Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
GENDERED PATHWAYS TO CRIME: RETHINKING MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY IN CONTEMPORARY JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
GENDERED PATHWAYS TO CRIME: RETHINKING MASCULINITY AND
FEMININITY IN CONTEMPORARY JUSTICE SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
Crime
does not affect men and women alike. While legal systems say they are neutral
and universal, the experiences of both offenders and victims show that gender
has a huge impact on the experience of criminalization. The social construction
of masculinity and femininity, not biological givens, is a significant
influencing factor in criminality, victimization and responses to criminality
in institutions. This research challenges the gendered pathways to crime and
asks what stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are produced and/or
challenged in contemporary justice systems.
Traditionally,
the narratives in criminology were male focused. These theories reinforced the
patriarchal stereotype of criminality as biological abnormality in the case of
women, and socialization in the case of men, instead of questioning structural
inequalities.[3] The Female Offender (1895)
was written by Cesare Lombroso and William Ferrero, who pathologized women's
criminality as a deviation from the norm and biological abnormality, while
later Edwin Sutherland's sociological framework focused on socialization, which
means that female criminality was seen as a deviation from the norm and a
biological abnormality, while male criminality was seen as an extension of
masculinity.[4]
In
the 1970s feminist criminology arose and challenged these assumptions. Feminist
criminology theorised crime as a gendered issue, and posited that women's
routes to offending were often tied to their experiences of victimisation,
poverty and systemic marginalisation.[5]
Males,
on the other hand, have been linked to violence, gang life, and organized
crime. Criminal activity may serve as a way to establish a sense of masculinity
and social standing for marginalized communities, which is reflected in the
theory of hegemonic masculinity as put forth by R.W. Connell.[6]
Research on the nature of gang violence shows that young men use violence not
only for material gain but to assert their manhood to others, while research on
domestic violence shows that it is the violence of men who assert their manhood
over women.[7]
On
the other hand femininity has been linked to nurturing and passivity. The
participation of women in crime has been conceptualized at times as deviant and
in need of special explanation.[8]
There are many examples of how women's crimes are met with treatment that
reflects gender stereotypes within justice systems, which can include lenient
treatment for women who behave in a traditional feminine way, and harsh
treatment for those who do not.[9]
Women involved in sex work or drug trafficking may often report histories of
victimization, including sexual abuse, domestic violence, and economic
dependency, suggesting that their criminality is linked to survival and
exploitation.⁷ Feminist criminologists argue that women's paths into crime are
often determined by experiences of victimisation, such as sexual abuse,
domestic violence and economic dependency.[10]
Kimberlé
Crenshaw's concept of intersectionality is a useful tool for exploring how
gender intersects with race, class, caste, and other markers of identity to
create experiences of marginalization.[11]
The specific vulnerabilities that Dalit women in India suffer from sexual
violence and systemic neglect, and the disproportionate number of Dalit men in
custodial deaths highlight the need to re-think justice systems from a gender
responsive and intersectional perspective.
Both
the treatment of offenders and victims in justice systems around the world
perpetuate stereotypes of gender. The assumptions underlying police practices,
prosecutorial discretion, and judicial reasoning show gender bias in both
directions: men charged with sex crimes are assumed to be dangerous, which
means they get longer sentences, while women charged with sexual violence are
treated with suspicion and blamed for the crime, and men who have been sexually
assaulted are treated with paternalism and infantilization.
