Women’s crime non-existent or invisible?

Charles Star Kungwengwe
Do women ever commit crimes? If so, why is female crime viewed as non-existent, neglected or invisible in criminology? To answer these “naughty” questions I will start by defining key terms — patriarchy, female crime, invisible and neglected. I will then explain how patriarchal societies either prevent or mask female crime. This presentation will, in the process, make reference to both the Botswana and Zimbabwean penal codes.

Patriarchal societies, as opposed to matriarchal ones, are those in which men reign supreme and women are treated as if they are outside the bounds of normal society. Societies of this nature emphasise masculinity and are basically macho in character. In societies of this nature women are either non-existent or invisible. A typical example of such a society is the Jewish State in which women are not even counted during the course of a national census and public gatherings (Matthew 14:15ff and Matthew 15:32ff). Various socialising tools are used to subordinate women. Despite some protestations to the contrary, most, if not all societies in the world, are patriarchal save for a few like India, Malawi and Botswana, which passed the Abolition of the Marital Powers Act 34 of December 2004. In the latter countries the scales of power between males and females are evenly balanced. Both sexes are now on an equal footing.

Socialisation is a lifelong process by which the norms and values of the society are inculcated into one from birth to death.

Crime can be loosely defined as a culpable, unlawful conduct by women that violate public interest and are punishable by the State. In non legal terminology it is any act that violates public interests, which the State represents, and is punishable by the State. Author, Elgin F Hunt, defines it as, “an act of an individual which a social group strongly condemns as an act that is injurious to the welfare and safety of a group”.

Hunt, however, forgot to include the punitive element of crime. It appears the legal violations of society’s interests perpetrated by women are trivialised or even ignored by the male dominated societies. To most men, female crime does not even exist at all. We will first look at the non-existence of female crime and the invisible stand.

On one hand, it could be argued that women do not commit crime and the reason lies in the patriarchal nature of our societies. It can be asserted that in societies of this nature, women “do not exist at all”. Having said that, everything associated with them, including crime, is by extension “nonexistent” as well. In similar fashion, it could also be pointed out that women do exist in such societies but are immune from committing crime. Accordingly female crime becomes nonexistent. This is achieved through the socialisation of women.

Through socialisation, a patriarchal society discourages women from committing crimes. In societies of this nature it is considered unwomanly to commit a crime, a domain traditionally associated with men. Women are regarded as out of place in the criminal justice system.

Accordingly ladies have been socialised into believing that they are not supposed to commit crime. Against this background, the ascribed virtues of women are, inter alia, to be meek, angelic, compliant, warm-hearted, gentle, tender, submissive, humble, docile, agreeable, affectionate, naïve and, above all, take delight in being in the bedroom and kitchen for productive purposes. It is not surprising, therefore, that most women shun criminal activities. It is precisely for this same reason that most crimes are or were defined in masculine terms, for example, conmen.

Needless to say, until fairly recently, the definitional elements of rape were gender biased and it was commonly believed that it could only be perpetrated by a man on a woman and not the other way round. Even civil wrongs also have a gender bias, for example, the delict of seduction. It is believed that it is always the man who is predatory while women are animals of prey.

By contrast, men are expected to be macho and demonstrate their machismo by, say, fighting in public or partaking in other such manly activities that tend to land them on the wrong side of the law. Another example is by way of abusing women physically, psychologically or emotionally. While to women it is far from being a praiseworthy title to be labelled a criminal, some men derive a sense of pride out of that label. Whereas it is a form of deviance for women to commit crime it is the norm for men. Indeed there is virtually nothing more pleasing to criminal-minded men than the mere prospect of having their name published in newspapers for having committed a crime. It is, thus, not difficult to understand why the notorious legendary Zimbabwean criminals, Chidhumo and Masendeke, were deified after having committed murder cases but still managed to slip through the fingers of the law, movie style.

On the contrary, most women are not only ashamed of being arrested for committing crime but are unable to do so given their faint-hearted nature.

As already alluded to, the rightful place of women is in the kitchen and the bedroom and this prevents them from participating in a wide range of “outside activities”, which could lead to crime. This also has seen women being mostly excluded from politics, another area considered a traditional domain for men.

An ideal woman is not expected to partake in drug abuse and that vice normally acts as a catalyst to the commission of crime. Some men, on the other hand, take alcohol in order to generate the requisite courage to commit crime (Dutch courage) while to others intoxication can easily cloud their sense of judgment or objectivity to a point where they can easily become a humble slave of their own conscience.

In family situations, women rarely involve themselves in quarrels, fights and other such activities which can be a perfect prescription for crime. It can be argued that women are rarely associated with crime as they are not burdened with the duty of fending for the family. Men, on the other hand, are the breadwinners and are required to perform this mammoth task and if they fail to achieve it through honest ways it will have to be done through foul ways such as theft, robbery and murder.

On the other hand ,it is submitted that women, just like any other mortal beings, are prone to making mistakes and this spans far back into history since biblical times and time immemorial.

In Genesis 39:5ff, for example, we see Potiphar’s wife at pains to sexually force herself onto young Joseph who had immense powers of attraction, but still had had to learn the hard way that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

If they are susceptible to making mistakes or “sinning” the only next logical conclusion that could be drawn is that they are also capable of committing crimes given that crime emanates from people’s “sinful” nature. Saying otherwise amounts to labelling women infallible and that view cannot pass a litmus test. As an illustration of this point, on day to day situations we often witness them fighting over boyfriends.

Worse still, we have a number of women who have transformed their private treasures into commodities (prostitution) and section 82 of the Botswana penal code provides that it is criminal to either deliberately survive on the proceeds of prostitution or solicit for prostitution.

It is probably because of the realisation that everyone, including women, is a potential criminal that our criminal laws have since evolved to also cater for women in the criminal domain. That being the case, most crimes, which were formerly defined in a way that reflects patriarchy, have been redefined such as con-activist, and not conman.

This development also helps to explain why in Botswana the crime of rape can now be committed by both sexes (section 141 of their code). Furthermore, just a casual perusal of two countries’ penal codes betrays the gender neutrality of almost all crimes, for example the crime of incest (Section 168 of the Botswana code) and offences against imbeciles, lunatics, the insane, among others, (Section 148 of the same code) and section 81 (2) of the Zimbabwean code pertaining to soliciting.

If women are capable of committing crime where is the assertion that they are immune from committing crime coming from? From the above observation one can draw the conclusion that women do commit crime but fortunately or unfortunately this frailty is clouded or deliberately neglected by patriarchal societies.

It is ironic, if not paradoxical, that patriarchy is a mechanistic structure which has been imposed on the society by males in order to protect their octopus grip on power yet the same instrument disadvantages them. This disadvantage finds expression in various forms but due to limited time and space this article will focus on pride, sympathy and the negligible nature and frequency of female crimes.

Due to pride, the male dominated societies discourage men from reporting acts of criminality which they have sustained at the hands of female offenders. This is the case with men who have been beaten up by their wives or subjected to sexual abuse by their female bosses. In fact men who are sexually abused by their bosses would actually take such misconduct as a favour.

Because men are too proud to raise such crimes, they consequently go unreported and hence this creates the myth that female crime is nonexistent.

Having said all that, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that women do indeed commit crime but our societies, which are basically patriarchal in nature, strongly protect them. Again terms like nonexistent and invisible are not synonyms. That something is invisible does not mean it is nonexistent but simply that it can hardly be observed or perceivable through the sense of sight.

The writer, Charles Star Kungwengwe is a Law Lecturer At Gaborone University Of Law in Botswana.