ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH GENERAL STRAIN AND SELF CONTROL THEORIES ACCOUNT FOR SEX AND GENDER CRIMINOLOGICAL CORRELATES

Abstract

Sex and gender are central topics in criminology and criminal justice jurisprudence and have become part of the strongest and enduring areas in criminology. This is made practical by the error of non-inclusion or omission of girls and women, who engaged in crime, at the onset of the discipline, maybe because official statistics showed they had much lower involvement and considered of no consequence. Rather than include them, they were demonized, masculinised, and sexualised prompting feminist criminologists to argue that the problem with mainstream criminology was its failure to appreciate the consequence of sex and gender roles in society and how they have become key forces in shaping crime and social control. However, Agnew’s general strain theory, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi’s self-control theory as well as biosocial perspective, among others have differently explained why males engage in crime more than females. This paper reviews general strain theory, self-control theory, and the biosocial perspective with a view to exploring how convincing they have independently been in explaining the gender gap fully. Finally, it proposes that integrating the nuanced research findings of the innovative and interdisciplinary biosocial perspective into mainstream criminological theories will help produce convincing and enduring explanations of sex and gender criminological correlates. In reviewing these theories, the risk factors such as low self-control, anger, aggressiveness, impulsivity, anxiety, and harsh socialisation will be highlighted. General strain and Self-control theories have been chosen because both strive to discover the role of gender-neutral mechanisms in driving offending.