Modern
justice systems are confronted with new problems. Proponents of gender-neutral
laws, e.g., the Uniform Civil Code in India or the gender neutral sexual
assault laws in the United States, are concerned that such neutrality fails to
acknowledge the gendered context, resulting in ineffective policies.[12]
There
needs to be a paradigm shift in order to rethink masculinity and femininity in
the justice systems. Gender-responsive policies are being promoted by scholars
who maintain that there are difference in pathways men and women follow toward
criminality. This involves training police officers and judges to reduce the
stereotypes, implementing sentencing practices that take into account victim
histories, increasing support for women's offenders and working with toxic
masculinity within communities.[13]
These reforms are in line with international commitments under CEDAW and the
UNCRC, which include the call for inclusiveness and equality in justice.[14]
This
research has the potential to enrich criminology and legal scholarship theories
by questioning the effect of gender identities on motivations, victimization,
and institutional responses. It calls for changes to the system of laws that
puts men and women in unequal positions and urges them to be neutral. In
conclusion, a rethought masculinity and femininity is not just an academic
endeavor, it is a practical imperative when designing just, equitable and
inclusive justice systems that address human identities.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The
way the study of crime has shifted over the last hundred years, from a
biological to a sociological and feminist perspective, has changed in many
profound ways, and has focused on an examination of the role of masculinity and
femininity in both the process of going into crime and in how individuals are
treated in the justice system. The early thoughts of Lombroso and Ferrero on
female criminality as an anomaly were followed by sociological explanations,
the most significant of which was by Edwin Sutherland on social learning and
differential association, which posited that female criminals were different
from male criminals, and were socialized into compliance while male criminals
into aggression.[15] [16]
During
the late 1970s feminist criminology emerged, which represented a paradigm
shift. In turn, scholars like Meda Chesney-Lind pointed out that women's
offending was frequently related to strategies of survival, such as
shoplifting, sex work and drug use, and not to a quest for dominance or status.[17]
This suggested that female criminality was driven by victimization, poverty and
systemic marginalisation. Such research by Kathleen Daly reinforced the idea of
women's journeys to felony court and the fact that women crime offenders
frequently had histories of abuse and coercion, raising questions about the
neutrality of law and the importance of gender-responsive justice systems.[18]
In
contrast, the concept of masculinity has been linked tightly to violence, gangs
and organized crime. Gang culture, especially, has been found to be an arena
where criminal activity is used to assert a masculine identity and a status
within the social community, a status that has been denied to many men due to a
lack of economic opportunities within this community.[19]
Domestic violence is another example, as it is a reflection of the norms of
masculinity that define society as women are oppressed and subjected to
violence within it.[20]
On
the other hand, femininity has been traditionally linked with passivity and
nurturing. In many ways the participation of women in crime has been seen as
"aberrational" and is thus thrown into the spotlight of special
explanation. Feminist criminologists argue that the paths into crime which
women take are often determined by events which have happened to them – sexual
abuse, domestic violence and economic dependency.[21]
For example, women involved in sex work or drug trafficking often describe
histories of victimisation and coercion, making their criminality dependent on
survival and exploitation.¹¹ Female offenders are often treated by gender
stereotypes by the justice systems with leniency when they are conforming to
traditional femininity whilst harshly punished when they are defying the gender
norms.[22]
Ngaire Naffine's work on feminism and criminology highlights how femininity can
both mitigate and exacerbate a woman's criminality based on their conformity or
deviation to gender norms.[23]
Kimberlé
Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality which foregrounds the fact that
gender is not an identity that exists on its own, but exists in relation to
race, class, caste and others, affecting experiences of marginalization. The
disproportionate vulnerability of Dalit women to sexual violence and their
disproportionate representation in custodial deaths, in India, highli[24]ghts
the need for a gender-responsive and intersectional approach to rethinking
justice systems.
Gendered
stereotypes are deeply embedded in justice systems globally with regard to the
treatment of offenders and the victims. For example, women who report sexual
violence are more likely to be dismissed as either a liar or a hysterical
victim, and men who are victims of sexual assault are more likely to be seen as
weak, unmanly, or lacking in character than women who are sexually assaulted.[25]
New
problems in modern systems of justice. Debates over gender-neutral law, for
instance, Uniform Civil Code in India and the gender-neutral provisions in
sexual assault statute in the USA, have also presented gendered issues and
questioned the efficacy of a gender-neutral approach, as gendered pathways are
not accounted for.[26]
Ratna Kapur, in her critical discussion of gender neutrality in India, argues
that failure to acknowledge gendered pathways risk the erasure of structural
disadvantage, thus leading to ineffective policies.[27]
Greater
focus on gender responsive policy responses. They call for policies and
practices to change, such as training police and judicial officials to counter
stereotypes, creating sentencing policies that take into account the
victimization experiences of men and women, increasing services for female
offenders, and implementing community-based policies and practices to address
toxic masculinity. Such reforms are consistent with the international
obligations under CEDAW and the UNCRC with a focus on inclusive and equitable
justice systems.
Overall,
the literature provides evidence that masculinity and femininity are not
secondary factors but key factors of criminal behavior and justice outcomes.
Researchers have questioned the neutrality of law, the lived reality of men and
women in the contemporary justice system, and the need for reform, by examining
the impact of gender identities on motivations, victimization and institutional
reactions to such situations. Gendered pathways to crime hence offer a lens to
reimagine criminology and legal policy in the twenty-first century.
