Women Decision-Making and Responsibility-Taking of Criminal Lifestyle: The Israeli Case

Abstract

This study aims to investigate patterns of decision-making and responsibility-taking as opposed to the compulsion process selection of a criminal lifestyle among women in prison. A life story approach and semi-structured interviews sampling 30 Israeli women in prison during their first imprisonment were used. Using a mixed-method, results revealed that most of the participants claimed full or partial self-responsibility for having engaged in a criminal lifestyle or for the offense of which they had been convicted. This figure was consistent when the participants were divided by age of first offense or a history of abuse. The results support the need for an integrated approach explaining women’s criminal paths, including gender-specific as well as gender-neutral factors. The conclusion is that responsibility-taking for a criminal act should be one of the factors in intervention programs for women with delinquent behavior, regardless of whether there is a history of victimization or not.

Keywords

incarcerated women decision-making criminogenic needs life course abuse

Women comprise about 51% of the world’s population, yet the percentage of women in prison varies worldwide, ranging from 1% to 21% of the entire prison population (Walmsley, 2017). They have lower arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates and lower recidivism rates than do men (Davidson & Chesney-Lind, 2009; Geraghty & Woodhams, 2015). Yet, in recent years, female delinquent behavior, including serious offenses like murder or sexual abuse, as well as economic offenses has increased (Ministry of Justice, 2018; U.S. Sentencing Commission [USSC], 2020).

Most traditional and contemporary approaches to accounts of women’s criminal behavior focus on gender-specific factors or criminogenic needs of incarcerated women, including the history of abuse and victimization, mental problems, or drug abuse (Brennan et al., 2012; DeHart et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2016). These approaches portray women in prison as having no alternative or as having been passively led to commit crimes. A question arises as to whether women’s criminal behavior can be explained solely by viewing them as victims of circumstances? This is in light of the fact that many approaches and studies referred to male criminal behavior as a rational choice and highlights the need to take responsibility to begin rehabilitating processes (Charlopova et al., 2020; Kelly & Ward, 2020).

Despite an increase in studies on these topics among men, there is a noticeable shortage of studies on these topics among women in prison. This study makes a significant contribution to the completion of the existing gap by examining whether and how patterns of choices and taking responsibility for criminal lifestyle decisions of incarcerated women are reflected in their life stories.

Women’s Pathways to Crime: Gender-Specific Approaches

Research on female criminal lifestyles or pathways has grown substantially for the last few decades (Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly, 1992; DeHart, 2018; Flood-Page et al., 2000; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Nuytiens & Christiaens, 2016; Simpson et al., 2016). In just the last two decades, studies on female pathways have focused on two ways of explaining what leads women to embark upon a criminal lifestyle and how to identify the optimal intervention. The first, the gender-specific approach (Caudy et al., 2018; Holtfreter, 2015; Vos et al., 2013), also known as a gender-informed (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Blanchette & Taylor, 2009) or gender-responsive (Bloom et al., 2003) approach, assumes that there are “gendered” pathways through which the unique life experiences of women are linked to criminal behavior. Factors such as mental health, drug abuse, and histories of victimization have been found to be connected to female criminal behavior (Brennan et al., 2012; DeHart et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2016). Studies have generally addressed positivistic elements, such as the age when women begin and end their criminal careers and their history of victimization. One of the first studies in the field of pathways was of Moffitt et al. (1996) who found that there are two onsets to antisocial behavior: childhood and adolescent. Factors for childhood-onset delinquent behavior included dysfunctional families and neurocognitive or behavioral problems and were a source of criminal behavior, especially among men. Adolescent-onset antisocial behavior characterized some male and female delinquent behavior and includes impulsive personality traits, mental health problems, and substance dependence (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001).

Other studies found that women with adolescent-onset criminal behavior have histories of running away from abusive homes, more extensive offending histories, higher drug involvement (use/dealing), a greater variety of types of offenses committed (Daly, 1992; DeHart, 2018; Papalia et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2019; Simpson et al., 2008, 2016), and histories of parental incarceration (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016). These women were usually convicted of drug, violent, or theft-related offenses.

For example, Daly (1992) found five pathways that women in prison had followed, with most of them either having suffered a history of abuse as children or adults or having engaged in drug use and addiction. Richie (1995) found several women’s pathways to crime based on their social marginalization, including factors such as poverty, homelessness, educational and vocational problems, and race and social status. Recent studies show similar findings (Brennan et al., 2012; Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; DeHart, 2018; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Simpson et al., 2008), identifying childhood and adult victimization, mental health problems, and family criminal history as main factors to women’s pathways to crime. However, gender-specific approaches fail to explain criminal behavior among women with no history of abuse or injury. For example, one of the Daly’s (1992) groups, “other women,” had no history of abuse, were neither violent nor addicted to drugs or alcohol, and most held normative, full-time jobs. They committed mainly economic offenses, and their delinquency patterns resembled those of men. Shechory-Bitton et al. (2011) also found that some women in prison show high levels of self-control and low levels of aggression and had not suffered from sexual or physical abuse. Hence, gender-specific factors alone cannot explain female pathways to crime and cannot be an exclusive basis for rehabilitation programs.

Women’s Pathways to Crime: Gender-Neutral Approaches

The gender-neutral approach assumes that the same criminogenic needs lead men and women to adopt a delinquent lifestyle and targeting these in therapy can dramatically reduce the likelihood of recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990, 2006; Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Hollin & Palmer, 2010; Rettinger & Andrews, 2010). Both genders purportedly share the same major risk factors for criminal behavior: antisocial attitudes and beliefs, histories of antisocial behaviors, family criminality, and neglect and abuse, and low levels of educational or financial achievement (Andrews et al., 2006).

For example, women with late-onset, in contrast to adolescent-onset, criminal behavior generally do not have records of adolescent delinquency or suffer from addiction, neglect, or childhood victimization (Kratzer & Hodgins, 1999; Simpson et al., 2008, 2016). These women, usually highly educated, began their delinquent lifestyles when relatively older and were convicted primarily of economic offenses (Daly, 1994; Kruttschnitt & Carbone-Lopez, 2006; Shechory-Bitton et al., 2011). These findings indicate that a history of victimization, drug abuse, or social marginalization need not explain all women’s criminal acts and pathways.

