Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
The term female criminality refers those kinds of crime which is committed only by
female. It was believed till a few decades ago that crime is predominately a male phenomenon
and the world of crime is only a male phenomenon and the world of crime is only a man’s world.
The subject of female crime was totally neglected. But now a day the subject of female
criminality has come into focus as the rate of female criminality is increasing at an alarming rate.
The women are no longer thinks themselves uncompetitive with men and they are involved with
every activity with men and as a result they are not getting fear to do risky and illegal jobs like
crime. Most often the female are not directly associated to commit these crimes but they are
directed by some situational factor like social and economic cause which influences them to
commit crime.
Page 1 of 37
1.3 Statement of the problem
Most of the people observe the nature and types of female criminality and blame and
react harshly towards the female criminal but it is true that most of them come in the profession
of crime by influencing some factors. The reality is that in most cases women commit crime by
various social and economic factors.
So there is a relation between socio economic factor and female criminality.
Page 2 of 37
Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud theorized that all women experience penis envy and seek to compensate
an inferiority complex by being exhibitionistic and narcissistic, focusing on irrational and trivial
matters instead of being interested in building a just civilization. William I. Thomas (1907)
published Sex and Society in which he argued that men and women possessed essentially
different personality traits. Men were more criminal because of their biologically determined
active natures. Women were more passive and less criminally capable. In The Unadjusted Girl
(1923) he argued that as women have a greater capacity to love than men they suffer more when
they do not receive social approval and affection. The "unadjusted girls" are those who use their
sexuality in a socially unacceptable way to get what they want from life. The female criminal
forgoes the conventional rewards of domesticity by refusing to accept prevailing modes of
sexuality and seeks excitement, wealth, and luxury: a pursuit that may conflict with the interests
of the social group as it also exercises the freedom to pursue similar goals.
A debate in the recent criminology literature has focused on the handling of female
offenders as they are processed through the criminal justice system. There are two competing
perspectives. The chivalry or paternalism hypothesis which echoes the perception of female
inmates as victims, argues that women are treated more leniently than men at various stages of
the male-dominated justice process as a function of the male desire to protect the weaker (Crew:
1991; Erez, 1992). The "evil women" hypothesis which parallels the female inmate as subhuman
perspective holds that women often receive harsher treatment than men in the criminal justice
system and suggests that this different treatment results from the notion that criminal women
have violated not only legal boundaries but also gender role expectations (Chesney-Lind, 1984;
Erez, 1992). Simon (1975) predicted that the criminal justice system would start treating men
and women offenders equally. There is mixed empirical evidence for this emancipation or
liberation thesis, and some would say that absolutely no empirical evidence exists for it and the
notion is discredited (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 2004). Sex differentials in sentencing are subject to
a variety of interpretations, and not all feminists want the criminal justice system to treat women
equally. It seems that women are not committing the "big take" offences like stock fraud and
Page 3 of 37
other white-collar crimes, or bank robberies. Instead, they are admitted to the justice system
charged with committing different crimes. Wundersitz (1988) and Crew (1991) consider the
chivalry and paternalism factors in the process.
Chapman (1980)
Chapman (1980) studied the connection between labor force participation, and revealed
an increase in female criminal activity during times of economic hardship. The smallest increases
in arrests coincided with periods of the greatest increase in economic activity with the most
common offence being that of shop lifting. These findings would seem to support a theory of a
relationship between employment and crime rather than that offered by the 'women's liberation
thesis'. When times are good, the offending woman appears to stabilise rather than escalate. An
absence rather than availability of employment opportunities (liberation thesis) would seem a
more plausible explanation for increases in female crime. Naffine (1987: 99) believes the
criminal woman's motive appears more rational and straight forward than manifesting her
gender-role concerns or seeking to compete with the criminal male.
Page 4 of 37
Blocked Opportunity Theory
Blocked opportunity theory explains that juveniles are pushed into delinquency as a result
of lack of access to opportunities that are legitimate avenues for the realization of a set of success
goals. Thus, thos4e who are denied legitimate achievement of the success goals often turn to
delinquency as a means of reaching desired goals or of striking back at an unfair system
Strain theory (Robert k.Merton, Albert K. Cohen, and Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin – 1938)
Strain Theories are criticized by feminists as betraying a double standard. When male
offenders commit a crime under certain conditions of opportunity blockage, their commission of
crime is somehow seen as a "normal" or functional response. When women commit crime, Strain
Theory views it as some sort of "weakness". Naffine (1987) probably represents the best example
of this critique, but there are other critiques, such as the characterization of females as
"helpmates" or facilitators of crime in the Strain Theories of Albert K. Cohen, and Richard
Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin.