MAPPING PATHWAYS
Crime
is a complex social phenomenon and one of its most lasting aspects is that
gender plays a role in the processes of offending and victimization. Although
the traditional view of criminology has been that crime is a gender neutral
event, empirical research has repeatedly shown that men and women are impacted
by crime in different ways as both victims and perpetrators of crime. In this
essay I will examine three interrelated aspects: patterns of male and female
offending, and the socio-economic, cultural, and psychological factors that
shape these patterns; and patterns of victimization that differentiate domestic
from public sphere crimes. Combined, these dimensions highlight the need for a
new understanding of masculinity and femininity in modern justice systems.
Patterns of Male Offending
Overall,
men are more likely than females to commit violent and property crimes. For
instance, in the context of limited economic opportunities, gang culture can
glorify violence and risk-taking, where crime is seen as a way to gain status
and recognition from other gang members.[28]
James Messerschmidt (1990) examined the link between the construction of
masculinity and crime, particularly by analyzing the roles of men in homicide,
robbery, burglary, and gang activities.⁶ Studies have consistently found that
men are more likely to be involved in homicide, robbery, burglary, and
gang-related activities than women.[29]
Male
offending is also strongly linked to structural inequalities. The
disproportionate representation of men in criminal records in India, with men
from lower castes and minority groups being overrepresented in criminal
records, shows systemic inequalities in policing and the criminal justice
system; likewise, African American men are overrepresented in criminal records
in the United States, which is related to racial profiling and discriminatory
sentencing.[30] These patterns point to
the need for a socio-political context when examining male offending.
Women
have been traditionally viewed as an aberration in crime, needing some special
explanation. Meda Chesney-Lind has found that women who are involved in crime
tend to engage mainly in property crime, fraud or drug offenses, often as a
result of economic marginalization or abusive relationships, and that their
histories of victimization, such as sexual abuse and domestic violence are
often a key part of the pathway into crime.¹¹ Kathleen Daly found that many of
the women who were involved in crime in her study of women in felony courts
have histories of victimization, including sexual abuse and domestic violence,
that helped to shape their pathway into crime.
There
are also systemic inequalities when it comes to female offending. Further,
women involved in sex work or drug trafficking often describe experiences of
coercion or exploitation, indicating that criminality is embedded in survival
and victimisation experiences.[31]
Justice systems also commonly use gender stereotypes in the way that women are
treated as offenders. The double standard, that is, the double accountability
of courts to women who fit within the traditional feminine role, versus the
double punishment of women who fail to do so, is a result of the fact that
traditional feminism is contained within the law, where it can be both a
mitigating and aggravating factor depending on its conformity to societal
expectations.
Socio-Economic Drivers
Socio-economic
deprivation is a key factor in the gender disparity in offending. Economic
marginalisation is often associated with crime and for men it can manifest
itself as property crime, gang life or organised crime; for women, it may be
related to victimisation and result in survival crimes, such as shoplifting or
sex work.
Economic
inequality also influences victimisation. The above facts highlight the need to
implement policies that fight structural inequalities, such as access to
education, employment and social welfare, as part of the prevention measures
against crime, especially domestic violence against women and low
socio-economic status men in violent street crime.
Cultural Drivers
Gendered
pathways to crime are influenced by cultural norms. In some instances, the
culture of the patriarchy is associated with women's oppression, for instance
by aggressive and controlling behaviors within the home, which are perceived as
acceptable and legitimate forms of male behavior.[32]
In other cases, the culture of the patriarchy is linked to the glorification of
violence and risk-taking, which is reflected in male domination of women in the
home, and is seen as acceptable and legitimate forms of male behavior.[33]
Cultural
norms often limit opportunities for women and encourage their dependency,
making them more likely to be victims of violence and criminalisation, and in
many societies, women are double-jacked for crimes and for failing to adhere to
gender norms.[34]
Psychological Drivers
Gendered
pathways to crime are also influenced by psychological factors. Trauma and
victimization are also factors that contribute to female offending. Women are
more likely than men to engage in coping behaviours in response to stress, such
as substance abuse or domestic and family violence, and to internalize a
feeling of being a victim. The psychological consequences of victimization
increase a woman's risk of committing survival crimes, especially women who
have suffered abuse in the past.[35]
Gendered
pathways are further complicated by mental health issues. The perpetuation of
this stigma against men seeking mental health services and against women
seeking disorder in the justice system suggests the need for gender-responsive
mental health services in the justice system.
A comparison of trends in
victimisation rates for both public sphere and domestic sphere crimes.