However, critics have noted that the criminogenic needs approach with crime-involved women lacks proper evidence of its validity (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). With some studies showing different criminogenic needs for males and females (Goulette, 2020), others claim that the factors needing attention in interventions for some crimes committed by women remain unclear (Mackay et al., 2018).

Women’s Pathways to Crime: Personal Responsibility-Taking

Personal responsibility-taking is a factor that can predict antisocial behavior and measure the success of rehabilitation for men and women with criminal behavior (Beech & Fordham, 1997; Fortune et al., 2014). A sense of personal responsibility arguably increases the motivation to maintain normative behavior, and individuals who adopt socially approved attitudes and values are less likely to engage in criminality (Sampson & Laub, 2017).

To date, theories and research on rational explanations and personal or mental gains from delinquent behavior have focused mainly on men (Akers, 2017; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Loughran et al., 2011; Tombs & Jagger, 2006), showing low levels of personal responsibility-taking for antisocial behavior. Rather, the subjects transfer responsibility to external causes or deny committing the offense. Although there is some evidence for an association between low levels of responsibility-taking and delinquency among adolescent girls (Gaffney & McFall, 1981; Hipwell et al., 2018), no recent research has examined personal responsibility-taking among women in the criminal justice system.

One of the few studies examining rational choice theory (RCT) across gender groups was that of Neissl et al. (2019). They found that while RCT can consistently, although not identically, explain crime committed by men and women, the perceptions of the rewards of crime for both genders appeared more compelling than the threat of sanctions. Viewing delinquent behavior among women in terms of rational choice is consistent with the findings of some studies published in recent years (Ajzenstadt, 2009; Kruttschnitt & Carbone-Lopez, 2006; Shechory-Bitton et al., 2011) which have indicated that the causes of violence included not only childhood or marital abuse but a wide variety of factors, such as seeking money and respect (Kruttschnitt & Carbone-Lopez, 2006) or power (Chen & Gueta, 2016). These studies represent a new trend in explaining motives and causes of delinquent pathways among women, with an emphasis on women being proactive and rational in their decision to break the law.

The Current Study

The literature review reveals a lack of research on women’s responsibility-taking for criminal lifestyle. Thus, this study seeks to investigate patterns of decision-making and responsibility-taking versus a compulsion process choice of a criminal lifestyle among women in prison through their life stories. Understanding this pattern may help in developing better treatment programs for incarcerated women, based not only on their criminal patterns and sense of victimization but also on their subjective views of their degree of personal responsibility for their criminal lifestyles and the offenses for which they were convicted.

Method

Participants

Israel has only one criminal incarceration facility for women (adults and minors), which is designated as a maximum-security prison, despite housing women of different risk levels (Einat & Chen, 2012). The prison currently houses 270 women: 46% of them under arrest or awaiting trial and 54% convicted. Ethnically, the prison population is 75% Jewish, 17% percent Arab Israeli nationals, and 14% Christian or other religions (Yacimovich-Cohen, 2017). In comparison, the United States has three different kinds of incarceration facilities: local jails, state prisons, and federal prisons. Although the United States has the highest percentage of women in prison out of their total prison population (12.3% women in prison in the United States, compared to 1.3% in Israel; USSC, 2020), there are some sociodemographic similarities between the women in prison in both countries. Women in U.S. state prisons (Carson, 2020; Kajstura, 2019) and women in Israeli prison (Yacimovich-Cohen, 2017) are more likely than men to have been convicted for drug or property offenses, yet violent offenses (e.g., murder, sexual assault, or robbery) are the main offenses for both genders. Women in prison are also older and have shorter sentences than men in prison. Among women in prison in U.S. state prisons, there is a much higher percentage of ethnic minorities (African American and Hispanic) than there is among women in Israeli prison, where most are White and Jewish.

The current research is based on a sample of 30 Israeli women in prison who had been imprisoned for the first time, had been sentenced for various offenses between years 2007 and 2009, and who agreed to participate in the study. After obtaining the permits to conduct the study from the Israeli Prison Service (IPS), the researchers had the IPS officials make a request to the women in prison to participate in the research and obtain their consent. Of the 50 women in prison who originally agreed to participate, only 38 met with the researchers. During the study, four participants were asked to withdraw their consent either due to their unwillingness to expose themselves to a stranger or due to a fear of missing their work hours in the prison. Another four life stories were not analyzed because it was not the women’s first imprisonment.

The decision to use first-time women in prison was based on the assumption, supported by studies, that the number of times one has been incarcerated affects how the individual’s self-perception, as being in prison, leads an individual to become part of a subculture in which norms, values, and delinquent attitudes are adopted (Thomas, 1977; Walters, 2003). To minimize imprisonment’s effect as much as possible, only first-time women in prison were included. Data collection was performed until saturation was reached (Saunders et al., 2014).

Although a small sample can appear to be a disadvantage in quantitative studies, it has been shown to provide a significant advantage in qualitative studies. Crouch and McKenzie (2006) discussed the logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research and argued that using such small samples was the optimal way to conduct analytic, inductive, and exploratory studies. This claim has been supported by other researchers (Guest et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2013). A research review of recent qualitative studies conducted in prisons shows that, in numerous studies, the number of participants is less than 30 (e.g., Duarte & de Carvalho, 2017; Hau & Azad, 2020; Maghsoudi et al., 2018).

The final sample’s demographic characteristics are heterogenic but also resembled general women’s population in Israeli prisons. Table 1 indicates that all participants were adults, 18 to 73 years old (M = 42, SD = 15.12). Most had a minimum of 12 years of education, with 43% of participants holding a college degree. Most of them were divorced (n = 10, 33.5%) or single (n = 9, 30%) and had at least two children (n = 22, M = 2.1, SD = 2.49). The average sentence was approximately 4 years (7 months to 25 years). In addition, more than 45% of the participants did not mention experiencing any type of abuse. The information about abuse came from participants’ self-reports when relating their life stories. Asked to speak freely about their lives during the interview sessions, they voluntarily reported very personal details from their life stories, discussing their difficulties with family members and spouses.