Feminists therefore concluded that the failure of criminology to research the issue of
female criminality fairly either reflected a male-dominated discourse in which men primarily
research male issues, or betrayed the rigidity of male stereotypes which allowed men to justify
their prejudices with pseudoscience.
Economic Theory (Carl Marx (1818-1883), BongerVoltaire Rousseau, Beccaria and Bentham)
The proposition that economic life is fundamental, and, therefore, has the determining
influence upon the social and cultural values is as old as the human civilization itself. This
connotes that economic factors influence the nature and form of all social patterns and controls
all other aspects of human life. Thus criminologists have tried to explained crime in terms of
economic determinism. In the words of Carl Marx (1818-1883) economic conditions determine
the general character of social political and spiritual processes of life and with the change of
foundations, the inter superstructure is also rapidly transformed. Those who support this view
concentrate on the economic aspect of crime and analyses the impact of economic condition on
criminality. There assertion that economic forces have been interacting right from the inception
of the human society has a historical background.
It is well known that in early societies and in early times when the economic resources
were limited struggle for existence and survival for the fittest was the law of nature. There after
as the society advance increase in production yielded surplus as a result of which the system of
barter and exchange originated. Gradually money gained importance in human life so much so
that it has now become the sole determining factor of a person’s social status in modern society.
Aristotle the Greek philosopher commented that crimes are commented not merely fort the seek
of meeting the necessities of life but also for acquiring superfluous things. He believed that
crimes are mostly committed because of the acquisitive tendency of man and his greed for
Page 5 of 37
acquiring surplus wealth. Thinkers like Voltaire Rousseau, Beccaria and Bentham has agreed that
economic structure is one of the causes of criminality.
Economic theory
According to economic theory the rate of crime increases when the economic condition
are low such as poverty, unemployment are greater and crime decreases comparatively when
economic condition if society remains better. So female involves more in criminality when do
not earn their livelihood and get a suitable job
Page 6 of 37
1.8 Conceptual Framework
Conceptualization is the process through which we specify precisely what we will mean
when we will use particular terms.
Female Criminality
Police connection
Dowry
Page 7 of 37
1.9 Hypothesis of the Study
A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a research problem, expressed in the form of a
relation between independent and dependent variables. Hypothesis is tentative answers because
they can be verified only after they have been tested empirically. Now my research hypotheses
are given bellow:-
• Support of family is the cause of involving in criminality
• Defective relation with family is the cause of involving in criminality
Page 8 of 37
CHAPTER 2 - Research Methodology
2.1 Methodology
Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It may be
understood as a science of studying how research is done scientifically. It is necessary for the
researcher to know not only the research methods but also the methodology. The survey method
is used to data collect in our research
2.4 Population
The inter set of relevant units of analysis or data is called population and a sample is a
sub-set of population. The population of our research is the female criminals of Alamdanga thana
of Chuadanga district.
Page 9 of 37
Chapter 3 - Univariate Analysis
Findings: Here results are discussed through the following frequency tables and other statistical
tools. These statistical tools show the clear picture of my research findings. The findings of my
research are given below
Frequencies
Frequency Percent
20-30 8 25.0
30-40 9 28.1
40-50 8 25.0
50-60 6 18.8
60-70 1 3.1
Total 32 100.0
Fig 1: Histogram
10
28%
25% 25%
8
18.8%
6
2
3.1% Std. Dev = 1.16
Mean = 2.5
0 N = 32.00
20-30
1.0 30-40
2.0 40-50
3.0 50-60
4.0 60-70
5.0
age
From the above histogram we find that 28% belong to the age group 30-40, 25% of the
respondent belongs to the age group 20-30, 25% belong to the age group 40-50 19% belong to
the age group 50-60 and 3% belong to the age group 60-70%.
Page 10 of 37
Table-2: Religion
Frequency Percent
Muslim 24 75.0
Hindu 8 25.0
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 75% respondent is Muslim and 25% are Hindu.
Frequency Percent
Nuclear 14 43.8
Joint 9 28.1
Extended 9 28.1
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 44% of the respondent bears nuclear family
28% bear joint family and 28% bear extended family
15
43.8%
14
13
12
11
10
28.1% 28.1%
9
Count
8
Nuclear joint extended
family
From the above frequency table and Bar chart we find that 44% of the respondent bears nuclear
family28% bear joint family and 28% bear extended family.