There
are significant differences in victimisation between genders. The crimes of
domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and harassment deeply embedded
in the socio-economic dependency and cultural norms of society, particularly
affect women in rural areas, who have limited access to support services and
high stigma.
Male
victimisation, on the other hand, is under-reported because of the cultural
expectation that men should be ‘tough' and not report on or admit to being a
victim of violence on the street or homicide.³² This silence serves to
strengthen stereotypes of masculinity and to camouflage vulnerabilities that
face male victims.
Gendered
patterns can also be discerned in public sphere crimes. The gender differences
in incidence rates highlight the importance of tailored support for the victims
of sexual harassment, trafficking and cybercrime, and tailored interventions
for those who are victims of robbery, assault and gang violence.
Overall,
these trends in offending by males and females, as well as the socio-economic,
cultural and psychological factors that influence these trends, provide a clear
illustration of the gendered nature of crime, as do the different trends in
victimisation between domestic and public sphere offences. Masculinity and
femininity are not just factors but central factors in crime and justice
outcomes. The study of the ways in which gender relates to motivations and
victimization experiences as well as institutional reactions can help create
more inclusive and equitable justice systems. However, a more nuanced approach
to gendered pathways to crime is needed to break the cycle of stereotypes,
empower marginalized individuals and groups, and achieve equal opportunity for
both genders.
GENDER BIAS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEMS
Despite
the profession's claims of neutrality, empirical research shows that gender
stereotypes have a significant influence on police tactics and tactics,
prosecutive decision-making, judicial thinking, and sentencing.[36]
Women are let off with it when they play their traditional roles, men are
stereotyped as being inherently violent and therefore are punished more
severely. This chapter discusses these biases, considers sentencing differences
and looks at jurisdictions to draw international lessons.[37]
Police Practices
The
first point of contact between individuals and the justice system is policing
and there is a gender bias as complaints are recorded, investigated and
pursued. It has been observed in India that women's complaints of domestic
violence or sexual assault are frequently dismissed and women who fit into
stereotypical caregiving roles are given greater lenience, whereas women who
commit violent offences are subjected to more rigorous investigation.[38]
The
Department of Justice gave guidance in 2015 to the United States to eliminate
gender bias in the prosecution of domestic violence and sexual assault cases,
including misclassification of cases, failure to investigate sexual assault
kits and failure to prosecute cases involving LGBTQ victims.³ In the world,
women are underrepresented in police forces and create institutional bias,
because male-dominated institutions are poorly trained to handle gender issues.[39]
Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutors
have a lot of discretion over whether to charge, the specific charges they
bring and whether to seek plea bargains. These decisions are biased by gender.
In domestic violence cases, prosecutors in the larger gender category (women)
also punish male defendants more frequently, consistent with the representative
bureaucracy theory, when they are more experienced.[40]
Prosecutorial
discretion is influenced by implicit bias as well. In India, prosecutors' lack
of zeal to prosecute cases of marital rape is reflective of cultural norms that
value family preservation over the rights of women, as studies have shown.[41]
Judicial Reasoning
Judicial
reasoning is often influenced by gender stereotypes. This reflects the
“Chivalry Thesis” that women are treated more leniently when they act according
to traditional gender roles, and the “Evil Woman Hypothesis” that women who
deviate from their gender roles are punished more severely.
Judicial
stereotyping is still prevalent in India. In South Africa, however, the
Constitutional Court in S. v. M placed emphasis on the transformative
constitutionalism, rather than on stereotypical reasoning, and emphasized on
substantive equality in sexual violence cases, where questions were asked
regarding women's clothing or behaviour.[42]
Sentencing Disparities
Gender
stereotypes are well recognised in sentencing. Women are generally seen as
victims or passive and have lighter sentences. By contrast, women are
stereotyped as weak, and punishment is more severe, as R. v. Sharma in Canada
discussed the need to address gendered sentencing, especially for Indigenous
women who suffer systemic disadvantage.[43]
Women
convicted of violent crimes tend to be sentenced more severely than men with
the same convictions, and in India, women who are convicted of dowry-related
crimes are blamed for family conflicts, while the men receive lenient
sentences.[44]
Comparative Global Insights
Through
comparison, growth and areas for improvement are identified. Sweden has taken a
pro-gender-neutral stance to sentencing in a ‘welfare justice' system, whereas
in India, there are still strong patriarchal sentiments that need to be
challenged.[45] Canada takes a
gender-sensitive stance to sentencing, especially for Indigenous women, and
South Africa's courts place a strong emphasis on ‘transformative
constitutionalism'.