Table 1:

Demographic Characteristics and History of Victimization (N = 30)

Variables	n	%
Place of Birth
Israel	18	60.0
Former USSR	8	26.6
Europe	2	6.7
United States	2	6.7
Criminal history of
Father	4	13.3
Mother	0	0.0
Sibling	2	6.7
Addiction history of
Father	8	26.6
Mother	6	20.0
Sibling	4	13.3
Conviction offense
Drugs	11	36.7
Violence domestic	10	33.3
Violence	4	13.3
Economic	5	6.7
History of victimization
Abuse in childhood	14	43.3
Abuse in adult life	7	30.0
No abuse reports	15	46.7
The type of abuse
Physical	6	42.85
Sexual	7	50.0
Both	2	14.28

Data Collection

Life Story Approach

A narrative interview is an open, in-depth interview during which the participant’s story is revealed. When an individual describes the course of his or her life, a great deal of information emerges, revealing the deep meaning of their life (Bertaux & Kolhi, 1984). The participants were asked to write their life stories and participate in in-depth interviews to relate them. Using this method, the researcher’s influence on the process is minimal, as the participants’ own words create perceptions, without any interference from the researcher during the participant’s spontaneous narration. The instruction to the participants in the present study was, “Please write your life story in any mother tongue or any language that is convenient for you.” After completing this written portion of the study, participants underwent an in-depth interview, during which they were instructed to, “Please tell your life story.”

Semi-Structured Questions

After finishing an in-depth interview, the participants were asked to complete three semi-structured questions. These questions referred to the offenses for which they had been convicted and their levels of responsibility acceptance according to three time frames (Abulafia, 2005, 2008): (a) Present tense reference to the offense: “I committed the offense because. . .”; (b) Retrospective vision of the offense: “Factors that led me to break the law. . .”; (3) Hypothetical statement: “I could have prevented the offense. . .”

Procedure

After obtaining written permission, the first stage of the study was conducted, and each participant was asked to write her life story without any specific guidelines. The writing, lasting approximately half an hour to 1 hr, was written in the participants’ mother tongue, either Hebrew (26 participants), Russian (3 participants), or English (1 participant). The written life stories were translated into English by one of the researchers, whose mother tongue is Russian but who has a high level of English (as does the second researcher).

The second stage included the narrative interview, in which the participants were asked, “Please tell us your life story.” At the end of the interview, they were asked to answer the three semi-structured questions discussed earlier. Finally, each participant was asked to answer a personal information questionnaire. Each interview lasted between 2 and 3 hr.

Using a mixed method of qualitative analysis based on the grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and content analysis (Lieblich et al., 1998), parts of the text were encoded into categories using a comparison of data and identification of common meanings and patterns. Themes were identified by the researchers using holistic coding and focused (categorical) coding (Saldaňa, 2012) until they were confident that saturation had been achieved (Jinks, 2018). This article discusses two of the main themes that arose: first, the participants’ reasons for initially engaging in crime, and second, the specific offense for which they had been convicted. Descriptive statistics were also used as a quantitative research tool to help describe the data more vividly. To maintain authenticity, the participants’ quotes from their life stories are related faithfully, including any grammatical or linguistic mistakes.

Results

Research on pathways to crime indicates three main themes that are connected to female criminal life: (a) the age at which the women first engaged in crime, (b) the type of offense, and (c) whether there is a history of abuse. The life story analysis in the present study discusses the women’s decision-making processes about embarking on a delinquent life course in light of these three themes and in light of their acknowledgment of responsibility for their choices.

Responsibility-Taking and Beginning Age of Delinquency

Life story reports ranged from “taking absolute responsibility for choosing the current course of life” to “not taking responsibility for the delinquent act.” Analyzing participants’ explanations for beginning a criminal lifestyle identified three categories based on the degree of responsibility they took for their acts: personal choice, (i.e., recognizing full or partial responsibility for their course of action); blaming the situation on others, (i.e., taking partial or minimal personal responsibility); and not guilty/not an offender, (i.e., denying any responsibility). In this context, a distinction was found between the 10 interviewees who began their delinquent life course as minors and the 20 interviewees who first broke the law as adults, shedding light on the question of whether the age of the woman in prison’s behavior can be linked to the extent of their responsibility-taking for the offense.

Table 2 shows the differences between women in prison whose criminal lifestyle began as minors and women in prison who committed their first offense as adults. Most in the first group (n = 10) had a history of physical or sexual abuse as children and had been convicted of violent or drug offenses, usually selling and/or distributing. The second group (n = 20) had a very low history of abuse. Most had suffered from domestic spousal abuse or had experienced no abuse at all. They had been convicted of various offenses, including domestic violence and economic offenses. Any drug offenses in this group usually involved smuggling charges.

Table 2:

Age of the First Offense, History of Abuse and Attitude to the Delinquency (N = 30)

Variables	Age of the first offense
	Under 18 (n = 10)	18 and older (n = 20)
	%	%
Conviction offense
Drugs	50.0	30.0
Violence	50.0	25.0
Domestic violence	0.0	25.0
Economic	0.0	25.0
History of abuse	70.0	40.0
Personal choice	28.6	71.4
Blaming the situation or others	66.7	33.3
Not guilty / not offender	0.0	100.0

A chi-square test was performed to examine the relation between the age of the first offense and the woman’s responsibility-taking. The relationship between these variables was significant, χ² (2, N = 30) = 8.143, p = .017. As Table 2 shows, women in prison who began their criminal lifestyle before the age of 18 tended to blame their life situation or others for their acts, while those who began their criminal life at age 18 and older tended to describe their criminal acts as personal choices. Yet there are patterns of personal choice in both groups.

Personal Choice

This refers to engaging in a delinquent lifestyle and participating in criminal acts as a personal choice. Almost half of the participants reported having rationally chosen to break the law, thereby taking full responsibility for their behavior. The main reason given for their offense was wanting to make a lot of money quickly. For example, L., who was convicted of drug trafficking and began her criminal lifestyle as a minor, stated:

I began trading [selling drugs] before I started using it. My first delivery at the age of 16 was from Colombia. I saw that I was able to deliver it, and it “spoke to me” [I liked it]. . .I did it. I know I did. It’s a check I should repay. I’m not innocent at all. Thank goodness I’m only accused of this and not other stuff [smiles].

