Understanding Female Child Sex Offenders: Perceptions and Responses, Study notes of Law

Download Understanding Female Child Sex Offenders: Perceptions and Responses and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

A critical analysis of the perceptions

of, and responses to, female child sex

offenders

Dissertation by:

Student ID:

Supervisor: Sam Lewis

Word count: 11,

Internal research ethics application form for taught student modules (where University ethical approval is in place for the module) For modules LAW3035 covered by University of Leeds ethical approval reference [AREA 11-019] Student ID Your name Provisional title/ topic area A critical discussion of the perceptions of, and responses to, female child sex offenders Name of dissertation supervisor Sam Lewis Are you planning to conduct fieldwork with (data on) human participants for your dissertation? Enter a tick in the box next to either yes or no below. Yes (This includes online research methods and secondary data analysis). No, I am conducting library based research or content/ media analysis only.

X

If you ticked ‘no’ you do not need to take further action in respect of ethical approval. Please proceed to the declarations on page 8 and 9. If you ticked ‘yes’ you need to complete the rest of this form. You MUST submit your signed ethics form to your supervisor upon their request.

Table of Contents

• Abstract …………………………………………………………………………
  • 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………..
  • 2. The nature and profile of female child sex offenders……………….
  • 3. Media representations of female child sex offenders ...…………....
  • 4. Responses by professionals.....……………………………………….
  • 5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………...
• Bibliography …………………………………………………………………….

Abstract A critical analysis of the perceptions of, and responses to, female child sex offenders This dissertation will challenge the typical perceptions of female child sex offenders and examine the responses made to them by the public, the media, the criminal justice service and by welfare professionals. Unlike previous criminological research that has cast females as invisible, this dissertation has sought to bring women to the forefront. In particular, female child sex offenders have been presented as a sub-group that few want to treat, investigate or acknowledge; one might refer to them as ‘societies last taboo’. Subsequently, this has resulted in narrow representations, which have placed limits on our knowledge and failed to capture the heterogeneous essence of the offending population. Society has relied on populist explanations and stereotypical constructions to form their understandings, largely oblivious to the breadth of female child sex offending that exists. Through analysis of pertinent literature, from early criminology to contemporary research, this dissertation has provided a new perspective through which to examine gender expectations and the impact these can have on criminological representations. Paradoxically, female child sex offenders are a juxtaposition of the feminine ideal and as such have provided a ready field for analysis. Initially, one hypothesised that scholarly reactions would adhere to the Llloydian construct of ‘double deviance’ and would be predominantly negative. Whilst this has been partially evidenced, this dissertation also validates much of Pollak’s ‘chivalry thesis’. Overall, one would ascertain that failure to acknowledge the reality of female sexual abuse has provided a partial and incomplete picture of the true extent of dysfunction.

Introduction The objective of this dissertation is to understand and explain the perceptions of, and responses to, female child sex offenders. The representations of females in mainstream criminology have historically been narrow and monolithic, frequently defining the female criminal through a disproportionate and patriarchal prism. This preponderance echoes back through early Lombrosian theories of deviance and biological pre-dispositions, followed by post-war academic research conducted by eminent criminologists such as Pollak, who contended there was a considerable under-representation of women in official crime statistics. It is implied that much of this retrospective backdrop has contributed to the on-going subjectivity and androcentricity that surrounds female offending and especially female child sex offenders. It is apparent from the research literature that female child sex offenders are an anathema to societal and theoretical expectations, both male and female. This categorisation permeates all strata of society including the public, the media, academia and the criminal justice system. Despite growing interest in the topic and access to wider criminological empiricism, this field continues to be affected by a lack of definitive information and remains in its infantry. This dissertation will firstly focus on the nature and profile of female child sex offenders. Notably, it will outline the main female typologies, the gendered similarities and differences between perpetrators, and the consequences this has for treatment options. Correspondingly, the following two chapters consider the reactions that female child sex offenders provoke. Chapter two

deliberates the power of the media, with a direct emphasis placed on their inflated role as ‘moral guardians’. It analyses the implications of a non- congruence between gender expectations and offender actions, drawing reference to ‘double deviance’ and documenting case studies of Myra Hindley, Vanessa George and Rosemary West. The third chapter concentrates on the influence of the professionals who are involved with the management of female child sex offenders and the possibility of a ‘culture of denial’. It will conclude by examining the consequences of female criminological stereotypes, and what these could mean for the future of child protection.