The
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and other global institutions
report that while women are less likely than men to be involved in homicide,
they are more likely to be victims of domestic violence and trafficking,
particularly amongst marginalised groups. Men's involvement in homicide is also
reported as being more prevalent than women's.[46]
The Global Justice 50/50 Report (2026) also showed that there has been progress
in gender justice policies in 171 organizations, albeit with gaps in
implementation, particularly for marginalised communities.
CASE STUDY
Gender
stereotypes in criminal justice outcomes are presented in real-world examples
through case studies. The study of key cases in various jurisdictions reveals
the role of masculinity and femininity in police response, prosecutorial
decision-making, judicial decision-making, and policing disparities. Four cases
are analysed in this chapter namely Nirbhaya gang rape case (India), Sushant
Singh Rajput case (India), R v Sharma (Canada) and S v M (South Africa).
Overall, these cases illustrate the continued existence of gender bias and the
necessity of gender-inclusive reforms.
The Nirbhaya Case (India, 2012)
The
brutal gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in December 2012, called
the Nirbhaya case, was a turning point in India's criminal justice system,
which exposed the weaknesses in law enforcement, prosecution and judicial
logic.[47]
At the time, police initially refused to register the complaint, and the
general attitude towards sexual violence was dismissive, with the police taking
action and making quick arrests and convictions.[48]
In
the case, entrenched stereotypes were evident in judicial reasoning. The case
also demonstrated sentencing inequity, in that the juvenile offender was
sentenced under the Juvenile Justice Act, whereas male offenders were sentenced
to death – an assumption about age and culpability.[49]
Feminist scholars point to the case as further evidence of the neglect of
everyday victims of sexual violence in the name of retribution.[50]
Sushant Singh Rajput Case (India,
2020):
The
death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2020 came under intense media
scrutiny and legal controversy, and the police investigation showed gender bias
by vilifying the actor's partner, Rhea Chakraborty, and conducting intrusive
investigations on her, portraying her as a manipulative or destructive force.[51]
There
is a clear instance of prosecutorial discretion in the aggressive prosecution
of the charges against Chakraborty despite the lack of evidence; moreover, the
judges' reasoning also included gendered narratives, where the feminization of
Chakraborty was described as a ‘bad woman’ who corrupted Rajput. Sentencing
disparities were not directly applicable, though pre-trial detention and media
trial demonstrated how femininity can be pathologised in high-profile cases.[52]
R. v. Sharma (Canada, 2022)
In
R. v. Sharma, the Supreme Court of Canada considered sentencing disparities
affecting Indigenous women, finding that systemic disadvantages, such as
poverty, victimization and the legacy of colonization, influenced Indigenous
women's path into crime. Sharma, an Indigenous woman convicted of drug
trafficking, challenged mandatory minimum sentences, which she argued had an
inequitable effect on marginalized Indigenous women.[53]
The
case provides a good example of how judges can be gender sensitive and break
the cycle of stereotypical thinking and fair justice.
S. v. M (South Africa, 2007)
The
South African Constitutional Court in S. v. M considered sentencing differences
for primary caregivers who are sentenced to imprisonment when the woman was the
victim of fraud. The Court highlighted an emerging ‘transformative
constitutionalism’, noting the effects of sentencing on women and children.[54]
This
case represents an approach to judicial reasoning that is tailored to the
specific needs of girls and women as well as the substantive equality of all
girls and women. This case reflects gender sensitivity in judicial reasoning to
reduce disparities and promote justice.
CONCLUSION
Gendered
pathways to crime expose the ways in which crime is a gendered phenomenon that
is inextricably linked to the social constructions of masculinity and
femininity. Globally, culturally and historically, evidence shows that men and
women are affected by crime differently, both as a victim and as a criminal,
and that justice systems tend to accentuate and reinforce gender differences
rather than eliminate them. This conclusion brings together the arguments of
the chapters that have gone before, and outlines the implications for theory,
empirical scholarship and policy of reconceptualizing gender in modern systems
of justice.
The
central tenet of this study is the understanding that masculinity and
femininity are not purely biological constructs, but socially constructed
gender roles that are influenced by cultural norms, socio-economic and
psychological conditions. The concept of masculinity has always been linked to
aggression, dominance and risk-taking, which are admired qualities in a
patriarchal society and frequently embodied in organized crime and gang
culture, as well as in acts of violent crime. Femininity on the other hand, has
been associated with passivity, nurturing and compliance, and female offending
often described as aberrational or a result of victimisation and survival
strategies. The buildings not only define avenues to crime but they also affect
the reactions of justice systems to offenders and victims.