The participant described herself as proactive and solely responsible for her actions. She chose to break the law for emotional satisfaction and career development. She began her delinquent behavior out of curiosity and for personal pleasure and continued selling drugs to support herself. Similar explanations characterized women in prison who started their delinquent lifestyles as minors. In contrast, participants who broke the law as adults were convicted primarily of financial offenses, claiming that they had chosen to break the law to obtain material objects and wealth, and, mainly, to create an image of themselves as successful and strong women in the eyes of the others. They had built impressive careers, but despite their economic wealth, the fear of losing everything was great, and they felt unsatisfied with their lives. For example, N., 41, a married mother of three, began her criminal life as an adult. Convicted of fraud and theft and sentenced to 5 years in prison, she described her life:

My salary is good, but you start thinking about what else do you need [in life]?. . .I was afraid to look at myself and say I did something wrong. . .Most comfortable in these situations is denial. . . . I had an ordinary life, but I’m a very active person—organizing parties, [in] school, [in] kindergarten too. Challenging [myself] with lots of interests and still bored.

The participant claimed that her desire for economic prosperity and higher social status was stronger and more compelling than recognizing that her actions were prohibited and that she was breaking the law. She also pointed out feeling bored after breaking the law for the first time and not getting caught. It is interesting to note that four of the six interviewees in this category independently stopped their criminal acts on their own initiative, confessing to their actions before getting caught by the police. Stopping their criminal behavior is also an example of their rational thinking and/or control over their actions.

Blaming Their Life Situation and/or Other People

This reaction involves imposing responsibility for the delinquent life course on the situation or other people. Nine (29%) participants reported beginning a delinquent life course due to conditions they had suffered or that they had been forced to break the law unwillingly or beginning their delinquent lifestyle as a result of the influence of others. This category was more common among those who began their criminal life as minor delinquents (66.7%) than among adult delinquents (33.3%).

The participants who began their criminal life as minors claimed that as children, they felt a great sense of deprivation, primarily emotional. Their parents could not give them the warmth, love, support, and encouragement they craved. These participants described growing very lonely. They had all lived in slums and at very young ages had met “bad” company: men using alcohol or drugs. Quickly, they also began doing so. Most of them were sexually abused at an early age, and most took the time to open up and talk about these events. They claimed that they had broken the law under the influence of drugs or alcohol, with most cases ending in murder. For example, J., convicted to 4 years for second-degree murder, explained:

I don’t drink in general, but when I drink, I can’t stop. I chose vodka because it was available. . . Maybe it doesn’t hurt me because he [the victim] was a criminal. Still, I know I’m not God, and I had no right to take his life even though he was rubbish.

J. claimed that she allowed herself to release all her inhibitions and act on her urges only under the influence of alcohol. Nonetheless, she did acknowledge her responsibility for committing the crime and admitted that she alone was responsible for taking a human life. Among “adult delinquents,” the main claim was that their lives with a violent partner had led them to choose a delinquent life course, with all of them having been convicted of violent crimes. Their stories abound with harsh descriptions of abuse by their spouses or partners and the difficulty of leaving because of the children. They also recounted numerous failed attempts to get help from outside parties, such as the police and social agencies. They shifted most of their responsibility to their spouses or partners by describing themselves as normal, claiming that their behavior at the time of the offense was the result of blind reliance on decisions of their spouse or partner, or the result of acting under their influence. For example, M., who had been convicted of child abuse and child endangerment, described her faith in her partner who had claimed to be a very religious and holy man:

It sounds absurd. You believe in that person. . .. I couldn’t move. I prayed that this correction [using violence on the children as punishment] would be over. I thought I’d be with this man until 120 [years-old]. I couldn’t because I was paralyzed.

M. was raised in a very religious lifestyle, where there was no doubting the righteousness of the rabbi. Her partner was, in her eyes, a great religious man. As a result, she had to obey him and not ask questions, even if she felt his behavior was wrong. However, even secular interviewees reported trusting their spouses or partners and underestimated their own responsibility, tending to blame their partner for breaking the law. The participants in this category admitted that they were responsible for their actions, but this acknowledgment of responsibility was partial. In their opinion, most of the responsibility for the criminal acts was attributable to external factors and other people. For example, B., convicted of fraud and sentenced for 4 years in prison, related:

I was dumb for believing him [her son-in-law]. Foolishly, he dealt with my invoices, and used his accountant, and so I was sent here to Neve Tirtza prison. Poor advice, poor financial management, loss of invoices and all that fell on me because the business is mine and in my name.

Not Guilty/Not Offender

Participants in this category did not perceive themselves as delinquents, regardless of whether they took responsibility for the commission of the offense. Eight (27%) described themselves as innocent, normative, and mistakenly imprisoned; all had committed their first offense as adults. For example, H., convicted of infanticide explained:

My child died at birth. I wanted this boy. I love children. I’ve never done anything wrong. Suddenly, I got a letter to come to court. I was accused of child murder and threats. I did not threaten anybody. And that’s it. I was sentenced to 7 years.

Like other participants in this category, H. described the feeling of surprise when she realized that she was on trial and even greater surprise when she was convicted and sentenced to prison. Other participants admitted that an offense had been committed but insisted that it had been by another person who had incriminated them. They described themselves as “not guilty” and felt a sense of injustice and helplessness that had accompanied them since the trial because of their inability to prove their innocence. They took no responsibility for their criminal acts.

In summary, the analysis of these life stories shows that most of the participants (74%) claimed partial or full responsibility for their illegitimate actions. Most (64%) of them started their delinquent lifestyle as adults, 18 years and older. Among participants who had begun a criminal lifestyle at a younger age, the reasons for delinquency were usually expressed in terms of external causes, including a bad company or an unfortunate life situation.

Responsibility-Taking and Type of Offense

Analyzing data from the Israel Prison Service System, the offenses committed by the participants could be classified into four categories: drug offenses (n = 11) such as sale, supply, or possession; violent crimes (n = 10), including first- and second-degree murder or attempted murder; domestic violence (n = 4), including negligent and violent behavior against a minor or murder of a spouse; and economic offenses (n = 5), such as fraud, embezzlement, theft, and robbery. Table 3 shows three categories of responsibility-taking expressed by the women, as detailed in the previous section: personal choice (full responsibility); blaming the situation or others (partial responsibility); and not guilty/not an offender (no responsibility).