Page 11 of 37
Table-4: Marital status
Frequency Percent
Married 12 37.5
Unmarried 6 18.8
Separated 7 21.9
Divorced 7 21.9
Total 32 100.0
13
37.5 %
12
11
10
8 21.9 % 21.9 %
7
18.8 %
6
Count
5
married unmarried seperated divorced
Marital status
From the above frequency table and bar chart we it is found that 38% are married 19% are
unmarried 22% are separated and 22 % are divorced.
Table-5: Education
Frequency Percent
Illiterate 12 37.5
Class I-V 10 31.3
Class Vi-Ix 7 21.9
Secondary 3 9.4
Total 32 100.0
Page 12 of 37
Fig 4: Histogram
14
37.5 %
12
31.3 %
10
8
21.9 %
4 9.4 %
0 N = 32.00
S.S.C
0.0 Primary
1.0 Illiterate
2.0 Class3.0vi-ix
illiterate
education
From the above histogram we find that maximum respondents are illiterate and only few have
Passed S.S.C exam.
Table-6: Occupation
Frequency Percent
Housewife 22 68.8
Small
9 28.1
Business
Other 1 3.1
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 69% are housewife 28 % are in small business and
3% do other job.
Page 13 of 37
Table-7: Total family income (monthly)
Frequency Percent
2000-3000 3 9.4
3000-4000 2 6.3
4000-5000 7 21.9
5000-6000 4 12.5
6000-7000 2 6.3
7000-8000 9 28.1
8000-9000 2 6.3
9000-10000 3 9.4
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 8% respondent’s monthly family income is
7000-8000.
Fig 5: histogram
10
28.1 %
8
21.9 %
12.4 %
4
9.4 % 9.4 %
From the above histogram we find that28% respondent’s monthly family income is 7000-8000.
Page 14 of 37
Frequency Percent
2000-3000 3 9.4
3000-4000 4 12.5
4000-5000 3 9.4
5000-6000 6 18.8
6000-7000 3 9.4
7000-8000 8 25.0
8000-9000 3 9.4
9000-10000 2 6.3
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that25% respondent’s total monthly expenditure are
between7000-8000.
Frequency Percent
business 12 37.5
job 6 18.8
farmer 14 43.8
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 38 % respondent’s father occupation is business
19 % are job and 44% are farmer.
Frequency Percent
Housewife 26 81.3
Small Business 3 9.4
Job 3 9.4
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 81% respondent’s mother is housewife 9 % are in
small business and rests are in job.
Page 15 of 37
Frequency Percent
Business 13 40.6
Job 5 15.6
Farmer 8 25.0
Total 26 81.3
Missing System 6 18.8
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 41% respondent’s husband occupation is business
15.6 % are job and 25% are farmer and rest are unmarried.
Frequency Percent
1-4 8 25.0
4-8 17 53.1
8-12 7 21.9
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 53%, respondent bear to the member of 4-8.
Frequency Percent
own
12 37.5
house
rented 20 62.5
Total 32 100.0
own house
37.5%
rented
62.5%
From the above pie chart we find that 37% live in own house and 63% in rented house.
Table-14: stay in family
Page 16 of 37
Frequency Percent
yes 15 46.9
no 17 53.1
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 46% female criminal stay with family and 53% do
not stay with family
20
53.1%
46.9%
18.8%
divorced
9.4% poverty
9.4%
0 Missing
Yes
yes no
stay in family
From the above clustered bar chart we find that 46.9% respondent stay with family and 53.1% do
not stay with family. Among the non staying respondent 18.8% do not stay with family for
separation with husband, 29.4% for divorce, and 9.4% for poverty and the same for getting job
Page 17 of 37
From the above frequency table we find that 17%respondent do not stay with family for getting
job18% for getting job 29% for divorced and 35% for separation.
Frequency Percent
1-2year 4 12.5
2-3year 2 6.3
3-4year 3 9.4
4-5year 3 9.4
5-6year 4 12.5
7-8year 2 6.3
Total 18 56.3
Missing System 14 43.8
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 12.5% respondent’s time of separation or divorce is
one to two year.
Frequency Percent
From the above frequency table we find that maximum female’s cause of divorce is either dowry
or husband’s attitude.
