For centuries, crime was considered a predominantly male phenomenon, and theories of criminal behavior were developed with male offenders in mind. When women did commit crimes, early criminologists often viewed them as anomalies or exceptions rather than part of broader social patterns. Over time, however, the study of female crime has evolved significantly, moving from biological determinism to psychological, sociological, and feminist perspectives. Today, researchers recognize that female criminality is shaped by social and economic conditions, gender inequalities, and past victimization rather than inherent deviance. The recent case of Meerut women murdering her husband must have caught everyone's eye but something which I was observing that how much hate mongering has started infesting among the two sexes namely Men and women where they are almost going at each others throat on social media posts. Looks like people are competing over who had it worst . But here I want to share some criminological theories behind womens involvement in crime because this debate on social media is deeply flawed which doesnt recognizes the complexity of criminal behavior.
Early Biological Theories: Women as “Born Criminals”
One of the earliest and most influential criminologists, Cesare Lombroso, along with William Ferrero, proposed the atavistic theory in their 1895 book The Female Offender. They argued that criminal women were biologically different from non-criminal women, possessing masculine traits that made them prone to deviance. According to Lombroso, female criminals exhibited physical abnormalities—such as prominent cheekbones or excessive hair—that signified their primitiveness. He also claimed that women were naturally deceitful and had underdeveloped maternal instincts, making them dangerous when they turned to crime.
While this theory was groundbreaking for its time, it has since been widely discredited for its lack of scientific evidence and gender bias. Lombroso’s ideas reflected Victorian-era stereotypes that women were either pure and nurturing or corrupt and deviant. Modern forensic psychology has debunked the notion that biological factors alone determine criminal behavior. While some research suggests that hormonal differences, such as fluctuations in testosterone and serotonin levels, may influence aggression, these factors are far from being sole causes of crime (Gao & Raine, 2010). Instead, contemporary criminology recognizes that a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors contribute to female criminality.
Psychological Explanations: Emotional Distress and Crime
In the early 20th century, psychological theories attempted to explain female criminality through internal conflicts and emotional distress. Sigmund Freud (1933) famously suggested that female crime resulted from "penis envy", arguing that women turned to deviant behavior due to feelings of inferiority and frustration over their social position. This theory, however, has been widely criticized as sexist and unscientific, failing to account for the broader social realities influencing women’s behavior.
Today, psychological research links female crime to mental health issues, personality disorders, and trauma. Studies show that many women who engage in crime have histories of domestic violence, childhood abuse, or substance dependence (Hicks et al., 2010). These findings have shifted the focus from blaming women’s inherent psychology to understanding how victimization and emotional distress contribute to crime. As a result, trauma-informed rehabilitation programs have gained traction, emphasizing mental health support and therapeutic interventions for female offenders.
Sociological Theories: Crime as a Response to Inequality
By the mid-20th century, sociological explanations of crime became more dominant. One of the most influential theories was Robert Merton’s Strain Theory (1938), which argued that individuals commit crimes when they lack legitimate means to achieve socially accepted goals, such as financial success or stability. For women, economic disadvantage has been a major driving force behind crimes like fraud, theft, drug offenses, and prostitution.
Building on this idea, Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (1992) expanded the concept to include emotional reactions to strain. His research showed that women, who often experience higher levels of financial stress, intimate partner violence, and caregiving responsibilities, are more likely to commit crimes as a survival strategy rather than out of inherent criminal tendencies. Studies indicate that women facing financial hardship are more likely to engage in low-level property crimes or drug-related offenses as a way to cope with economic instability (Broidy & Agnew, 1997).
The Feminist Critique: Challenging Male-Centered Theories
In the 1970s, feminist criminology emerged as a response to traditional male-centered theories. Early feminist scholars such as Freda Adler (1975) and Rita Simon (1975) proposed the liberation hypothesis, arguing that as women gained more social and economic freedom, they also had greater opportunities to commit crimes. According to Adler, women’s increasing participation in the workforce led to higher involvement in white-collar crimes, while Simon suggested that women’s rising social status would result in an overall increase in female offending rates.
However, later research challenged this idea, showing that the rise in female crime was not due to greater equality, but rather economic marginalization (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Studies found that most female offenders come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and their crimes are often linked to poverty, abusive relationships, or coercion rather than newfound empowerment.
A more critical feminist perspective, developed by Meda Chesney-Lind (1989), argued that female crime should be understood within the context of patriarchal control and gender-based violence. She highlighted how many incarcerated women had experienced domestic violence, sexual abuse, and economic dependence on male partners before turning to crime. Her work emphasized the need for gender-sensitive criminal justice policies, including protections for women who commit crimes in response to abuse.
Modern Perspectives: Life-Course and Pathways Theories
In recent decades, criminologists have focused on developmental pathways to crime, recognizing that women often enter the criminal justice system through distinct life experiences.
- Moffitt’s Dual Taxonomy of Offending (1993) identifies two types of criminals:
- Life-course persistent offenders—those who begin engaging in crime early in life due to neuropsychological deficits or family dysfunction.
- Adolescence-limited offenders—those who engage in temporary delinquency due to peer influence or situational factors.
Research shows that most female offenders fall into the adolescence-limited category, meaning their criminal behavior is often a response to temporary life difficulties rather than a long-term pattern of deviance (Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).
Pathways Theory (Daly, 1992) suggests that women’s involvement in crime is shaped by trauma, abuse, and economic vulnerability. Studies indicate that over 70% of incarcerated women have experienced physical or sexual abuse (DeHart, 2008). Many female offenders were also involved in abusive relationships before engaging in crime, reinforcing the idea that victimization is a major factor in female criminality.
(Hi ! I am Kanishka a Registered Clinical and Forensic Psychologist practicing in India. I provide psychotherapy consultations to clients residing in India and Abroad)
author : Kanishka
Clinical and Forensic Psychologist .