vulnerability and the need to consider psychological trauma.

(3) Lata Singh v. State of UP

Societal control on women’s behaviour is higher.

(4) Bhanwari Devi Case

Shows how societal norms restrict women’s freedom and safety.

These cases show that female crime and victimization cannot be explained by male theories alone.


6. Conclusion (Exam-Ready)

Criminology is largely androcentric because most classical and modern theories were created by men, focusing on male criminality. Such theories can only partially explain female crime because women’s motives, opportunities, and experiences are different.
Crime rates differ because of gender roles, socialization, economic dependency, control mechanisms, and patriarchal structures.
Thus, feminist criminology is essential to correctly understand female criminality.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

UPSI Syllabus 2025 & Exam pattern 2025

UP SI 2025 Exam Pattern Subject Questions Marks General Hindi 40 100 Law/Constitution & General Knowledge 40 100 Numerical & Mental Ability Test 40 100 Mental Aptitude/Intelligence/Reasoning 40 100 Total 160 400 Exam Mode : Online (CBT) Duration : 2 hours (120 minutes) Negative Marking : No Qualifying Marks : Minimum 35% in each subject and 50% overall Subject-Wise Syllabus 1. General Hindi समास, संधि, वाक्यांश के लिए एक शब्द पर्यायवाची, विलोम शब्द मुहावरे और लोकोक्तियाँ रस, अलंकार, छंद वाक्य संशोधन, वर्तनी अपठित गद्यांश (Comprehension) हिंदी साहित्य के प्रमुख लेखक और रचनाएँ 2. Law, Constitution & General Knowledge A. General Knowledge भारत का इतिहास और स्वतंत्रता संग्राम भूगोल (भारत और विश्व) विज्ञान और तकनीक करेंट अफेयर्स पुरस्कार, किताबें और लेखक महत्वपूर्ण राष्ट्रीय/अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संगठन खेलकूद, राजनीति, अर्थव्यवस्था B. Indian Constitution & Law संविधान की विशेषताएँ मौलिक अधिकार और कर्तव...

Arrest under BNSS 2023: Grounds, Sections, and Case Laws

Bare act provision  Arrest by private person [section 40] Section 40 lays down the circumstances  when a private person can arrest and procedure on such arrest Circumstances in which a private person can arrest: Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested who in the presence of private person. i) commits a non - bailable and           cognizable offence. ii) Any proclaimed offender. 2: Arrest by magistrate section 41 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), enacted to replace the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), brings a renewed focus on balancing citizen rights and policing powers . Arrest, being a powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement, is rightly placed under scrutiny in BNSS 2023. Let’s break down what "arrest" means under this new law, the grounds under which it can occur, and the protective safeguards embedded within. What is Arrest Arrest is the legal restraint of a person’s libe...

Smith v Hughes (1959): A Landmark Case on Interpreting the Law

Smith v Hughes (1959): Introduction The case of Smith v Hughes (1959) is one of the most iconic examples in English law that demonstrates the Mischief Rule of statutory interpretation. At first glance, it may seem like a simple case involving a street solicitor (a prostitute), but it ended up clarifying how judges should interpret the true purpose of a law. Facts of the Case Mrs. Smith, the defendant, was a prostitute. However, unlike many others, she wasn’t soliciting from the street. Instead, she operated from inside her apartment in London. She would call out or attract clients through her window or by tapping on the glass, facing the public street below. She was charged under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 , which says: “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.” Now here's the twist: Smith argued she wasn’t in the street , so she claimed the law didn’t apply to her ...