Page 18 of 37
From the above frequency table we find that 20% loose relationship for defective family environment
40% for parent's separation 40% for parental rejection
Frequency Percent
Trafficking 6 18.8
Drug Selling 4 12.5
Theft 5 15.6
Cheating 3 9.4
Prostitution 6 18.8
Worker 8 25.0
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that18.8% of the respondent’s previous job was
Trafficking 12.5% respondent’s previous job was drug selling 15.6% respondents previous job
was theft 18.8% respondent’s previous job was prostitution and 25% was worker
25%
8
7
18.8% 18.8%
6
15.6%
5
12.5%
4
9.4%
Count
2
traf f icking drug selling thef t cheating postitution w orker
Previous job
From the and bar diagram we find that18.8% of the respondent’s previous job was Trafficking
12.5% respondent’s previous job was drug selling 15.6% respondents previous job was theft
18.8% respondent’s previous job was prostitution and 25% was worker.
Page 19 of 37
Table-20: Cause of leaving job
Frequency Percent
Risk 8 25.0
Lack Of Money 11 34.4
Being Abused 7 21.9
Police Harassment 6 18.8
Total 32 100.0
police harrasment
Risk
18.8%
25%
21.9%
being abused
34.4%
lack of money
From the above frequency table and pie chart we find that 25% female left their previous job for
risk 34.4% left their job for lack of money 22% left after being abused 18.8% left after police
harassment.
Page 20 of 37
Table-21: Present job
Frequency Percent
Trafficking 11 34.4
Drug Selling 16 50.0
Theft 2 6.3
Cheating 3 9.4
Total 32 100.0
50%
34.4%
10
9.4%
6.3%
Count
0
trafficking drug selling theft cheating
Present job
From the above frequency table and bar diagram we find that 50% respondent’s present job is
drug selling 34.4% lead trafficking 6.3% lead theft and 9.4% lead cheating
Frequency Percent
0-1year 14 43.8
1-2year 8 25.0
2-3year 6 18.8
3-4year 1 3.1
4-5year 3 9.4
Total 32 100.0
Page 21 of 37
From the above frequency table we find that about 44% respondent involved with present job is
between o to one year 25% between one to two year and only 9.4% involved between four to
five year.
Table-23: Cause of involvement
Frequency Percent
Pressure Of Family 4 12.5
Poverty 15 46.9
Not Getting Other Job 8 25.0
By Cheating 1 3.1
Parental Rejection 4 12.5
Total 32 100.0
12
10
25%
8
6
12.5% 12.5%
4
2 3.1%
Count
0
pressure of family not getting other jo parental rejection
poverty by cheating
Cause of involvment
From the above frequency table and bar diagram we find that 46.5% came into criminality for
pressure of family, 46.5% came for proverty, 25% for not getting other job 3.1% for cheating and
12.5% came after parental rejection
Page 22 of 37
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 25% came into criminality first by family member,
18.8% came by their peers group 46.9% came by relatives and 9.4% by others
Fig 12: Bar Diagram
16 46.9%
14
12
10
25%
8
18.8%
6
4
9.4%
2
Count
0
family member peers relatives others
Frequency Percent
Yes 21 65.6
No 11 34.4
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 66% respondent’s family knows about involving in
criminality and 34% do not any.
Frequency Percent
Yes 18 56.3
No 4 12.5
Total 22 68.8
Missing System 10 31.3
Page 23 of 37
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 81% family has support on criminality and rests do
not have.
Table-27: Involvement of family members
Frequency Percent
Yes 15 46.9
No 17 53.1
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 47% respondent faced police case while doing
criminality and 53% didn’t face.
Frequency Percent
Yes 15 46.9
No 17 53.1
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 47% respondent faced police case while doing
criminality and 53% didn’t face.
Frequency Percent
From the above frequency table we find that 12.5% respondent faced police case for drug selling,
6.3% for theft 18.8% for trafficking and 12.5% for prostitution
Frequency Percent
Yes 22 68.8
Page 24 of 37
No 10 31.3
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 68.8% female criminal have connection with police
and 31.3% have not.
Table-31: Help of police
Frequency Percent
Yes 22 68.8
No 10 31.3
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 68.8% female criminal run their business but the
help of police and 31.3% do not take
Frequency Percent
individually 9 28.1
in group 23 71.9
Total 32 100.0
indiv idually
28.1%
71.9%
in group
Page 25 of 37
From the above pie chart we find that 28.1% run their business individually and 72% in group.