Table 3:

Responsibility for Delinquent Life Course by the Offense (N = 30)

Variables	n	%
Drugs
Personal choice	6	54.5
Blaming the situation or others	4	36.4
Not guilty / not offender	1	9.1
Violence
Personal choice	3	30.0
Blaming the situation or others	4	40.0
Not guilty / not offender	3	30.0
Economic
Personal choice	3	60.0
Blaming the situation or others	1	20.0
Not guilty / not offender	1	20.0
Domestic Violence
Personal choice	2	50.0
Blaming the situation or others	1	25.0
Not guilty / not offender	1	25.0

Drug Offenses

More than 50% of the participants convicted of drug offenses claimed full responsibility for their criminal acts and their criminal lifestyle. For example, A., a mother of two girls, had a normal life. After a divorce, her economic situation deteriorated, and she decided to transfer full custody of her daughters to her ex-husband while trying to improve her finances. She was convicted of drug smuggling and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment:

I connected with the wrong people and got a very tempting offer of a very large sum of money. This money could “fix” my life and that of my girls. I tried to take my girls back [get custody]. I had no money, so I found myself in very dark places. . . I was fascinated by the offer, wanting my own house and my girls.].

A. reported that she had engaged in criminal activity twice. The first time she was not paid, and after the second time, she got caught by the police, for which she expressed gratitude. Otherwise, she claimed that she could have gone to “very dark places.”

Violent Offenses

The answers of the participants in this category were inconsistent and were split into the three types of responsibility-taking. Yet we found that the main response of the participants was blaming either the situation or others for their criminal lifestyles. Most had committed offenses under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For example, K. was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison. She admitted being sexually active at a very young age. At the age 14, she was sexually abused several times by boys of her age. She did not describe it as abuse, claiming she had consented to these acts. But afterward, felt very ashamed and never told her parents. She began drinking alcohol to relieve the pain she felt and became increasingly violent toward others. At the age of 25, while working at a club as a security guard, she was drinking when one of the customers assaulted her. She retaliated, hitting him forcefully with a bottle, causing his death. She told us: “People that say, the fact that you are convicted of killing is because of the influence of alcohol; I agree with that. Alcohol opened the door for me to take out my anger.” Throughout the interview, she blamed alcohol for her violent actions, emphasizing that the circumstances would have been different if she hadn’t been drinking.

Economic Offenses

Similar to drug offenses, the majority (60%) of these participants took full responsibility for their criminal acts. Y. had lived a very normal life and worked as a lawyer. Her father experienced financial trouble and she decided to help him by borrowing money from a loan shark at a very high interest rate. When she could not repay the debt, she began stealing money from her clients’ accounts. She was sentenced to 3 years for fraud: “I don’t blame the loan shark for this, only myself . . . In three cases of my clients—I was guilty. To most customers, I returned the money through my ex-husband.” This participant not only took responsibility for her acts but also felt regret. Some of the other economic convicts also tried to compensate their victims.

Domestic Violence

As with the other categories of crime, the majority of those convicted of domestic violence acknowledged full or partial personal responsibility. For example, S. was sentenced to 25 years for conspiracy to commit murder after being accused of planning to kill her husband with her lover. At her trial, S. described the abuses she had suffered for years at the hands of her late husband and claimed she had not known about her lover’s plans for killing her husband. But ultimately, she was convicted of murder:

I was convicted because I was stupid. I was the first suspect because I complained to the police about abuse. So, they [police] thought I had the biggest motive to kill my husband. I knew that J. [the lover] was meeting with my husband and told him that it would end very bad. But he [J.] went anyway. But I concealed it and ended up getting a life sentence as well.

S. cited several reasons for her conviction, blaming her acts on the situation she had gotten caught up in, lying to the police, and the police considering her guilty. Still, she did take responsibility, admitting that her actions might have led her lover to try to hurt her husband. The main finding in this analysis is that across all the offenses, we could observe participants who assumed full or partial responsibility for their criminal acts. The majority of those acknowledging full responsibility were women who committed economic and drug offenses.

Responsibility-Taking and History of Abuse in Three Time Frames

In our previous analysis, we addressed the participants’ criminal lifestyles as reflected in their life story interviews. Here, we present a descriptive analysis using Abulafia’s (2005, 2008) semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews refer to the offenses that the participants had been convicted of, as presented in three different time frames: present tense: “I committed the offense because . . .”; retrospective perspective of the offense: “Factors that led me to break the law . . .”; hypothetical state: “I could have prevented the offense . . .” The range of the answers can be classified into four categories: It depends on me. I could have prevented the criminal act—taking full responsibility; It depends on others. I could have prevented the criminal act if someone had helped me or done something for me first—taking partial responsibility, Deflecting blame. Somebody else did the crime—denying self-responsibility; I am innocent. The offense did not take place at all—denying all responsibility (see Table 4).

Table 4:

Victimization History and Responsibility in Three Time Frames (N = 30)

Variables	Abuse history		No abuse history
Variables	n	%	n	%
Present tense
Depends on me	8	53.3	7	46.7
Depends on others	4	26.7	4	26.7
Deflecting the blame	2	13.3	0	0.0
I am innocent	1	6.7	4	26.7
Hypothetical state
Depends on me	9	60.0	11	73.3
Depends on others	5	33.3	2	13.3
Deflecting the blame	1	6.7	0	0.0
I am innocent	0	0.0	2	13.3
Retrospective perspective
Depends on me	9	60.0	6	40.0
Depends on others	4	26.7	6	40.0
Deflecting the blame	1	6.7	0	0.0
I am innocent	1	6.7	3	20.0

The main finding that emerged was that only those without a history of abuse were consistent in acknowledging their own responsibility across the three different times frames (present, retrospective, and hypothetical). On the contrary, participants without a history of abuse changed their perception of responsibility across the three times frames.

Acknowledging responsibility occurred more frequently when the women responded to the question that was phrased hypothetically than when the offense was referred to in the present or retrospective tense. However, the participants who reported suffering from any kind of abuse did not change their responsibility-taking for the offense regardless of the tense in which the question was framed. More than half of the participants acknowledged full responsibility, conceding that they bore most of the responsibility for their actions. In summary, there was a tendency to take responsibility for the offense, with most participants in this study referring to their delinquency in terms of partial or full self-responsibility.