The nature and profile of female child sex offenders This chapter is predominantly descriptive and outlines the characteristics of female child sex offenders. It will begin by examining the culture of criminology and the impact this has had on the representations of female offenders. Secondly, it will critique theories of biological essentialism and chivalry, in accordance with the official crime statistics. Thirdly, it will review the extent of the child abuse problem and the benefits of having detailed typologies regarding females. Lastly, it will deliberate the gender specific treatment options and the necessity for these. Before considering my area of research in depth, it is crucial to understand the backdrop of criminology. As a discipline, it has repeatedly been referred to as the ‘malestream’ and has been criticised due to its androcentric nature (DeKeseredy and Perry, 2006). This may be because female crime, for all practical purposes, has been monopolised by men; legislators, judges and police men. Likewise, theoretically, there has been an emphasis on male interest, numerically and hierarchally (Heidensohn, 1985). Comparably, the law defers to an objective standard of “the reasonable man”, which despite intending to be ‘ungendered’, is unquestionably enmeshed in masculinity (Naffine, 1987;4). Subsequently, this creates ideals of behaviour that are determined by male mentality and cast women further outside the field of vision. Conclusively, criminology and law are gender blind institutions that relegate women who do come into the equation as aberrant and separate from the human male norm (Naffine, 1987).

Many of the beliefs that society hold about female offenders are rooted in early criminology; despite these first being contended more than one hundred years ago. One of the most infamous explanations for female criminality, or lack of, was suggested by Lombroso and Ferrero in ‘La Donna Delinquente’. This theory conceptualised that women are ruled by their biology, distinct from men who are autonomous (Lloyd, 1995). Placing emphasis on sexual and psychological factors, it was asserted that women’s hormones and reproductive role made them susceptible to emotionality, unreliability, deviousness and could push them towards crime (Heidensohn,1985). Utilising the measurement of skulls, brains and bones, it was ascertained that there were fewer born female criminals. Contrary to this this, women who broached boundaries were regarded as more savage and inclined to cruelty. Deviance was formulated as peculiarly sexual and was deemed mutually exclusive with maternity (Heidensohn, 1985). The female criminal was doubly exceptional, as a woman, and as a criminal, creating a true monster. Contextually, it was during this period that social explanations of criminality began to dominate most of the century (Lombroso et al., 2004). Thus, it is interesting to observe that it was only women’s behaviour that continued to be explained in simple scientific terms, to which there clung odours of witchcraft and demonology (Heidensohn, 1985). With a spurious scientific basis and no systematic enquiry, these perceptions told us little about women and more about male bias.

Another theorist with an insatiable interest in female criminality was Pollak. Through recognition of the ‘tip of the iceberg’ conundrum, Pollak hypothesised that the grandeur of unaccounted for crime was gendered and committed by women. He justified this dually, firstly, through the ‘chivalry thesis’. This theory implied that women are treated more leniently by the criminal justice system and were less likely to be prosecuted. Secondly, that women’s criminality was hidden through ‘masking’, thus escaping the attention of the police and the courts (NORLand and SHOVER, 1977). Subsequently, that the low official rate of female offending distorted the true picture of crime and that if it was represented at its true level, statistics would rise dramatically (Scutt, 1978). Pollak contended that women were addicted to crimes that were easily concealed and could be aided by their containment in the home, such as, child abuse. Similarly, that reporting would falter due to these victims being inherently more vulnerable (Heidensohn, 1985). Poignantly, Pollak sought to expose how women manipulate their maternal role in sexual exploitation. Underlying these assertions was Pollak’s belief that women were more naturally deceitful than men. Whilst women are capable of faking orgasms during sex, men have to become erect and cannot hide failure. Furthermore, women are better equipped to hide the truth and are impelled to do so in a society where the mention of menstruation, menarche and pregnancy are taboo (Heidensohn, 1985). Despite Pollak’s thesis, it is largely uncontentious to assert that women are more law abiding than men (Naffine, 1987). Official statistics illustrate that