Frequency Percent
12
34.4%
10
8
21.9%
9.5%
2
Count
0
Individually
Missing peers know n person
family member relatives unknow n
Group member
From the above frequency table we find that 21.9% respondent’s group member is his family
member per 12.5% are peers, relatives and known person respectively and 6.3% are unknown.
Page 26 of 37
Table-34: Job mode
Frequency Percent
Daily 10 31.3
Weekly 8 25.0
Monthly 4 12.5
Occasionally 10 31.3
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 31.3% run their job daily 25% run weekly 12.5%
run monthly and 31.3% run occasionally.
Frequency Percent
2000-3000 7 21.9
3000-4000 17 53.1
4000-5000 6 18.8
7000-8000 1 3.1
8000-9000 1 3.1
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 53% respondent’s monthly income is between 3000-
4000 22% earn between 2000-3000 18.8% earn between 4000-5000 monthly.
Page 27 of 37
Table-36: Area of spending money
Frequency Percent
In Family 20 62.5
Only For Myself 12 37.5
Total 32 100.0
37.5%
62.5% in family
From the above pie chart we find that 62.5% spend their money in family and 37.5% spend only
for themselves.
Frequency Percent
0-10% 13 40.6
11-20% 12 37.5
Total 25 78.1
Missing System 7 21.9
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 40.6% spend 0-10% money of their income for
managing police monthly and 37.5% spend 11-20% money of their monthly income
Page 28 of 37
Frequency Percent
Yes 21 65.6
No 11 34.4
Total 32 100.0
From the above frequency table we find that 65.6% have income satisfaction and rest do not
have satisfaction over their monthly income.
Chapter 4 – Bivariate Analysis
Total Family
Total Family
Expenditure(Month
Income(Monthly)
ly)
Pearson Correlation 1 .978(**)
Total Family Income(Monthly) Sig. (2-Tailed) . .000
N 32 32
Pearson Correlation .978(**) 1
Total Family
Sig. (2-Tailed) .000 .
Expenditure(Monthly)
N 32 32
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
From the above correlation we find two variables that are monthly total income and monthly
total expenditure. Here the value of coefficient of correlation is .978 so we can tell that there is a
positive correlation between total monthly family income and total monthly expenditure. So
expenditure varies a little according to the change of expenditure.
4.2 Cross tabulation between Support of family *and Involvement of family members
Support Of Yes 14 4 18
Family No 1 3 4
Total 15 7 22
From the above cross table we find that 22 that means 68.8% respondent’s family have support
on criminality and among them 15 respondent’s family member are involved with criminality so
we can tell that the family in which most members are criminal that family has more support on
involving criminal activities.
4.3 Cross tabulation betweenstay in family and * Reason for not staying
Page 29 of 37
Reason For Not Staying
For Getting Total
Poverty Divorced Separated
Job
Stay In
No 3 3 5 6 17
Family
Total 3 3 5 6 17
From the above cross table we find that 17 respondents do not stay with family and the cause are
mostly for divorce and separation.
Present job
Total
trafficking drug selling theft cheating
Support yes 5 9 2 2 18
of family no 3 1 0 0 4
Total 8 10 2 2 22
From the above cross table so we can tell the female whose family has support on her criminality
that respondent are more involved with criminal activities
4.5 Cross tabulation between Connection with police and * Help of police
Help of police
Total
yes no
Connection yes 22 0 22
with police no 0 10 10
Total 22 10 32
From the above cross table we find that 22 respondents have connection with police and only ten
have not and the respondents who have connection with police all of them get the help of police
in running their criminal activities. So connection with police helps in running criminal activities
Present Job
Total
Trafficking Drug Selling Theft Cheating
Stay In Yes 2 3 1 2 8
Family No 12 7 2 3 24
Total 14 10 3 3 32
From the above cross table we find that twenty four respondents do not stay in family and most
of them are involved with trafficking so we can tell that the respondent’s who do not stay with
family are mostly involved with criminal activities
Page 30 of 37
4.7 Test of Hypothesis 1
Alternative: Family knowing is the cause of involving in criminality
Present Job
Total
Trafficking Drug Selling Theft Cheating
Family Yes 8 8 2 3 21
Knowing No 3 8 0 0 11
Total 11 16 2 3 32
Chi-Square Tests
N Of Valid Cases 32
The Chi-Square Tests is shown between Family knowing and Present job in which
The calculated value=6.112
Here the degrees of freedom is 2
And for 2 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance level the table value is=5.99
Comment
As calculated value>table value
So the null hypothesis is rejected and research hypothesis is accepted so we can tell the female
whose family knows about her criminality are more involved with criminal activities
Page 31 of 37
4.8 Test of Hypothesis 2
Alternative: Defective relation with family is the cause of involving in criminality
Present Job
Total
Trafficking Drug Selling Theft Cheating
Stay In Yes 2 3 1 2 8
Family No 12 7 2 3 24
Total 14 10 3 3 32
