Abstract
The criminological orientation of this work is rooted in feminist criminology. Both Chesney-Lind and Pasko, renowned feminist criminologists, do an exceptional job in providing a combination of qualitative and quantitative data as well as studies to converge on the proverbial “root” or at least the common thread of why young females become delinquent and mature into offending women. It is evident that the goal of the authors is to not simply address why girls become delinquent; the authors solicit readers to examine all aspects of the American Juvenile Justice System of today.
According to the authors, the male oppressive one-size-fits-all style of rehabilitation is applied to both female and male delinquents. In response to this, Chesney-Lind and Pasko strive to emphasize the importance of gender-specific correctional programs in rehabilitative treatment. They also stress the significance of therapeutic counseling approaches that specialize in recreating a damaged and fractured female spirit while meeting the specific and multisystemic needs of female offenders, one female offender at a time. They note that gender-specific correctional programming and a multisystemic approach to rehabilitation (dealing with the holistic needs of female offenders) have proven to have positive long-term outcomes in female corrections, but unfortunately this type of programming approach has been sparse and virtually nonexistent in mainstream rehabilitation.
The book does a thorough enough job in articulating why juvenile and seasoned females offend. The authors indicate that since the beginning of the contemplation of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems, avenues for equality as well as quality long-term rehabilitative measures have been disregarded, overlooked, and understudied in terms of female offending. The perspectives of why females offend include a combination of sexism, poverty, abuse, oppression, and utter disregard in conjunction with an inability to process and cope with oppressive sexual abuse. Delinquent acts and offenses are manipulated into coping strategies in dealing with previous abuse, strain, and stress. Coping strategies such as running away and drug abuse are criminalized behaviors; hence, the female overrepresentation in the justice system is the result.
Moreover, the book provides an extensive and detailed historical perspective of the evolution of the female offender. It describes how adolescent females had many difficulties during the immature years of the Juvenile Justice System in America; generally, females were expected to be subservient in every role created for them, be it a daughter, sister, mother, or wife; at any time, should a female stray from that constructed norm, oppressive, and corrective measures were put in place that ultimately criminalized any behavior that did not foster patriarch societal values. Actions such as fornication before marriage were seen as obscene and criminal, regardless of whether it was in response to previous sexual abuse or simple adolescent curiosity. The offenses of adolescent females were manipulated into overused status offenses that attempted to suppress and extinguish juvenile liberty and curiosity, especially pertaining to sexualized behavior. According to the text, the primary idea sensationalized at the time was that a promiscuous girl was America’s worst nightmare and it was the mission of the Juvenile Justice System to suppress promiscuity by any means necessary; historically, female criminal behavior was socially constructed to limit Jezebel type behavior and parental defiance. Ultimately, this act of suppression by the government in loco parentis as well as the criminalization of coping behaviors is the declared reason for the influx of female status offenders in terms of running away and female adult offenders in terms of robbery, gang activity, and violent activity.
Chesney-Lind and Pasko cited a study that mentioned “All the girls in gangs tended to come from a more troubled background than those of boys; significant problems with sexual victimization haunt girls but not boys (in this context)” (p. 47). According to Chesney-Lind and Pasko, access to quality rehabilitative services is and has always been exclusive to certain classes and demographics; this essentially diminishes the opportunity for uneducated, poor, minority females to reap the benefits of effective services and obliterates the notion of experiencing a real chance to reconstruct a criminalistic lifestyle. The authors interestingly demonstrated this point by emphasizing that the notable War on Drugs of the late 80s and early 90s was fundamentally a War on Women of Color (p. 139). The plight for females of color in accord with the American Justice System is continuous with the same sequential outcomes of poverty, victimization, and marginalization. The authors indicate that women, especially women of color, are expected to ascertain some way to cope and surpass marginalizing issues of systematic oppression and abuse within legal parameters and without access to the proper community, educational, and family services to be successful. This breeds a bleak outlook for future generations, and often engenders a revolving door for generations of future offending offspring (p. 139). Low-income, uneducated, and marginalized African American girls often find themselves in a Catch 22, and they are consequently the target group that fills prisons and delinquent facilities across America.
The authors attempt to appeal to readers’ empathetic side. The overall mode of the book is to challenge readers to expound their understanding of why females offend; by understanding the why, an effective plan that gets to the root of the matter as well as long-term life reconstruction and rehabilitation can be assembled. The book emphasizes that money is being wasted on programs that lack the follow through of effective evaluation and ultimately do not meet the multisystemic and holistic needs of female offenders. The empirical points and data supporting this declaration seem convincing. They strengthen the authors’ efforts at laying the foundation for an effective female gender-specific correctional plan nationwide for the future. More attention could have been given to special needs of females, as there are virtually no studies on this population of women in regard to special needs and correctional rehabilitation methods. Attempting to include all types of females (special needs, etc.) would only improve the validity of forming the empathetic gender-specific correctional plan for female offenders for future success.