Notes on New Theoretical Perspective of Crime

Notes on New Theoretical Perspective of Crime

After analysing the important outlines of prevailing sociological explanations of trend towards sexual equality, patterns of differential sexual socialisation, and separation of adult social roles characteristic of males and females regarding the causation of female crime, let us now present a new sociological approach towards understanding the etiology of female crime.

In fact, it is the failure of theorists to explain the cause of female criminality that prompts me to present this new perspective.

The first question is: is it possible to develop one broad theory which may explain all types of crimes committed by females, or has attention to be directed at specific patterns of law-breaking among women, say, amateur thieves, rioters, cheats, murderers, kidnappers, vagrants, excise offenders, etc.?

My contention is that the analysis of crime among males may be focused on particular forms but female crimes en masse can be viewed in terms of one broad theoretical context.

I believe that though female crime results from linking together of various influences yet we can identify the most important etiological influence. This causal factor is family maladjustment. Stated another way, in my perspective I am primarily concerned with the pattern of family relationships.

Through analysing the structural problems of family organisation and through studying the types of functional problems in women’s families of procreation, crimes committed by women are examined in terms of maladjustment in interpersonal relationship within the family.

This family-centred explanation’ or more broadly the ‘pressure of primary relations perspective’ can be explained through a diagram.

The above diagram shows that factors endogenous or exogenous to family create provocation, temptation, strains, and stresses in a woman’s life. These provocations or stresses produce a desire or a need to deviate from social and/or legal norms.

The personality structure or the socio-psychological characteristics like temperament, attitudes, frustrations, deprivations or dominant underlying needs prevent some women from this deviation but fail to do so in other cases. Thus, both personality system and pressures of environment in which woman functions contribute to woman’s criminality.

This theoretical model focuses on ‘strength of character’, ‘role conflict’ (role collision, role incompatibility, and role confusion), ‘opportunity’, and ‘totality of situation’ in family. Totality of situation includes varied situations in family taken together.

Suppose a woman fails to get her husband’s love and affection (situation Si), and in-law’s care and support (situation S2), and has illicit relations with a person (situation S3), it will be the totality of the three situations together (Si + S2 + S3) that will lead her to criminality (say, husband’s murder).

Further, her personality characteristics (say, either personality Pi, or personality Pi) will determine whether she will really commit murder (one type of behaviour) or suicide (other type of behaviour) or elope (third type of behaviour) or continue to live in the family (fourth type of behaviour).

Thus, woman’s ‘crime’ (husband’s murder) will be the outcome of interaction between her personality system and ‘totality’ of situations in her family. It (crime) will develop in (interaction) process over time through a series of stages.

In this process (spread over time), ‘criminal behaviour’ will emerge not because of the past alone but because of the current situation and triggering or precipitating circumstances too.

In simplified form, our conjunctive theoretical model in women’s criminality accounts for differences in women’s families and other institutional structures as well as in their personalities.

Thus, what needs to be analysed in the diagnosis of environmental and personality factors in female crime is: (i) family composition (type of family, its size, economic background, etc.), (ii) interactional situation (nature of relations with husband, in-laws, children and parents), (iii) class-background (lower, middle and upper class status), (iv) role career (employment, domestic roles, etc.), (v) attitudes (towards religion, role performance, etc.), perceptions (or rights and duties, values and norms), needs (affection, control, support, etc.) and values (honesty, morality, etc.) and (vi) offence behaviour (nature of crime, crime skills and techniques employed, help received from others, and so forth).