male offenders outnumber females in engaging in criminal activities by approximately 5:1. Although, closer ratios have been suggested by unofficial data, criminologists have tended to overlook these (Ogilvie, 1996). To speak broadly, females are the perpetrators of minor crimes; theft, drug abuse and buffer charges. Respectively, women commit few crimes that would pose a societal threat and most are not recidivists (Heidensohn, 1985). These understandings can be used to perpetuate the belief that female offending, as a field, does not require funding or research. This argument lacks validity because it is widely acknowledged that official statistics are unreliable guides, to both male and female crime (Naffine, 1987). This standpoint becomes even more problematised on recognition that child sexual abuse is one of the most insidious and underreported crimes. Hegemonic society has succeeded in constructing ‘women’ as weak and conformist; thus, rendering them irrelevant to a lot of criminological study and instead generalising male results as conclusive to all (DeKeseredy and Perry, 2006). Theorists Daly and Chesney criticised this preponderance in their ‘gender ratio’ theory, articulating the importance of differentiating between male and female offending levels and why these may materialise (Chafetz, 2006). Likewise, sex differences in criminality are so sustained that they should be appraised as one of the most significant features of recorded crime (Heidensohn, 1985), a point that has seemingly been disregarded. The emphasis that studies of deviance have placed on shallow, misconceptualised understandings of gender has produced ‘sex role’ stereotypes, in which particular attributes are more appropriate for one sex than the other (Ogilvie,

1996). This neglects the fact that women have been shown to contribute to all tariffs of crime and demonstrates the lack of logic in suggesting there are ‘sex specific’ crimes. Crime may largely be a masculine activity; however, it is one in which women do participate (Heidensohn, 1985). This chapter will now examine the prevalence and risks of female child sex offending. Child abuse is an endemic problem and has been referred to by ‘Child Line’ as the most frequent problem they incur (Turton, 2010). Child sexual abuse is ambiguous in nature and defined broadly, thus, measurement is problematic and categorisation is difficult (Myers, 2002). Krugman delineated it as the engagement “of a child in sexual activities that the child does not understand, to which the child cannot give informed consent or which violate the social taboos of society” (Hetherton and Beardsall, 1998; 1). Koonin later interpreted it as “the exploitation of a child for the sexual gratification of an adult” (Tsopelas et al., 2012; 305). Variations in definition arise as some exclude non-contact force and single abusive episodes, whilst others alter depending on victim age, age difference, relations and consent (Ford, 2006). Concurrently, child abuse takes place in privacy, hence true prevalence remains unknown (DeKeseredy and Perry, 2006). These complications are heightened due to the freedom that women have with children. Society is more tolerant to the affection of females and allows publicly permissible, unrestricted access to children that may be denied to men, sometimes even fathers (Turton, 2010). Carlson has provided a spectrum to determine child sexual abuse by women, the first is ‘chargeable

offences’; oral sex, intercourse and masturbation. The second is ‘offences’; voyeurism, exposure, and seductive touching. Thirdly, ‘invasions of privacy’; bathing together, washing past reasonable age and asking intrusive questions. Lastly, ‘inappropriate relations’; substituting the child for a partner or using as a confidant for personal or sexual matters (Ford, 2006). The subject of female perpetrators is only recently gaining prominence in academic and social discourse, thus it is relatively new and remains in its infancy (Gannon et al., 2012). It was ascertained by Mayer that as awareness of males who sexually offend grew, the same would concur about women, however this was not the case (Ford, 2006). To many, the possibility of female involvement was ‘taboo’; the depiction of a woman being violent is not palatable and the concept of a female sexual offender is removed from societal sensibility (Duncan, 2010). Correspondingly, one of the most substantial contributions to feminist criminology was the recognition of the effects of sexual abuse on female victims, chiefly by males (Gannon and Cortoni, 2010). Factually, this emphasis has increased the criminological and psychological resistance to the possibility that females could commit these offences, as will be deliberated. The empirical evidence surrounding child sexual abuse does overwhelmingly suggest that it is a male dominated activity, irrespective of the sex of the victim (Cossins, 1999). Grubin’s research asserts that a minute 1% of sexual offences were committed by females. Conversely, Finklehor established that women were responsible for 5% of the abuses against girls and 20% of the