Discussion

Analyses of participant narratives revealed different pathways to crime among women, the history of victimization, and denying or taking responsibility for their criminal acts. Consistent with previous studies on gender-specific risk factors for female criminal behavior (Gueta & Chen, 2016; Simpson et al., 2016; Trauffer & Widom, 2017), half of the participants reported physical or sexual abuse in childhood or as adults. A gender-neutral approach, although seeing identical criminogenic needs driving women and men to break the law (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Rettinger & Andrews, 2010), also considers abusing as a main factor in criminal behavior. The childhood histories show that, like women, many men with criminal behavior have suffered from physical, sexual, and mental abuse (see Dargis et al., 2016; Miley et al., 2020; Van der Put et al., 2015). Some studies (e.g., Chen & Gueta, 2016; Martin et al., 2008) have found that women in prison have higher rates than men of having suffered emotional and sexual abuse. In other studies, women in prison who reported abuse or maltreatment in childhood had a higher risk of later delinquency, close to that of men, or with no significant differences compared with men (Ryan & Testa, 2005; Watts & Iratzoqui, 2019). With studies indicating that specific types of maltreatment, not gender, shape certain delinquent behaviors, the gender-specific approach alone cannot explain delinquent behavior among all women.

Moreover, some participants with a history of victimization did not stress abuse as their main reason for breaking the law, describing their actions as rational choices based on cost–benefit considerations. This figure was consistent even when classifying the participants by the age of their first offense or the offense they committed. Both gender-specific and gender-neutral approaches emphasize the history of victimization as the main factor or as a criminogenic need leading women to criminal lifestyles (Andrews et al., 2006; Brennan et al., 2012; DeHart et al., 2014). It seems that a history of victimization can be a gender-specific factor for some criminal lifestyles of women as well as a gender-neutral factor, meaning that although these women have experienced victimization, it was not a factor that leads to their criminal behavior. Hence, although gender-specific and gender-natural approaches do reflect women’s victim history and may explain their delinquent behavior, our study’s findings indicate that they cannot be generalized to apply to all women who have suffered abuse.

In addition, these two approaches do not adequately explain criminal behavior among women who had not suffered from abuse or any kind of maltreatment. Most of them had been convicted of economic offenses, claimed to have chosen the delinquent behavior out of financial considerations, and acknowledged full or partial responsibility. Moreover, we found that the degree of personal responsibility-taking for criminal behavior among participants who had not suffered from abuse increased in a hypothetical state but remained low in the retrospective or present tense. In contrast, among women who had suffered abuse, the degree of responsibility-taking remained consistent in all three time frames. We posit that the lack of change in responsibility-taking among participants with a history of abuse was due to self-perceptions as having been passive and as having had a criminal lifestyle forced on them. Therefore, there is no reference to the issue of choice or personal responsibility in their narratives. We assume that responsibility-taking can be a focus for understanding criminal pathways in some women, especially those with no history of abuse.

The results of our research support the need for an integrated approach explaining women’s criminal paths, positing that while certain factors may be gender-specific for female criminal pathways, the same factors can be gender-neutral in others. An integrated approach can not only explain different pathways to criminal lifestyle among women but also help construct diverse treatment programs for women that consider both gender and nongender factors. For example, researchers have found that women with a history of drug abuse or trauma enjoyed positive therapy outcomes after participating in gender-sensitive intervention (Day et al., 2015; Saunders et al., 2014). In contrast, women without these risk factors did not benefit from the same intervention and had a higher risk of recidivism than did women who had suffered abuse (Day et al., 2015). These findings indicate that such interventions may be more beneficial for those with a history of abuse, drug use, or depression, and who perceive their victimization history as a major factor for their behavior, than for women with no such history or women who perceive their criminal acts as rational choices. The latter might benefit from targeted therapy, with responsibility-taking as a basis for change and growth. At the same time, whether responsibility-taking is a factor in explaining female criminal acts as rational choices and its effects on treatment outcomes has not yet been tested.

Moreover, we assume that responsibility-taking for a criminal act should be one of the factors in intervention programs, regardless of whether there is a history of victimization. This assumption is based on clinical and empirical studies of delinquent men focusing on their recognition of their delinquent acts, and on their assumption of personal responsibility as a prerequisite for undergoing a therapeutic process and as a measure of treatment success (Beech & Fordham, 1997; Wright & Schneider, 2017). These studies indicate that a sense of personal responsibility increases the motivation to maintain normative behavior (Sampson & Laub, 2017). Conversely, when an individual’s self-perception is that of victimhood, their sense of personal accountability is diminished. This fosters deviant behavior by reinforcing the person’s sense of inability to change the course of his or her life.

It should be emphasized that we do not ignore that women in prison have experienced different types of victimizations. Instead, we focus on a more integrative approach, highlighting the importance of treating female delinquency electively and not stereotypically. We believe that understanding that female criminality and criminal lifestyles are not driven by either gender-specific or gender-neutral factors but by the integration of both and that accepting responsibility as a basis for their therapy can enable these women, some for the first time, to reclaim a sense of control over their lives. Moreover, being treated as victims can lead women in prison to rationalize their criminal behavior and to refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, although such acknowledgment is critical to the rehabilitation processes.

Study Limitation

This study has several limitations. The first relates to the mixed-method approach, which includes qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics. The descriptive statistics analysis used here indicates patterns, but they are not sufficient to provide significant qualitative insights. The pattern identified here should be further investigated using different quantitative analytic approaches to uncover statistically significant relationships and outcomes.

One of the main inclusion criteria in this study was that participants were in prison for the first time, which significantly limited the number of participants. Moreover, women are a minority of the inmate population, and the one Israeli prison for women holds between 230 and 270 women in prison (both arrested and convicted), further reducing the number of potential participants. As a result, there is only a small representation for each type of offense.