Chi-Square Tests
The Chi-Square Tests is shown between stay in family of the respondents and * Present job in
which
The calculated value=18.363
Here the degrees of freedom is 3
And for 3 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance level the table value is=7.815
Comment
As calculated value>table value
18.363>7.81
So the null hypothesis is rejected and research hypothesis is accepted so we can tell the female
who does not stay with family are more involved with criminal activities
Page 32 of 37
Chapter 5 – Concluding Remarks
5.1 Summary
Mainly in my research I tried to show the social and economic cause of involving female in
different criminal activities. Among the social cause I found that mostly family condition,
relationship with family and support of family leads to female in involving criminality. The main
findings are
The female who doesn’t stay with his family are mostly involved with criminality
the family in which most members are criminal that family has more support on
involving female in criminal activities
Good connection with police helps the female criminal in running criminal activities
Poverty, unemployment compels the female in choosing criminal activities
Most divorced and separated female are involved with criminal activities than married
Page 33 of 37
5.2 Limitations
Although I have tried to complete our research very tactfully and responsibly, hence I
have faced some problems which I have indicated as my limitations. These are discussed below:-
1. I have some questions in our questionnaire which most respondents did not agree to
answer. So; it was difficult to take answer.
2. As a new researcher, i have little experience in this field.
3. It is very difficult to communicate with our respondent’s because they live in different
places & they do not have strong communication with each other.
4. The respondents did not give adequate time to fulfill the answer of all questions.
5. The respondents feel fear to provide information
5.3 Conclusion
After completing my research I can now commence that the female are not always
directly responsible for choosing the job of criminality. Rather mostly the socio economic factor
influences them to come in the job of criminality. Though my research was applied over a small
quantity of respondent and in a small area but the findings shows that the social and economic
cause influences more strongly than other variable.
5.4 Recommendation
From my research I suggest some recommendation to lessen the social and economic
cause which tends to involve the female in criminality. These are
The family should always stand behind the women who is in the situation of difficulty
The Government should provide more job opportunities for female
The divorced or separated women should be rehabilitated properly
Page 34 of 37
GLOSSARY:
Bar chart: A graphic device used for displaying nominal or ordinal data.
Histogram: A graphic presentation used to display frequency distributions of interval and ratio
level data.
Pie chart: A graphic presentation used to show differences in frequencies or percentage among
categories of nominal and ordinal variables.
Hypothesis: A tentative answer of the research which state relationship between two variables
Cross tabulation: A table showing the relationship between two or more variables by
presenting all combinations of categories of variables.
Degrees of freedom: A characteristic of the sample statistics that determines the appropriate
sampling distribution
Population: The inter set of relevant units of analysis or data is called population and a sample
is a sub-set of population.
Sample: When the data serving as the basis of generalization is comprised of a subset of
population that subset is called a sample
Page 35 of 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Ahuja Ram (1996), Sociological Criminology, Rajasthan University, New age International (P)
Limited
Monte, Lindsay. and Lewis, Dan. "Sexual Victimization & Female Criminality: An Ethnographic
Exploration of the Link" http://www.allacademic.com
Vito, G. and Holmes, R. (1994). Criminology. Theory, Research and Policy. International
Thomson Publishing, California.
Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Muraskin, R. and Roberts, A. (2002). Visions for Change. Crime and Justice in the Twenty First
Century. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Carlen, P., (1992) ‘Criminal Women and Criminal Justice, the Limits to and the Potential of,
Feminist and Left Realist Perspectives’, in Matthews, R., and Young, J., (eds), Issues in Realist
Criminology. Sage, London.
Blalock, H.M.(1979), Social Statistics, New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc.
Page 36 of 37
Lind Douglas A. (2005), Statistics Technique in Business & Economics, New York: McGraw
Hill Book Co. Inc.
Maxfield, Micheal G. (1995), Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology,
California: Wadsworth publishing Co. Inc.
Nachmias, C. Frankfort & Nachmias, David: Research Methods in social Science, University of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Page 37 of 37