abuses against boys (Ford, 2006). Despite these figures being comparably smaller, one would contend that females still account for a sizeable amount of offences and therefore require clinical attention (Gannon et al., 2012). Notably, statistics cannot be taken as fact and there are great discrepancies which ensue, especially in respect of women. Whilst official data suggests a prevalence of 1.2-8%, self-report studies have illuminated rates of up to 58% of abuse by females (Ford, 2006). What is more, research on female abusers is restricted due to small sample sizes, making generalisation to the larger population difficult (Laws and O'Donohue, 2008). Fewer than twelve studies have used samples of greater than thirty participants; this often leads to precarious results and problematises creating psychological profiles and building treatment options (Vandiver, 2006). At present, there is no well formulated theory of female child sex offenders, but what is apparent, is that like males, females are not a homogenous group. They digress in personalities, offences and victim choices. Grayson and DeLuca established that most of their female perpetrators were in their twenties and thirties, however it is evident that women of any age can and do sexually abuse children. It is probable that sexual abuse by older women is less well recognised, thus skewing the figures (Grayston and De Luca, 1999). Nathan and Ward identified several common predictors; poor education, low socio-economic status, unemployment and a tendency to follow traditional roles. In the same vein, Tardif et al established 2/3 of the females in their sample were living on welfare benefits and experienced a notoriety of social disadvantages that could contribute to their feelings of

powerlessness. This adheres well with Ong’s suggestion that the structural powerlessness of women as mothers in the public sphere may translate into total power in the private sphere (Kemshall and McIvor, 2004). Conversely, it is important to acknowledge that one of the most underreported aspects of child abuse is abuse of children in the upper or middle classes, a finding that could be analogous with professional bias (Ford, 2006). Furthermore, an abundance of female child sex offenders were revealed to have personality disorders, substance abuse issues and difficulties in intimate relationships. Ford contended that when female child sex offenders were not abusing children, the majority showed symptoms of psychological distress; self-harm, depression and anxiety (Ford, 2006). Kaplan and Green reinforced this, stating 71.6% of the women in their study were highly psychiatrically disordered and 43.9% had suicidal ideations. Pertinently, sexual violence has been cited as a potential coping mechanism to avoid negative feelings (Oliver, 2007). Correspondingly, the females in Ford’s study, had an unfavourable sense of self and felt they had little control over their lives. It was commonplace for them to see themselves as more comparable to children, hence believing they could build better relationships with them. Similarly, the isolated nature of these women’s lives was well illustrated, as none of them could name somebody they considered a friend (Ford, 2006). However, Faller has drawn resonance to the fact that women’s sexual abuse is not necessarily part of a psychiatric disorder. He concluded that the women he studied were not generally highly disturbed, nor psychotic when abusing children (Oliver, 2007). Comparably, Matthews identified ‘sexual arousal’ in 11/16 female child

molesters, despite this, the contention of mental illness is prevailing (Shaw, 1999). This can be rationalised through the ‘mad, bad, victim’ dichotomy, as will be discussed in chapter three. To continue, a significant finding throughout the literature was the prominent link with the ‘cycle of abuse theory’. This theory hypothesised that offenders behaviours may stem directly from their histories of childhood maltreatment (Bexson, 2011). Travis et al established that all the women in their sample had suffered physical, sexual or psychological abuse and often a combination of these (Ford, 2006). It is logical to infer that experiences of neglect or abuse may create a perverse blue print, which offenders then re-enact on their own or other peoples’ children (Motz, 2001). Anderson substantiated this, by asserting that the strongest explanation for female sexual offending was the theory of “intergenerational transmission” (Gannon and Cortoni, 2010; 37). The female may employ coercion to regain the sexual control that she was denied as a child. Unquestionably, this does not mean that abuse is inevitable and there are numerous limitations to this hypothesis. Evidence illustrates that girls have much higher victimisation rates than boys, yet commit less sexual offences. If one took the intergenerational abuse hypothesis as gospel, it would be legitimate to expect more girls to grow up to offend (Gannon and Cortoni, 2010). Typologies have been created to assist understanding of the heterogeneities of female abusers; characteristics, life experiences, sexual and criminal histories (Gannon and Cortoni, 2010). Typologies are crucial for theory

