Women in Crime

            The situation for women who are pitted against institutional law (and inadvertently, secular values) is somewhat bleak.  Sometimes, when society has not assumed it’s responsibility for the individual, women live in state of poverty by no personal intention but are stuck by a variety of institutionalized systems of inequality such as planned parenthood, which assumes control of the direction of the welfare applicants life, regardless of it’s affect on the wellbeing of the applicant.  These women in poverty, many of whom are hardworking, hold strong values, love their children and husbands, become criminals in our system sometimes just for accepting the help of welfare and being unable to comply with the requirements.

At other times, when a good job is a long commute (think Maine), and the economy is slow moving with few opportunities, women in poverty turn to drug dealing to put food in their families mouths without being taxed, which is understandable when the other option is seeing your family starve.

            The United States is #1 in the world for producing criminals, where we are 5% of the world population, but we have 25% of the world’s prisoners (Kirk p.444).  Is this because law enforcement is keeping us safer?  Unfortunately it is partly because the definition crimes has been broadened.

            “The dramatic increase in imprisonment of women has been driven primarily by “the war on drugs” and mandatory sentencing for drug offenses…” (Kirk p. 446)

            In 2006, women made up 7.2% of imprisoned humans in America.  29% of women in prison are imprisoned for drug offenses, and 34% were imprisoned for violent crimes.  When women become violent, it is generally in self-defense against abusive spouses and partners.

            In the movie “Sin by Silence,” Brenda Clubine, a woman incarcerated for killing her abusive husband, kept up spirits behind bars by implementing a women’s support group of at least 25 women who were all survivors of abusive husbands that they had killed in self defense.

            It’s not just self defense.  It’s not just that these women are abused.  The abuse is physical, emotional, psychological, and rational.  And only in 1992 was “battered women syndrome” considered admissible evidence in court.  Some women who had dispatched their terrifying and cruel husbands before 1992 were not able to get a proper defense.  Brenda eventually wrote to the governor and got her case appealed.  Other women appealed and were turned down.

            Emotionally this is sacrilege.  These women, who could have been anyone’s sisters or friends, these loving women who spoke most of the time of caring for their children and making sacrifices for the kids, these women are in jail.  Some of them have been in prison for over 25 years.  We removed them from society, but put them under secure circumstances to “rehabilitate them.”  The only good that was done to them was what good they accomplished for themselves by connecting with their feelings and forming a support group. 

It makes me wonder.  What if in our system of law, if a judge meted out a consequence, he was willing to accept the same consequence on himself if he was wrong?  I think our society would be less happy go lucky about handing out punishments and severing women from society if judges were more liable to the wellbeing of those they supposedly incarcerated with the intention of “improving through participation in the justice system.”

Finally, for those women incarcerated, are they treated equally?  Forced to use the “facilities” in front of male guards, dress and undress in cells open to male prison authority’s eyes, not allowed to touch or hug their loved ones, the answer is no.  New York operates a boot camp for women where women are forced to have short hair, are humiliated for disobedience, and emotionally broken in a military style.  Is this equal treatment?  It has been called “equality with a vengeance.” (Kirk p.454)

            What’s the solution?  Incarceration is treating the symptom of the problem of women, poverty, and crime.  Education is the most pro-active approach we have.  Unfortunately, prison budgets are going up and school budgets are going down.  Pat Carlen argued that versus incarceration, women ought to be supervised within their communities, where they can remain connected to their children and families, and continue to feel like a human being (prison is degrading on the self and sense of self).  On top of education, women need therapy!  For the amount of money we spend on the criminal justice system, how about free mental and emotional health care?  Am I being too bold in saying that the best way to address emotional and mental stability is through proven therapeutic practice, not punitive measures?  Are human beings animals, that we learn best by the whip?  No indeed women are thinking, feeling creatures.

            Is a woman a criminal when she kills an abusive husband?  When she steals a loaf of bread, or sells her body?  Crime is situational.  A woman in a tough situation will sometimes commit a crime, even if it’s property theft to make some cash to get groceries or gasoline or propane.  Should we punish a woman for being a criminal?  Or should we address the situation that caused a crime to become necessary for a woman and her family’s survival?  We are faced in our society today with a tough choice:  are women criminals, or people?  Indeed they are people, and deserve to be treated humanely, and imprisonment and separation from society is at it’s least, inhumane.