The
patterns of male offending reveal the intersection of the concept of
masculinity and structural inequalities. Violent acts are mainly perpetrated by
men, which is not always explained by performance of hegemonic masculinity.
Where poverty and marginalisation exist, crime can be a way of claiming
identity and of securing status. Gang culture is an example of this—a culture
that manifests violence and risk-taking in the form of symbolic expressions of
masculine performance. Domestic violence is also an indicator of patriarchal
norms that associate men with being in control of women and cycles of violence
and exclusion. These pathways highlight the need to consider male offending in
the context of the socio-economic and cultural systems that perpetuate a culture
of aggression/dominance.
Unlike
male offending, the victimization and survival histories of women are
frequently linked to their offending. Women's participation in property crimes,
fraud, or drug offenses often is a result of a lack of economic opportunities,
victimization by males or force. Many female criminals have a history of sexual
abuse or domestic violence, indicating that many of their crimes are not
necessarily a reflection of who they are, but what has happened in their lives.
The justice system may also apply gender-based stereotypes in the way it deals
with female offenders, being lenient towards those who behave in a traditional
manner while being very tough against the ones that do not. This double
standard is a reflection of the continued existence of the patriarchy's
assumptions in legal institutions, in which the feminine is a mitigating and
aggravating factor depending on whether or not it corresponds to the
expectations of society.
Socio-economic
factors exacerbate gendered trajectories to crime. Poverty, unemployment and
illiteracy put people in a situation where crime is a way of life and social
mobility. Economic marginalisation may result in property crime or organised
crime for men, as expressions of manhood. Poverty and victimisation are
interconnected for women and can result in a situation where they are forced to
commit crimes in order to survive, for example, shoplifting or sex work.
Economic inequality also impacts victimisation with women in lower
socio-economic groups being more vulnerable to domestic violence and
trafficking, and women in marginalised groups being more likely to be victims
of violent street crimes. The lessons from these facts point to a need for
policies that reflect and respond to structural inequalities in the context of
crime prevention.
Gendered
pathways are influenced by cultural drivers. Patriarchy sees men as the
aggressors, the controllers and normalizes men's violence towards women.
Domestic violence is a kind of cultural norm that places a stronger emphasis on
the male than the female and gang culture glorifies violence and risk-taking as
a sign of manhood. Cultural norms limit opportunities, promote dependency and
make women more susceptible to victimization and criminalization. Women who
commit crimes are not only blamed for committing crimes, they also are blamed
for breaking gender norms, which further marginalises them. Such cultural
dynamics emphasize the importance of the justice systems in confronting, not
sustaining or reinforcing, the notions and expectations of patriarchy.
There
are also psychological mechanisms that affect gendered pathways. The connection
of aggression and risk taking with socialization processes that equate
masculinity with dominance are related among men. Men tend to externalise
stress through violence, women tend to internalise stress, manifesting in other
ways of coping, such as by using drugs. Trauma and victimisation are important
in the patterns of offending by women, and those women who have a history of
victimisation are more likely to commit ‘survival crimes. These pathways are
further complicated by mental health issues, for it is still stigmatizing for
men to go for mental health treatment, and for women to ever be pathologized
through justice systems. These patterns reflect the need for gender-responsive
mental health interventions.
There
are significant gender disparities between crimes in the domestic sphere and in
the public sphere; these disparities are revealed in victimization trends.
Patriarchal structures and norms are the basis of domestic violence, sexual
assault, trafficking, and harassment against women, which disproportionately
affect women. Domestic violence is indicative of socio-economic dependency and
male supremacy, with women in rural areas being particularly at risk as they
are less likely to have access to support services. By contrast, men are more
likely to be victims of violent street crimes and homicide but less likely to
be discussed in this matter because of the culture of tough guys. There are
also gender disparities in the number of public sphere crimes targeting women,
particularly sexual harassment, and cybercrime, and men, particularly robbery
and gang violence. These differences highlight the specific vulnerabilities of
women and men that should be considered in victim support services.