development and illuminate demographics that impact offending. This dissertation has chosen to focus on the typologies as constructed by Saradijan and Matthews, as these are most highly regarded by clinicians. One will begin by discussing ‘women who initially abused young children’. Within this typology, the reasons for abuse included; physical gratification, increased power and to bond closely with the child (Saradjian and Hanks, 1996). Faller indicated that this typology could be applicable to single parent families, where mothers use their children as surrogates for partners. This abuse has been regarded as a compound of loneliness and isolation. Additionally, problems connecting with and disciplining their children, has substantiated in female abusers using sexual violence as a means of punishment. This attempt at justification transforms the act, blames and silences the victim, and displaces the responsibility (Ford, 2006). The second typology ‘women who sexually abuse adolescents’, is comparable in scope to Matthew’s ‘teacher/lover’ theory. Thought-provokingly, these female perpetrators are deemed to be motivated by the assurance of support and closeness, rather than sexual desire. It is probable that these women have had a conjunction of poor or non-existent relationships with husbands, families or peers, to which sexual abuse is a resolution (Saradjian and Hanks, 1996). Adolescents are classified as ideal partners because they allow the perpetrator to feel like she is in control. In contradiction to other typologies, the initial sexual encounters are often not pre-meditated, however may later become a result of calculation and planning (Gannon and Cortoni, 2010). Furthermore, victims are frequently elevated to adult status and established

as consensual participants. It is not unheard of for these women to believe the child enjoyed and benefitted from the abuse (Elliott et al., 2010). Matthews reinforced this, affirming that women idealised the relationships and reframed them in the context of loving relationships (Robertiello and Terry, 2007). Elliott contended that whilst these offenders had the most positive backgrounds and skills at their disposal, they regularly saw victim’s stability and sophistication when it was not there and needed to be convinced their behaviour was abusive (Elliott, 1993). The third set of typologies refers to ‘women who are coerced into abuse by men’. These females co-offend sexually, however are deemed to be participating under male influence. Whilst the victims are likely to be actively groomed by the male partners, it could be inferred that the female accomplices have been groomed themselves. One may assert that their initial motivations are directly linked to the motivations of their male partners. Henceforth, these women are regarded as the least responsible for their actions. Typically, they are dependent on others, have low self-esteem and a fear of being alone (Saradjian and Hanks, 1996). They may partake in abuse due to fears that their partner will otherwise leave (Forbes, 1992). These women frequently find it difficult to comprehend that the sexual abuse was morally wrong, as they would do anything to protect their relationship with the male (Peter, 2006). Elliott emphasised this, by suggesting that their infatuations made them susceptible to exceptionally pathological, self- centered and narcissistic traits. Hence, there was a great necessity for them to have long and extensive therapy (Elliott, 1993).

The final ‘pre-disposed’ typology as proposed by Matthews, challenges the common misperception that female abusers are categorically passive, rather than active participants (Robinson, 1998). This typology refers to women who act alone, have histories of victimisation and have deviant sexual fantasies (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007). Frequently, these women have low self-esteem and believe they are bad people. They are depicted as the most aggressive, often acting out of revenge. In cognisance with the cycle of abuse theory, the psychological implications of being a victim of child abuse may lead some women to engage in self-destructive behaviour (Tewksbury, 2004). Sexual abuse provides women with the opportunity to project childhood victimisation onto someone else; it serves to contest childhood trauma with adult triumph and is an act of risk taking. Moreover, Pines follows, when women have children, they can re-create destructive patterns of their own lives. Through the notion of separateness, the needs of the child for welfare and protection are replaced with the perpetrators concerns to be cherished and loved (Motz, 2001). One must recognise the perceived dangers with this typology; perpetrators may report previous abuse to evoke sympathy and more lenient treatment (Bexson, 2011). Additionally, it is necessary to discuss the gendered similarities and differences between child sex offenders, an area which Miller labels ‘inconsistent’ (Miller, 2003 cited in Ford, 2006). Research is considered gender biased; stereotypical beliefs about women dictate that their offences and motivations are different to that of men’s. Or gender blind, in which