Second, the conclusions of this study are based on the reports of the interviewees and not on an actual examination of their behavior, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. However, qualitative research does not focus on numerical representativity or generalization, but rather on deepening the understanding of a problem, or the subjective point of view of the participants. It enables researchers to obtain insights into what it feels like to be another person and understand the world as others experience it. The findings in this study highlight a decision-making process and patterns of responsibility in criminal lifestyle among women, as explained in their own words. We recommend continuing to examine these patterns in further research focusing on different types of offenses.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Irit Adamchuk

Judith Abulafia

Irit Adamchuk is a PhD student in the Department of Criminology, Bar Ilan University, and a lecturer at the Department of Criminology, Ashkelon Academic College. She is an applied criminologist and a social worker. Her main areas of research are female delinquent behavior, women in prison, rehabilitation processes, and reentry programs assessment for male and female prisoners.

Judith Abulafia is a senior lecturer at the Ashkelon Academic College and senior clinical criminologist working with forensic patients in the Forensic Psychiatry Unit, Be’er Ya’akov Center for Mental Health. Her main areas of research are victimology, construction of identity, risk assessment, sex offender, domestic violence, and gender issues in victims and delinquency.

References

Abulafia

(2005). The social construction of victimization among prisoners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bar Ilan University. (In Hebrew)

Abulafia

(2008). Construction victimization as a tool for risk assessment of sex offenders: Is -it? In Shoham

(Ed.), The supervision of sex offenders in Israel: Punishment versus treatment (pp. 63–90). Perlstein Genosar. (In Hebrew)

Ajzenstadt

(2009). The relative autonomy of women offenders’ decision making. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480609102879

Akers

(2017). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Routledge.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Hoge

R. D.

(1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017001004

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756

Beech

Fordham

A. S.

(1997). Therapeutic climate of sexual offender treatment programs. Sexual Abuse, 9, 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02675066

Bertaux

Kolhi

(1984). The life story approach: A continental view. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.10.080184.001243

Blanchette

Brown

S. L.

(2006). Gender-informed correctional practice: Integrating gender-neutral and gender-specific/responsive paradigms. Women, Girls and Criminal Justice, 7(4), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777

10.

Blanchette

Taylor

(2009). Reintegration of female offenders: Perspectives on what works. Corrections Today, 71(6), 60–63.

11.

Bloom

Owen

B. A.

Covington

(2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/system/files/018017.pdf

12.

Brennan

Breitenbach

Dieterich

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1481–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777

13.

Burgess-Proctor

Huebner

B. M.

Durso

J. M.

(2016). Comparing the effects of maternal and paternal incarceration on adult daughters’ and sons’ criminal justice system involvement: A gendered pathways analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(8), 1034–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816643122

14.

Carson

E. A.

(2020). Prisoners in 2019. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf

15.

Caudy

M. S.

Tillyer

M. S.

Tillyer

(2018). Jail versus probation: A gender-specific test of differential effectiveness and moderators of sanction effects. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4 5(7), 949–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818766375

16.

Charlopova

Andon

Free

(2020). How fraud offenders rationalize financial crime. In Baker

H. K.

Purda-Heeler

Saadi

(Eds.), Corporate fraud exposed (pp. 39–59). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-417-120201004

17.

Chen

Gueta

(2016). Childhood abuse and mental health problems: Does gender matter? Psychiatry, 87, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-015-9371-5

18.

Chesney-Lind

(1989). Girls’ crime and women’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128789035001002

19.

Chesney-Lind

Pasko

(2013). The female offender: Girls, women and crime (3rd ed.). SAGE.

20.

Crouch

McKenzie

(2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584

21.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2(1), 11–52.

22.

Daly

(1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. Yale University Press.

23.

Dargis

Newman

Koenigs

(2016). Clarifying the link between childhood abuse history and psychopathic traits in adult criminal offenders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment, 7(3), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000147

24.

Davidson

Chesney-Lind

(2009). Discounting women: Context matters in risk and need assessment. Critical Criminology, 17, 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-009-9084-x

25.

Day

J. C.

Zahn

M. A.

Tichavsky

L. P.

(2015). What works for whom? The effects of gender responsive programming on girls and boys in secure detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427814538033

26.

DeHart

D. D.

(2018). Women’s pathways to crime: A heuristic typology of offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(10), 1461–1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818782568

27.

DeHart

D. D.

Lynch

Belknap

Dass-Brailsford

Green

(2014). Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313494357

28.

Duarte

de Carvalho

M. J. L.

(2017). Female delinquency in Portugal: What girls have to say about their offending behaviors. Gender Issues, 34(3), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-017-9187-8

29.

Einat

Chen

(2012). Gossip in a maximum-security female prison: An exploratory study. Women and Criminal Justice, 22(2), 108–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.662122

30.

Flood-Page

Campbell

Harrington

Miller

(2000). Youth crime: Findings from the 1998/99, youth lifestyles survey (Home Office Research Study No. 209). Home Office.

31.

Fortune

C. A.

Ward

Polaschek

(2014). The Good Lives Model and therapeutic environments in forensic settings. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 35(3), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/TC-02-2014-0006

32.

Gaffney

L. R.

McFall

R. M.

(1981). A comparison of social skills in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent girls using a behavioral role-playing inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(6), 959–967. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.6.959

33.

Geraghty

K. A.

Woodhams

(2015). The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.002

34.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.

35.

Goulette

(2020). What are the gender differences in risk and needs of males and females sentenced for white-collar crimes? Criminal Justice Studies, 33(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2020.1709951

36.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

37.

Gueta

Chen

(2016). Men and women inmates’ accounts of their pathways to crime: A gender analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(12), 1459–1472. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1189753

38.

Hau

H. G.

Azad

(2020). Swedish adolescent female offenders with limited delinquency: Exploring family-related narratives from a developmental perspective. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00719-8

39.

Hipwell

A. E.

Beeney

Gebreselassie

S. H.

Stalter

M. R.

Ganesh

Keenan

Stepp

S. D.

(2018). Police contacts, arrests and decreasing self-control and personal responsibility among female adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(12), 1252–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12914

40.

Hollin

C. R.

Palmer

E. J.

(2010). Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X57991

41.

Holtfreter

(2015). General theory, gender-specific theory, and white-collar crime. Journal of Financial Crime, 22(4), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2014-0062

42.

Jinks

(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8

43.

Kajstura

(2019). Women’s mass incarceration: The whole pie 2019. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019women.html

44.

Kelly

J. F.

Ward

C. L.

(2020). Narratives of gang disengagement among former gang members in South Africa. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(11), 1509–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820949603

45.

Kratzer

Hodgins

(1999). A typology of offenders: A test of Moffitt’s theory among males and females from childhood to age 30. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 9(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.291

46.

Kruttschnitt

Carbone-Lopez

K. C.

(2006). Moving beyond the stereotypes: Women subjective accounts of their violent crime. Criminology, 44(2), 321–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00051.x

47.

Lieblich

Tuval-Mashiach

Zilber

(1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation (Vol. 47). SAGE.

48.

Loughran

T. A.

Paternoster

Piquero

A. R.

Pogarsky

(2011). On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: Implications for criminal decision-making and deterrence. Criminology, 49(4), 1029–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00251.x

49.

Mackay

Bowen

Walker

O’Doherty

(2018). Risk factors for female perpetrators of intimate partner violence within criminal justice settings: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41, 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.004

50.

Maghsoudi

Anaraki

N. R.

Boostani

(2018). Patriarchy as a contextual and gendered pathway to crime: A qualitative study of Iranian women offenders. Quality and Quantity, 52(1), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0470-2

51.

Marshall

Cardon

Poddar

Fontenot

(2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

52.

Martin

Dell

Davis

Guerrieri

(2008). Profile of incarcerated juveniles: Comparison of male and female offenders. Adolescence, 43(171), 607–622.

53.

Miley

L. N.

Fox

Muniz

C. N.

Perkins

DeLisi

(2020). Does childhood victimization predict specific adolescent offending? An analysis of generality versus specificity in the victim-offender overlap. Child Abuse and Neglect, 101, Article 104328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104328

54.

Ministry of Justice. (2018). Statistics on women and the criminal justice system 2017: A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759770/women-criminal-justice-system-2017..pdf

55.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescent-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579401002097

56.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Dickson

Silva

Stanton

(1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007161

57.

Neissl

Botchkovar

E. V.

Antonaccio

Hughes

L. A.

(2019). Rational choice and the gender gap in crime: Establishing the generality of rational choice theory in Russia and Ukraine. Justice Quarterly, 36(6), 1096–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1543723

58.

Nuytiens

Christiaens

(2016). Female pathways to crime and prison: Challenging the (US) gendered pathways perspective. European Journal of Criminology, 13(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815608879

59.

Papalia

Ogloff

J. R.

Cutajar

Mullen

P. E.

(2018). Child sexual abuse and criminal offending: Gender-specific effects and the role of abuse characteristics and other adverse outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 23(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559518785779

60.

Peterson

DeHart

Wright

(2019). Examining the impact of victimization on girls’ delinquency: A study of direct and indirect effects. International Journal of. Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(11), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16111873

61.

Rettinger

L. J.

Andrews

D. A.

(2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809349438

62.

Richie

(1995). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered, black women. Routledge.

63.

Ryan

J. P.

Testa

M. F.

(2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigating the role of placement and placement instability. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.05.007

64.

Saldaňa

(2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.

65.

Salisbury

Van Voorhis

(2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809334076

66.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2017). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. In McGee

T. R.

Mazerolle

(Eds.), Developmental and life-course criminological theories (pp. 37–74). Routledge.

67.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

Baker

Waterfield

Bartlam

Burroughs

Saxena

Messina

N. P.

Grella

C. E.

(2014). Who benefits from gender-responsive treatment? Accounting for abuse history on longitudinal outcomes for women in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813514405

68.

Scott

C. K.

Grella

C. E.

Dennis

M. L.

Funk

R. R.

(2016). A time-varying model of risk for predicting recidivism among women offenders over 3 years following their release from jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(9), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816632551

69.

Shechory-Bitton

Perry

Addad

(2011). Pathways to women’s crime: Differences among women convicted of drug, violence and fraud offenses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.503721

70.

Simpson

S. S.

Alper

Dugan

Horney

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

(2016). Age-graded pathways into crime: Evidence from a multi-site retrospective study of incarcerated women. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2, 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0042-5

71.

Simpson

S. S.

Yahner

J. L.

Dugan

(2008). Understanding women’s pathways to jail: Analyzing the lives of incarcerated women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.41.1.84

72.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research. SAGE.

73.

Thomas

C. W.

(1977). Theoretical perspectives on prisonization: A comparison of the importation and deprivation models. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68(1), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/1142482

74.

Tombs

Jagger

(2006). Denying responsibility: Sentencers’ accounts of their decisions to imprison. The British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azl002

75.

Trauffer

Widom

C. S.

(2017). Child abuse and neglect and psychiatric disorders in nonviolent and violent female offenders. Violence and Gender, 4(4), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0019

76.

U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2020). Quick facts: Women in the Federal offender population. https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/female-offenders

77.

Van der Put

C. E.

Lanctôt

De Ruiter

Van Vugt

. (2015). Child maltreatment among boy and girl probationers: Does type of maltreatment make a difference in offending behavior and psychosocial problems? Child Abuse and Neglect, 46, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.012

78.

Vos

H. M.

Schellevis

F. G.

van den Berkmortel

van den Heuvel

L. G.

Bor

H. H.

Lagro-Janssen

A. L.

(2013). Does prevention of risk behavior in primary care require a gender-specific approach? A cross-sectional study. Family Practice, 30(2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms064

79.

Walmsley

(2017). World Female Imprisonment List: Women and girls in penal institutions, including pre-trial detainees/remand prisoners (4th ed.). https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_prison_4th_edn_v4_web.pdf

80.

Walters

G. D.

(2003). Changes in criminal thinking and identity in novice and experienced inmates: Prisonization revisited. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(4), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803253137

81.

Watts

S. J.

Iratzoqui

(2019). Gender, child maltreatment, and delinquency. Victims and Offenders, 14(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1557091

82.

Wright

Schneider

S. L.

(2017). Understanding resistance, denial, and responsibility in offender treatment. In Ireland

J. L.

Ireland

C. A.

Fisher

Gredecki

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of forensic psychology in secure settings (pp. 55–68). Routledge.

83.

Yacimovich-Cohen

(2017). Aspects of women’s incarceration in Israel [Submitted to the committee for the advancement of the status of women and for gender equality]. Knesset Research and Information Center. (In Hebrew)