Through
case studies, the presence of gender stereotypes in criminal justice is
illustrated. The Nirbhaya case in India exposed the failures in the policing
and judicial responses and brought people to the public platform for the
purpose of public outrage, which in turn resulted in retributive justice, but
not much in terms of systemic changes. The case of Sushant Singh Rajput also
brought to light that femininity can be pathologized in a case of this
magnitude with Rhea Chakraborty being the subject of invasive investigations
and vilification by the media. In Canada, R. v. Sharma was a case that
illustrated how a judicial approach that was gender-sensitive could overcome
stereotypes and move towards substantive equality, particularly for Indigenous
women. In South Africa, S. v. M used to highlight the concept of transformative
constitutionalism and the effects of sentencing on women and children. These
cases were instructive in their shared biases, as well as the possibility of
change based on gender-informed judicial logic.
Gender
stereotypes are highly visible in the police work, the prosecution of cases and
the courts' decisions on them, as well as in sentencing. Women are given extra
credit for their "femmininity" and men are given extreme punishment
for their lack of "aggression". A comparison highlights that
countries such as Canada and South Africa are making progress in adopting a
gender lens when considering sentences, while India faces deeply entrenched
gender norms. It is important to tackle these inequalities through gender
neutral laws, train judges and train more women and marginalized genders, and
through intersectional reform to make justice more fair in all justice systems.
Theoretical
implications from this study are to further expand feminist criminology and
masculinity theory from comparative justice. This research will provide a
deeper understanding of crime and justice by examining the motivations,
victimization and institutional reactions of people as influenced by gender
identity. The implications for practice contain policy suggestions for
gender-responsive policing, prosecutorial decision-making, judicial reasoning,
and sentencing. The reforms are consistent with international commitments in
instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child, which include the provision of inclusive and equitable justice
systems.
To
sum up, the reconstruction of masculinity and femininity in the modern justice
systems is not just an academic matter but a practical one. Justice systems can
not afford to overlook gendered pathways, as this can lead to perpetuation of
inequality and to a lack of fairness. Justice systems can work towards
inclusivity and equity through acknowledging lived realities of men and women,
breaking stereotypes and advancing substantive equality. This calls for a
change of paradigm from formal neutrality to substantive responsiveness; an
understanding that equality can be accomplished only by treating different
groups as different.
The
findings of this research highlight the importance of gendered pathways to
crime as an important aspect of understanding of criminality and justice.
Gender roles influence not only the types of crimes committed and their motives
but also reactions to crime by justice systems. This study draws on theoretical
considerations, empirical data and case studies to recommend policy changes
that break the stereotypes, increase the gender empowerment and ensure fairness
for all genders. The way forward is to adopt gender-responsive policies,
intersectionality analysis and transformative justice, to make the current
justice systems, both formally and practically, gender just.
[1] Research Scholar, Faculty of Law,
Tantia University, Sri Ganganagar.
[2] Associate Professor, Faculty of
Law, Tantia University, Sri Ganganagar.
[3] CESARE LOMBROSO & WILLIAM
FERRERO, THE FEMALE OFFENDER (1895).
[4] EDWIN H. SUTHERLAND, PRINCIPLES OF
CRIMINOLOGY (1939).
[5] MEDA CHESNEY-LIND, THE FEMALE
OFFENDER: GIRLS, WOMEN, AND CRIME (1997).
[6] R.W. CONNELL, MASCULINITIES
(1995).
[7] See James Messerschmidt,
Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization, 2 THEORETICAL
CRIMINOLOGY 85 (1998).
[8] See Michael Flood, Men, Sex, and
Domestic Violence, 12 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 295 (2006).
[9] See Ngaire Naffine, FEMINISM AND
CRIMINOLOGY (1997).
[10] See Kathleen Daly, Women’s
Pathways to Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Lawbreaking and Problems of
Representation, 2 S. CAL. REV. L. & WOMEN’S STUD. 11 (1992).
[11] Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing
the Intersection of Race and Sex, 1989 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 139.
[12] See Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen
& Stephanie Covington, Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice,
and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders (2003).
[13] See Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen
& Stephanie Covington, Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice,
and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders (2003).
[14] Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13;
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
[15] CESARE LOMBROSO & WILLIAM
FERRERO, THE FEMALE OFFENDER (1895).
[16] EDWIN H. SUTHERLAND, PRINCIPLES OF
CRIMINOLOGY (1939).
[17] MEDA CHESNEY-LIND, THE FEMALE
OFFENDER: GIRLS, WOMEN, AND CRIME (1997).
[18] Kathleen Daly, Women’s Pathways to
Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Lawbreaking and Problems of Representation,
2 S. CAL. REV. L. & WOMEN’S STUD. 11 (1992).
[19] MEDA CHESNEY-LIND & LISA
PASKO, THE FEMALE OFFENDER (2d ed. 2004).