researchers disregard the concept of gender and see females as no different from males. Pertinently, these polarised approaches are detrimental for the responses and interventions implemented (Ford, 2006). Genesis II, a treatment agency in Minnesota, determined many similarities and differences between male and female abusers. Similarities included; previous chaotic abusive backgrounds, non-nurturing home lives, feeling that they were of low status and that they did not belong (Patton, 1991). Specifically, evidence illustrates that abusive acts committed by women are not particularly different from abusive acts committed by men, at least in overt behavioural terms. Rudin et al identified no significant divergence in acts committed by lone female perpetrators and male/female co-operations, both were regarded as very severe (Rudin, Zalewski and Bodmer-Turner, 1995). Correspondingly, Saradijan established that the offending process of males and females is akin, in that they use comparable tactics to groom children and set up abusive situations (Saradjian and Hanks, 1996). Despite these affinities, academics have warned of the problems with generalising male and female abusers. Sexual violence is a gendered act; thus, it cannot be assumed that females are simply acting like males or that male norms are applicable. Males and females are distinct and warrant unique explanations (Turton, 2010). Contrastingly, Genesis II contended that female child sex offenders used force to a lesser degree, started abusing later and used less threats (Elliott, 1993). In this sense, their tactics were understood to be more persuasive than physical. This is not to negate from the acceptance that some women use violence to instill fear, obtain power and prevent disclosure (Elliott, 1993).

Sexually, Search observed that women were less prone to requesting that their victims masturbate them. This was inferred to mean that female abusers are interested in more than sexual gratification (Ford, 2006). Furthermore, female abusers are revealed to be more likely to allow others to use children sexually, including supplying children for third-party purposes. One could relate this to the ‘male-coerced’ typology and definitive cases, such as, Vanessa George, who chapter two will discuss. Conclusively, research demonstrates that abuse by women is more likely to involve multiple perpetrators, multiple victims, ritualistic abuse and penetrative acts (Ford, 2006). Therefore, challenging previous ‘caring’ stereotypes. Despite this, it is imperative not to make generalisations about severity; results may be biased due to minor actions being concealed. Subsequently, Allen suggests it is important not to endorse a ‘males do’ and ‘females do not’ dichotomy (Horton, 1990). Kelly stresses this, stating it is problematic for policy makers to assume one gender is more harmful than the other (Turton, 2010). Regarding victims, both males and females are likely to abuse children that are known to them. A significantly shocking finding is that victims of female abusers are usually very young, predominantly below the age of five (Ford, 2006). Moreover, research counteracts myths that female child sex offenders only target males by identifying that women abuse both genders and only held a preference when targeting adolescents. Gender of the victim is noticeably influential when determining reporting bias; male victims are less likely to come forward because of a cultural bias towards women (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007). However, Courtois also ascertained that

female victims are reluctant to report sexual abuse by females, especially in cases of incest, due to shame and stigma. When targeting adolescents, evidence suggests males and females frequently abuse outside of the family, for example, in the teacher-lover typology (Ford, 2006). Elliott contended that victims experienced comparable effects regardless of the gender of the perpetrator; drug abuse, suicide attempts and relationships difficulties. Therefore, reinforcing that female abuse has extensive consequences and should not be pardoned. Lastly, one must contemplate the treatment options for female child sex offenders; which is another area that struggles due to a lack of research. Despite some treatments being equally applicable, it may not always be appropriate to apply male models of offending and treatment to females. Although there are several overt similarities, it is important to think beyond behavioural resemblance and consider underlying dynamics (Ford, 2006). Current research prepositions that female abusers are not monsters, they can change and develop empathy for their victims, thus it is possible for them to lead positive lives (Elliott, 1993). Intervention work needs to identify the internal and external obstacles that prevent women from meeting their fundamental needs and find ways to overcome these, to meet needs in non- abusive ways (Ford, 2006). Treatments included; developing victim empathy, cognitive distortions and sexual arousal (Elliott, 1993). To conclude, this chapter has sought to illustrate women’s role within criminology. Whilst females are considerably law-abiding, there is little

justification for their relegation from research. It is becoming increasingly questioned whether female perpetrated sexual abuse is rare or underreported, and further empirical study is essential for the safeguarding of children. The typologies have provided an ample of new information, however more should be done to challenge existing stereotypes and to improve gender-specific treatment options. The next chapter will scrutinise the institution of the media and acknowledge the important ramifications it has had for the constructions of female child sex offenders.

Media representations of female child sex offenders This chapter considers the power of the media and the authority it has had in socially constructing ideas and determining ‘reality’. Firstly, it will analyse the media news values, and outline how these characteristics impact on the types of crimes that are reported by the press. Secondly, it will examine how men and women are ‘conveniently’ represented in the media, according with gender roles. Thirdly, the case studies of Hindley, George and West will be evaluated. Finally, it will acknowledge the feminist backlash; double deviance and the search for equivalence. It is widely recognised that one of the most pervasive forms of social control is the mass media (Chiotti, 2009). This is largely because media representations create impressions of events rather than providing accurate, objective and factual records (Berrington and Honkatukia, 2002). They cease to be value free, as a series of value judgements have been imposed throughout the process (Pollak and Kubrin, 2011). The events captured become visible only through the reporter’s eyes, thus it is difficult for consumers to separate sacred fact from profane interpretation (Chibnall, 1977). Therefore, the language used is a reflection and a deflection of reality and can be associated with ‘media hegemony’ (Pollack and Kubrin, 2011). This term refers to the dominance of a certain way of life and how this is diffused to the public. When Gramsci coined it, he asserted that media systems privilege the ideologies of the powerful and that the news provided an arena for them to disseminate information to an extensive audience (Pollack and Kubrin, 2011). Individuals often utilise the knowledge they obtain from the media to construct a picture of

the world; in this sense, the media could be responsible for what is considered good or bad, moral or evil (Kellner, 1995; 24). Subsequently, one must recognise the types of crimes that the media report and the respective effects these have on fears of victimisation. Violent and sexual crimes appear the least in official statistics, however are the most heavily covered by newspapers (Galeste, Fradella and Vogel, 2012). These offences dominate two-thirds of crime new stories, but account for less than 10% of the crimes recorded by the police (Pollak and Kubrin, 2011). This phenomenon has been referred to as the ‘law of opposites’, because the crimes, criminals and victims represented in the media are in most respects the polar opposite of the patterns suggested by the official statistics and victim surveys (Stenson and Sullivan, 2006). The ‘law of opposites’ has been rationalised through numerous theories, notably Jewkes’ theory of ‘newsworthiness’. Jewkes ascertained that certain characteristics made some news-stories more enticing than others. To name a few; predictability, risk, sexual aspects and the involvement of children (Jewkes, 2011). Similarly, Chibnall created a criterion for news selection which included; immediacy, drama, personalisation and novelty. Thus, it is conceivable that crime news will always be prime news (Chibnall, 1977). Further, the criterion of ‘negativity’ should be cited. Although a cliche, it is no less true that “bad news sells” (McGregor, 2003; 2).

To continue, this chapter will examine ‘gender roles’ and how these are reflected, or even exaggerated by the media. Definitionally, gender roles are the “socially prescribed rules for being masculine or feminine” (CHIOTTI, 2009; 43). They are ingrained into societal structure, and the media play an invaluable role in reinforcing the acceptable sexual behaviour of men and women (CHIOTTI, 2009; 46). Following this perspective, ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are often misunderstood as mutually exclusive entities, with the terms being used interchangeably. Thus, disregarding that ‘sex’ is biological, whilst ‘gender’ is a social construct. Problematically, these simplistic notions imply that there is an intrinsic link and therefore no other forms of masculinity and femininity can be contemplated. Gender roles portray women as cheerful, gentle and sensitive. Men, comparably, are constructed as leaders, aggressive, assertive and forceful. This would correlate with suggestions that males have been socialised more towards crime and violence (Prentice and Carranza, 2002). Further rationalising why mainstream constructions of masculinity and male offending can be normalised and explained through labels, such as, ‘bad’ (Peter, 2006). Naylor contends that it is the unexpectedness of female offending that causes the public to require an explanation (Gilbert, 2002). Whilst male crime has been “glorified, even fantasised” (Morrissey, 2003; 16), the same has not applied to female offending. Society has consistently denied the rationale between women’s violent actions, as they contradict traditional ideas about nature. Women and violence are correlated so infrequently that it remains private, unrecognised and misunderstood. Butler problematises this