Читать книгу The Invisible Woman - Joanne Belknap - Страница 51

Limited criminology research has addressed whether “labeling or the consequences of being labeled” are gendered (Hassett-Walker et al., 2017). Lee, Tajima, Herrenkohl, and Hong’s (2017) excellent review of LT studies and gender notes that like most criminology, “there is limited attention to gender” (p. 99). Many LT studies have used all male samples, and LT studies that include girls rarely test for gender differences, instead using gender as a control variable. Lee and her colleagues’ careful review of LT research report inconsistent findings on whether delinquent labels are gendered, and if so, who is more impacted. Regarding the first tenet of LT, two studies using data from the large U.S. National Youth Survey found that girls are less likely to be labeled as delinquent/criminal than are boys. First, Menard and Pollock’s (2014) analysis of youth falsely accused of criminal behavior found “false accusations are not randomly distributed in the population, but fall disproportionately on the usual suspects, boys, youth of color, lower SES, and academically disadvantaged youth” (p. 389). Second, De Coster and Lutz’s (2018) analysis of these data found that girls are less likely than boys “to be labeled as trouble-makers because delinquency and rule violation are consistent with cultural definitions of masculinity but are the antithesis of femininity” (p. 628).

Some LT research specifically examining gender indicates that being labeled an offender has a more serious impact on the second tenet of LT (becoming or continuing as an offender). Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, and Bontrager’s (2007) large adult felony Florida court study found that regardless of their sentences, men reoffended more than women, but of those found guilty, women were more likely to reoffend. They conclude that the labeling has a greater impact on women than men. Conversely, Lee and colleagues’ (2017) study of Pennsylvania youth found few gender differences regarding the process or effects of labeling on subsequent adult criminal behavior (possibly due to their small sample size). However, they did find higher childhood aggression was related to higher adolescent delinquency for boys but not girls, that “boys from higher SES families were more likely to develop” delinquent attitudes (emphasis added; p. 106); in addition, the models indicated the processing of labeling was related to adult criminality for both girls and boys, but it was stronger for boys.

Alarid and Vega’s (2010) study conducted solely on convicted incarcerated women found overall support for LT, with some nuances. Prior convictions and drug use and sale involvement, but not property crime involvement, increased the likelihood these women defined themselves as “criminals.” The authors reasonably speculated that women who are also mothers (many incarcerated women) may feel less responsible for their crimes, and thus less deserving of the “criminal” identifier, if their crimes are property offenses to support their children. As expected, this study also found women with their first felony conviction were less likely than those with more felony convictions to view themselves as criminals, and many of these self-labeling criminal women had viewed themselves as criminals since they were 17. Notably, the “master identity role that was more important than any other label or role [to these women] … was a familial role as a mother (if she had children) or as a wife, sister or daughter [if she was not a mother]” (p. 721).