[20] Kathleen Daly, Women’s Pathways to
Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Lawbreaking and Problems of Representation,
2 S. CAL. REV. L. & WOMEN’S STUD. 11 (1992).
[21] MEDA CHESNEY-LIND & LISA
PASKO, THE FEMALE OFFENDER (2d ed. 2004).
[22] Hilary Allen, Justice Unbalanced:
Gender and the Legal System, 22 BRIT. J. CRIMINOLOGY 40 (1982).
[23] NGAIRE NAFFINE, FEMINISM AND
CRIMINOLOGY (1997).
[24] Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing
the Intersection of Race and Sex, 1989 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 139.
[25] Danielle Keats Citron, HATE CRIMES
IN CYBERSPACE (2014).
[26] Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen &
Stephanie Covington, Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research
[27] Ratna Kapur, Gender Neutrality in
Indian Law: A Critical Appraisal, 45 J. INDIAN L. INST. 23 (2003).
[28] Meda Chesney-Lind, The Female
Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime (1997).
[29] Carol Smart, Feminism and the
Power of Law (1989).
[30] Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing
the Intersection of Race and Sex, 1989 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 139.
[31] Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen &
Stephanie Covington, Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and
Guiding Principles for Women Offenders (2003).
[32] Michael Flood, Men, Sex, and
Domestic Violence, 12 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 295 (2006).
[33] Stephen Tomsen, Masculinities,
Crime, and Criminal Justice, in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CRIMINOLOGY (2016).
[34] NGAIRE NAFFINE, FEMINISM AND
CRIMINOLOGY (1997).
[35] JAMES W. MESSERSCHMIDT,
MASCULINITIES AND CRIME (1993).
[36] Flavia Agnes, Dalit Women and
Sexual Violence: Justice Denied, 47 ECON. & POL. WKLY. 12 (2012).
[37] Hilary Allen, Justice Unbalanced:
Gender and the Legal System, 22 BRIT. J. CRIMINOLOGY 40 (1982).
[38] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Identifying
and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and
Domestic Violence (2015).
[39] Carol Smart, FEMINISM AND THE
POWER OF LAW (1989).
[40] Cassia Spohn, Gender and
Sentencing of Drug Offenders, 24 CRIM. JUST. POL’Y REV. 285 (2013).
[41] Ngaire Naffine, FEMINISM AND
CRIMINOLOGY (1997).
[42] Cassia Spohn, Thirty Years of
Sentencing Disparity Research, 3 JUST. Q. 231 (2015).
[43] R. v. Sharma, [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1
(Can.).
[44] Dana M. Britton, Feminism in
Criminology: Engendering the Discipline, 571 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC.
SCI. 57 (2000).
[45] UNODC, Global Study on Homicide
(2023).
[46] Global Justice 50/50 Report,
Gender Justice Policies in International Organizations (2026).
[47] Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT
of Delhi & Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1 (India).
[48] Flavia Agnes, Dalit Women and
Sexual Violence: Justice Denied, 47 ECON. & POL. WKLY. 12 (2012).
[49] Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, No. 56 of 2000, INDIA CODE.
[50] Meda Chesney-Lind, The Female
Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime (1997).
[51] Sneha Priyadarshani & Jyoti
Yadav, Gender and Crime: Exploring Patterns and Implications, IJCRT (2024).
[52] Hilary Allen, Justice Unbalanced:
Gender and the Legal System, 22 BRIT. J. CRIMINOLOGY 40 (1982).
[53] R. v. Sharma, [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1
(Can.).
[54] S. v.
M, 2007 (2) SA 539 (CC) (S. Afr.).
How to Cite This Article
ANUBHUTI DHADHICH, DR NAVNA SINGH, GENDERED PATHWAYS TO CRIME: RETHINKING MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY IN CONTEMPORARY JUSTICE SYSTEMS., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. 4, Issue 1, September 2026, pp. 669-687, DOI Link: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/09.2026-37532681/GENDERED PATHWAYS TO CRIME: RETHINKING MASCULINITY. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/public/details/gendered-pathways-to-crime-rethinking-masculinity-and-femininity-in-contemporary-justice-systems
Author & Publication Record
Authors: ANUBHUTI DHADHICH & DR NAVNA SINGH
Registration ID: 107090 | Published Paper ID: WBL7090 & WBL7091
Year: Sep- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 669-687
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied