Abstract
Within international discourse, female motivations for crime have received relatively little attention when compared to male offenders. Feminist contributions have shed light on this underresearched area with the majority of studies being conducted in the developed world. Using a sample of inmates convicted for drug smuggling on the island of Barbados, this article seeks to provide culturally specific data on the subject. Using a qualitative methodology, the study finds that in keeping with feminist research in the field, the motivations of the women were dominated by various forms of victimization that accounted for their present incarceration.
Keywords
Introduction
Until relatively recently, criminologists have based their theories almost exclusively on the offending or victimization of men with women receiving very little attention. Research conducted has typically focused on variations in crime rates and patterns of offending (Adler, 1975; Canter, 1982; Steffensmeier, Zhong, Ackerman, Schwartz, & Agha, 2006). Female motivations have typically been either completely ignored, or explored against the background of traditional views on the nature and roles of women.
Work on women and crime in Caribbean is particularly sparse, a result, no doubt of the small number of women convicted for crimes in the region. In Jamaica for example, women average approximately 8% of the total prison population (Clarke & Henry-Lee, 2005). Though reliable statistics on female crime are not easy to obtain, it is safe to assume that women commit considerably fewer crimes than men. There is evidence to suggest however that female involvement in crime is on the rise. Reports from Britain in the last few years animated the issue because of the increase in the proportion of women prisoners in British jails who were from the Caribbean, specifically Jamaica (Ford, 2003a, 2003b). Most (96%) were imprisoned for drug offences. They were typically poor, single mothers from deprived urban and rural communities, the majority having no previous criminal record or knowledge of the consequences (Ford, 2003a). Observers believe them to be prime targets for male drug dealers who exploited their poverty and their fear of the consequences of noncompliance (Editorial, 2002).
There is evidence to suggest however, that like elsewhere, Caribbean women commit crimes for a variety of reasons. Difficult life circumstances such as poverty account for one in a complex network of possible motivations that vary according to offender, and the type of crime. There have been, a number of high profile cases of criminality in the Caribbean involving female offenders from middle/upper class backgrounds employed in stable professions suggesting that poverty is not always a motivating factor. In 2006 for example, a female flight attendant working for the then, Air Jamaica Airlines pleaded guilty and was jailed for 7 years for conspiracy to import drugs into the United Kingdom (Greene, 2006).
Despite these examples however, researchers have typically assumed that the average female criminal engages in such activity because of difficult life circumstances. Female lawbreakers are viewed by Caribbean society not as criminals, but as mothers who are struggling. Central to this perception has been the construction and maintenance of traditional gender roles within the Caribbean. Several researchers have commented on the fact that women in the Caribbean are still seen by men primarily as nurturers and caregivers (Barrow, 1986; Dann, 1987). Bailey, Branche, McGarritty, and Stuart (1998) found that the young children in their study in Jamaica, Barbados and Dominica, saw the family in similar terms. Where men and women lived in a conjugal relationship, young children expected men to be the primary worker and assume the role of principal breadwinner and there was a tendency to accentuate men’s economic contribution to the home. They described women’s primary role in terms of their maternal functions and children expected that their mothers would give the demands of their family priority. Where crime is concerned therefore, the assumption is that women offend in order to feed themselves and their children while men make the rational choice as a result of self-serving motivations such as greed and empowerment.
In reality however, there is a need to critique these simplistic linear representations of male and female criminality within the Caribbean context in order to understand the dynamic and complex nature of offending. There is little empirical evidence to do this however. This is an exploratory paper which seeks to provide insight into this underresearched area within the Caribbean context.
Gendered Motivations
Work on the gendered motivations for crime began unsurprisingly, with biological explanations aimed at explaining deviant behavior. The positivist writings of Cesare Lombroso focused on the physical and psychological characteristics of offenders while ignoring the effects of socialization. Whereas male criminals, it was argued, could be identified through a variety of physical abnormalities such as an extra toe or nipple, female criminals tended not to have such characteristics and as such could not be seen as authentic criminals. Females committed crimes only occasionally and did so as a result of petty emotions such as revenge or jealousy (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1958; Konopka, 1966), or in the case of prostitution—a “search for love” (Thomas, 1923). Alternatively, researchers analyzed female offenders on the basis of the manner in which they deviated from normal, accepted female stereotypes, and for this reason, they were often viewed as worse than male criminals (Freud, 1933).
Neglect of Women in the Literature
For most of the early 20th century, research on crime centered almost exclusively on men both as victims and offenders (Smart, 1976; Spender, 1981). So much so that sociological theory on the subject was referred to as “a sociology for the boys.” Crime has been viewed, for the most part, through the eyes of men, with women’s involvement in crime relatively ignored (Messerschmidt, 1993; Naffine, 1996). In addition to the relatively small number of females convicted of crimes at every level when compared to males (Britton, 2000; Loeber & Farrington, 2000), explanations advanced for this historical neglect included the notion that prison authorities were more likely to restrict research on female offenders than male, and that women were simply been deemed “insignificant” within the criminal arena when compared to the male offender (Rasche, 1975).
The 1940s saw the emergence of a number of groundbreaking criminological theories the majority of which failed to address female participation in any meaningful manner. These new theories represented a timely departure from those using biological determinism to explain crime and instead focused on structural factors such as poverty. The work of the Chicago School is particularly instructive here. Merton (1968) argued that while all members of the society had the same values and goals, opportunities to realize these goals were not equal. Rules were therefore abandoned, resulting in a situation of anomie or normlessness, and producing strain or pressure on individuals to respond. Merton argued that this strain was primarily economic and appeared to apply only to men. Cohen (1955) applied the strain theory specifically to adolescent working-class males. Frustrated by their lack of success, these men rejected the goals of mainstream society, in favour of a delinquent subculture where a high value was placed on success in breaking the law. Cohen like Merton however, paid very little attention to female crime. Delinquency among women was limited to that of sexual promiscuity and was in direct opposition of that of men, who were the “rational doers and achievers” (Naffine, 1987).
Other efforts at explaining criminality sought to move beyond the notion that economic hardship was the primary motivation to offend. Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory for example argued that criminal behavior was learned and as a result was heavily linked to one’s peer group association (Sutherland, 1939). Sutherland however, despite claims of a “gender-neutral” approach, gave very little attention to female offending (Naffine, 1987). Subsequent theories followed a similar pattern (Becker, 1963; Hirschi, 1969).
Early Attention
Heidensohn (1968) lamented this extreme dearth of knowledge relating to female deviance and led calls for an urgent shift in attention, in order to reduce the empirical imbalance. Klein (1973) and Smart (1976) echoed this call in the belief that previous explanations for female crime were inadequate and that serious consideration for economic and other social explanations was essential (Klein, 1973; Smart, 1976).
In contrast to the work of Klein and Smart, Adler (1975) argued for the development of a “new” type of female criminal. She felt that women were beginning to assimilate male social roles in all aspects of their lives including the carrying out of both legitimate and illegitimate activity. Adler’s “Women’s Liberation Hypothesis” linked this emerging female offender to the women’s liberation movement as women were striving for greater inclusion in occupations and activities normally reserved for men, including criminal activity. Though this theory was unique in that it ascribed considerable agency to the actions of women, it was however widely criticized on the basis of a number of perceived faulty assumptions as well as a lack of empirical basis for the conclusions drawn (Feinman, 1986; Leonard, 1982; Morris, 1987). Others felt that such views represented a form of “moral panic” (Smart, 1976). Indeed Chesney-Lind opined that it was
. . . another in a century long series of symbolic attempts to keep women subordinate to men by threatening those who aspire for equality with the images of the witch, the bitch, and the whore. (Chesney-Lind, 1980, p. 29)
Victimization of the Female Offender
The apparent reluctance among many, to attribute any meaningful agency to the actions of women has continued to characterize depictions of female law-breaking (Anglin, Hser, & McGlonthlin, 1987; Covington, 1985; Pettiway, 1987; Steffensmeier, 1983). While male criminals have commonly been depicted as cunning strategists, researchers argued that women are driven to crime because of issues relating to their psyche or through victimization (Klein & Kreis, 1976).
Work in the area of shoplifting has provided a useful illustration of the contrasting manner in which researchers have handled the motivations of male and female perpetrators have been handled within the literature. Researchers in a number of countries explored the association between masculinity and criminality. Some argued that men stole items that were of no particular use to them since stealing was manifestation of a desire to display masculinity (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Such crimes served to increase masculine capital within an environment that glorified toughness (Alder & Polk, 1996; Hochstetler & Copes, 2003; Katz, 2000; Messerschmidt, 1993; Mullins, 2006; Oliver, 1994; Winlow, 2001). Men they argued, used crime, and in particular, street crime, in order to enhance their manhood among their peers on the streets. By contrast, explanations for female shoplifting in large part centered around their psychiatric characteristics or necessity, based on financial hardships (Allen, 1987; Heidensohn, 1994). In general, the literature has portrayed women as passive actors, or victims of relationships, social structures and other outside influences (Maher, 1997), acting primarily with limited agency.
Feminist and profeminist explanations for female criminality have tended focus on the role of victimization in women’s journey toward crime, thus supporting the lack of agency among female lawbreakers (Chesney-Lind & Rodriguez, 1983; Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1992; Maher, 1997; Miller, 1986). Women’s involvement in crime has been linked to a number of difficult life circumstances such as childhood and adult abuse, poverty, neglect and drug use/addiction (Chesney-Lind, 2002; Girshick, 1999; Widom, 2000). Richie (1996) used the theory of gender entrapment to explain what happened to women who were marginalized in the public sphere. Gender entrapment referred to the manner in which culturally expected gender roles, intimate partner violence and their social position, forced women into criminal activity. This phenomenon, Richie argued, developed out of the structure and function of women’s households, their cultural frame of reference, and the ways that their families were influenced by the dominant social order. She argued that the “chaos” in many women’s lives that resulted from the actions of intimate partners, was exacerbated by poverty, which limited responses, and increased feelings of loyalty towards male partners. Poverty increased feelings of shame and stigma, which in turn increased the impact of social marginalization. The result was, in many instances, a transition to criminal activity (Richie, 1996).
Research in the field of drug smuggling has supported the idea of victimization and other difficult life circumstances propelling poor women into criminal activity. Though Caribbean data is extremely sparse, BBC (2003) reported that for many Caribbean women faced with conditions of poverty, the financial rewards of a potentially successful trip to the metropole, were too great to ignore. Many were aware of what they were carrying but cited the strain of supporting a family as the main reason for taking the chance. One informant explained
You could face the fact of being in prison—but then again, having four kids, working day and night, you’re a mother on your own, you haven’t got any father, . . . . Basically you just need a change—not only for yourself but for your kids. (BBC, 2003)
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation (2003) highlighted the declining economic situation and high levels of poverty as being critical in explaining the large numbers of Jamaican women who became drug couriers. Many of these women came from a background of extreme poverty and used the money earned from trafficking to escape these desperate conditions.
Another form of victimization cited for the involvement of women in drug smuggling is coercion at the hands of male spouses or lovers (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2003). Research involving female prisoners in Norway, many of whom are Caribbean nationals, has provided support for this view advocating the importance of acknowledging women as the victims in the trafficking of drugs since their circumstances rendered them vulnerable to the exploitation of male protagonists (Huling, 1995). Green (1998) also found that 27% of her sample of Nigerian female prisoners in London claimed that they had been tricked in some way, into transporting drugs to England. This study highlighted two main ways in which women unknowingly became involved. Some were told that they were hiding commercial goods simply as a means of escaping the payment of taxes while others were given packages or presents that they were told would be collected by friends or relatives. Researchers also found that some women participated as a result of threats to their lives or those of their loved ones (Abernethy & Hammond, 1992).
These representations have been criticized on the grounds that they appeared to assume that victimization and or dependence were exclusive to women. Women were victimized, while men were only too capable of committing crime through their own agency (Daly, 1993). It is important to recognize the problematic nature of such linear representations of both male and female offending. Indeed Davies (1999) felt that such explanations for female criminality though important, did not fully explain women’s involvement in crime since some women did in fact commit crimes simply for economic gain rather than due to need or coercion. She opined that if such explanations of greed and economic gain had been sufficient to explain male criminality for years, then they should have been applicable to female criminality as well. Allen (1987) argued that the direct link between victimization/dependence and crime represented a considerable stumbling block for feminist discourse as there was a tendency to demonstrate an adamant belief in a direct link. Maher (1997) called for a need to move beyond these models of victimization in order to truly understand the complex factors involved in women’s crime.
Poverty and Inequality in the Caribbean
The notion of desperation due to financial hardships among female lawbreakers is a plausible one within the Caribbean context when one considers the economic realities of the region. The experience of Caribbean countries has historically been one of poverty and an unequal distribution of income. Despite improvements in unemployment rates, and overall living standards in most countries, poverty and inequality remain major challenges for development within the region (Thomas & Wint, 2002).
Today, rates of poverty within the Caribbean region generally remain high. Data suggests that within the Eastern Caribbean for example, the incidence of poverty is particularly high in countries such as St Kitts, Nevis, St Lucia, and Grenada (Downes, 2010). Rates of poverty do vary considerably among countries throughout the region however. Haiti for example has the highest rate of poverty in the Caribbean with seven out of every ten persons estimated to be living in poverty. By contrast, it is estimated that only one out of every eight persons in Barbados is living in below the poverty line (Puryear & Malloy-Jewers, 2009).
Particularly disturbing are the high levels of inequality experienced within the region. Recent government policies, such as structural adjustment programs and free market models have been instrumental in increasing levels of inequality to a considerable degree (Leighton, 2012). Large-scale unemployment, growth of the informal economy and low wages are only some of the negative effects. Added to this are concerns relating to the recent economic crisis. Countries such as Jamaica that are heavily dependent on tourism are facing an extremely difficult situation (Weisbrot, 2011). Despite recent decreases, inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean as a region remains the largest in the world (Cornia, 2010).
The link between gender and poverty is now well established in the literature (CARICOM/UNIFEM Caribbean Office, 2003; Ehrenpreis, 2008). Women in the Caribbean suffer from unequal access to resources both in the home and in the wider society and are characterized by higher rates of unemployment than males, as well as greater difficulties in entering the labor force (Trotz, 2004). The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 1975 stipulates that women receive equal pay as men for similar jobs. This law has however proved ineffective (Collinder, 2009) and this, together with the sexual division of labor, and occupational sex segregation ensure that the gap between the salaries of men and women remains entrenched (Elliott, 2006). The global economic crisis has meant that greater numbers of women are in search of work in order to support their families. Though research on the effects of declining labor markets on women is relatively sparse, evidence suggests that women are even more severely impacted than their male counterparts with a large proportion experiencing profound economic oppression (Acker, 1988; Goldberg & Kremen, 1990; Sudburry, 2005). These factors therefore render women in the Caribbean particularly vulnerable to poverty.
Drug Smuggling in the Caribbean
The location of the Caribbean has made it one of the world’s major drug transshipment points as it is situated between South America—the world’s largest producer of cocaine, and its main markets in the United States of America and Europe. Geographical location is only one of the factors explaining the importance of this type of activity. The inability of Caribbean governments to secure the long stretches of coastline and surrounding territorial waters and the inadequacies of the criminal justice system are also explanatory variables (UNODC; World Bank, 2007). This association with the drug trade has, in many ways, shaped the criminal landscape of the Caribbean. It is associated with sharp increases in violent crime and with crimes such as money laundering and the corruption of local officials (UNODC; World Bank, 2007).
The two substances that are trafficked within the Caribbean are cocaine and marijuana, one produced outside the region and the other within. The islands in the Leeward group of the Netherland Antilles, a few miles off the South American coast, have a favorable location to serve as an entrepot for cocaine from South America. There is also a political association and regular transport links with one of the major distribution centers in Europe—the Netherlands. The islands, both in the Leeward and Windward groups, experienced a dramatic increase in cocaine seizures between 2001 and 2004 with 60% of all Caribbean cocaine seizures taking place in these islands in 2004 (UNODC; World Bank, 2007). Countries such as Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago are also major entry and exit points, with cocaine seizures showing a dramatic rise in Trinidad since 2003. Recently, the traffic in the region has been declining with tougher law enforcement and a diversion to Central America and West Africa. Jamaica is the largest producer of marijuana in the region. Exports here, too, appear to be in decline because of changes in market demand in receiving countries as well as more effective law enforcement in the Caribbean.
The majority of those incarcerated within the Caribbean for drug crimes are couriers, rather than major players within the narcotics trade. Otherwise known as “mules,” they tend to swallow pellets of drugs before boarding flights for various destinations. Other methods include, hiding drugs in suitcases, soles of shoes, handles of suitcases and sewing into seams of trousers (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2003). Large numbers of drug mules are apprehended at destinations such as Grantley Adams International Airport in Barbados with considerable regularity. On August 4th 2011, the Royal Barbados Police force detained twenty persons arriving on a flight from Jamaica. Of this 20, 10 were arrested after X-rays confirmed they had swallowed various quantities of drugs. A spokesman for the Police Force indicated that they remain “quite concerned about the influx of non-nationals attempting to bring illegal drugs into the country by any means” (Jamaica Observer, 2011).
Method
Consistent with the underpinnings of feminist methodology, this study was designed to understand the motivations for law-breaking specifically among females (Belknap, 2007). Given the relatively new nature of research into women and crime, it is common for feminist research to be exploratory in nature. As such, rather than the use of quantitative techniques preferred for the determination of rates and relationships between variables, it was important that data be collected through an analysis of the voices of this underresearched group (Belknap, 2007).
Participants
Her Majesty’s Prison in Barbados is the main facility for the incarceration of offenders on the island and the only facility in which female offenders are held. Table 1 shows the number of female inmates incarcerated for major offences up to July 2008 when the participants were selected. The largest single number of inmates was incarcerated for drug crimes with almost the entire female prison population falling into this category. It was this peculiarity that informed the decision to focus on this form of criminal activity and as such, only females incarcerated for this offence were included. Overall, drug crimes accounted for 76% of women incarcerated for major crimes in Barbados. Though this percentage is relatively high, research elsewhere suggests that this figure is somewhat in keeping with general trends. In 2004 for example, drug crimes accounted for the largest proportion (47%) of women incarcerated for major crimes in Trinidad and Tobago (NDC/Triidad & Tobago Prison Service, 2005). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, despite a lower overall percentage, in 2011 drug crimes accounted for the second highest proportion (18%) of incarcerated women, surpassed only by assault (26%; Ministry of Justice, 2012).
Incarcerations for Major Offences up to July, 2008.
Participants were drawn from an inmate list consisting of female prisoners that would be incarcerated up until at least March 2010. A 54% random sample of this population was taken revealing a final selection of 12 participants.
Research Instrument
The study employed an exclusively qualitative methodology 1 in which a semistructured interview was designed specifically for this study. The decision to utilize semistructured as opposed to in-depth or life-history interviews was determined primarily by the fact that the use of tape recorders was strictly prohibited by prison administration in Barbados and attempts to obtain special permission were unsuccessful. In addition, prison administration placed restrictions on the length of time that each interview could take. As a result of these factors, it was felt that the semistructured format would be the most suitable. The interview schedule was guided by the following research questions:
Research question 1: What factors in both childhood and adulthood may have influenced the offender’s participation in the trafficking of drugs?
Research question 2: What is the prevalence of these factors across the sample interviewed?
The interview was divided into four main sections: (1) childhood experiences; (2) adult experiences; (3) crime; and (4) abuse. Section one asked questions relating to the living conditions and family composition of the inmates household as a child. Section two asked questions relating to present living conditions and employment, as well as adult social relations. Section three asked questions relating to past criminal activity as well as the circumstances surrounding the inmate’s present incarceration. The final section solicited information on past abuse suffered by the inmate. In keeping with feminist methodology (Belknap, 2007), effort was made to ensure that sensitive questions were structured in such a way as to limit the risk of offence.
Access to Inmates
Permission was obtained from the Superintendent of Prisons through the Ministry of National Security. Confidentiality and the voluntary nature of participation in the survey were stressed, and no prisoner declined to take part. Interviews were conducted in November 2009, and January 2010. Each cell-block consisted of a “sitting area” surrounded by cells. During the interview periods all inmates were placed in their cells and selected respondents summoned to the sitting area for the duration of the interview. In this way, prison guards could observe from their block tower, while at the same time remain far enough to ensure the confidentiality of the process. Each interview took an average of one hour and was conducted by a trained moderator and note taker.
Data Analysis
Quality assurance checks were employed to ensure accurate reading of the data collected. A standardized protocol was developed by way of a written list of issues to be covered in each interview. In addition, a manual for data collection was developed and consulted before each research day to ensure that the moderator followed the same pattern and research techniques for each interview. Since prison policy prevented the use of a tape recorder, a number of steps were taken in order to preserve the integrity of the words of the participants. The note-taker was asked to capture verbatim accounts of the discussion and to record nonverbal activity. Communication cues were developed between the moderator and note taker such that the moderator would know when to employ techniques in order to slow down the interview, or ask the participant to repeat or rephrase what was said. Notes were reviewed immediately following each interview and any gaps in the discussion filled in. Finally, full transcripts were produced by the note-taker as soon as possible with the assistance of the moderator. Before analysis the data was examined and new themes added to the existing themes that were decided upon before commencing the study. Coding took place during the analysis and sections of the data given labels. Extensive discussions with the note taker followed, to ensure a consensus on the findings, interpretation and conclusions.
Background of the Participants
There were 12 participants selected for interviews. The participants were aged between 15 and 35 years of age. Only one participant was a Barbadian national while the majority came from Jamaica and Guyana. Other nationalities included St Lucia and St Vincent. Participants were typically raised in female-headed single-parent homes and the majority had children. Education levels were typically low with the majority only having completed primary school only. The length of sentences of the participants ranged between 1 and 4 years with the majority serving 2 years. None of the participants had ever been incarcerated in the past.
Discussion
Difficult Life Circumstances
Poverty
In keeping with feminist research, (Chesney-Lind, 2002; Girshick, 1999; Richie, 1996) participants typically appeared to suffer from a variety of difficult life circumstances. Poverty was one of the main themes to emerge from the interviews and the primary motivation cited by the women for the crime leading to their present incarceration. Indeed, the majority of the women involved in the study appeared to have been raised in families that occupied marginal positions in society. When they were asked to describe their living conditions as children, most described the desperate conditions under which they spent their youths. They described poor communities beset by a variety of incivilities indicative of neighborhood decay. Many were raised in distressed, female-headed single-parent households without access to basic amenities such as running water. Jennifer, a 30-year-old Jamaican mother of six explained
We were supported by Grandma. Families (in the community) had to fend for themselves. Those of us in the lane had a hard time. Some children were not able to go to school. . . There were a lot of board [wooden] houses, few concrete. Many house abandoned. . . We never had water and had to use a pit toilet outside. Grandma made drops, grata cake, peppermint and would sell it on the street when the buses came by. We often didn’t have any money to pay rent.
Such conditions were indicative of the childhood experiences of the majority of the participants. Angela, a 21-year-old Jamaican mother of two described similarly difficult circumstances
Life was hard. We lived only with our mother. Father was not around. Me, my mother, my sister and my brother lived in a one-bedroom house. When I was 9 we moved but the conditions were the same. It was difficult for us to survive. Mom had two jobs, washing for people, and working at a factory. Sometimes we didn’t have food to eat. Most days I had no breakfast. Children at school had lunch. I didn’t. No books, shoes. . .
Though conditions had improved for some over time, generally, these conditions appeared to continue into adulthood with the majority of participants still navigating extremely difficult financial conditions immediately prior tt her incarceration. The poor living conditions of many of the women were exacerbated by the fact that, in the absence of a male partner, they had the sole responsibility for providing for the physical and emotional needs of their children. UNICEF (2002) reported that up to 59% of all children in the Caribbean are brought up in single-parent, female-headed households. In Jamaica, these households have been found to be larger on average than those headed by men, since they are more likely to contain children (UNICEF, 2005). Similar results have been reported in St Lucia and Haiti (St. Bernard, 2003). These women are the breadwinners, and given the problems they encounter in receiving support for children from their fathers (Caribean Net News, 2005), many are forced to provide both day-to-day care and financial support for their families on their own. The difficulties many of the women faced as a result of caring for children were evident from the discussions. Latisha, a 38-year-old inmate from Guyana lamented
At the time I had two children. Had my first at age fifteen when I was living with my mom. I had a steady boyfriend then and he used to help out with money and stuff but he died in a robbery. Both of those children were his. Then when I was 18 I went to French Guyana to live with my aunt. She depended on government money to help her out. I now have four kids and live on my own.
Arnold (1995) noted that poverty places women at particularly high risk, in large part due to their role as caregiver. Family obligations and economic need often affect the abilities of young girls to concentrate on studying or to attend school altogether for example. In time these girls often drop out of school and enter life on the streets. 32-year-old Bridgette from Jamaica explained
I dropped out of school in 3rd form because financially I couldn’t afford to go to school as well as taking care of a child. Now I have nothing. I should have gone back to live at home so they could help me raise the child and I could get a job, but going back home after leaving is very hard. My daughter is 16 now and I cannot assist her because I didn’t get an education.
These conditions characterized the experiences of the majority of participants.
Childhood and adult abuse
Widom (2000) stressed the importance of recognizing the role of childhood and adult physical and sexual abuse in the future offending of women. The victimization experienced by females often led to delinquency as a means of escaping their abusive environment. As a result, abused females were nearly twice as likely to be arrested as juveniles and twice as likely to be arrested in adulthood. Though stories of abuse were not widespread among the narratives of the participants in the present study, there were examples of extreme physical and sexual abuse, which further compounded the difficult circumstances under which some of the women lived. Angela described the regular sexual abuse that characterized her childhood:
I had to sleep on the ground most nights. There were four in the bed—my mother, brother, sister, and my mother’s boyfriend. He used to come down off the bed and abuse me every night. I told my mother and she never believed me. She loved him more than me. He would come on the ground and force my feet open every night. She never woke up. First time was when I was nine. It continued until I was twelve. . .mostly every night. I locked it in. I was shame. I didn’t want anyone to know. Never told anyone else. I told my mother the second night it happened. She threw hot porridge on me. I felt like I was not human.
There is no escaping the traumatizing effects of rape for women. The reaction to the victimization however varies widely depending on the support mechanisms at the victim’s disposal. For some such as Angela, the response of others can exacerbate the trauma of the actual victimization. Angela was victimized first by her mother’s boyfriend, and then again at the hands of her mother making her living situation at home untenable.
Simone, a 32-year-old inmate from Jamaica described her experience with physical abuse as a child:
. . .we (family) didn’t all get along. My relationship with my mother was ok but when she remarried things changed. I didn’t get along with my stepfather. I hated him. He did not look out for me as a daughter He used to beat me a lot and he did not beat his own children like that. He used to beat me with a hose and curse at me a lot. I had to go to the doctor for it. My mother allowed it
Simone interpreted the actions of her stepfather as the manifestation of a lack of love and respect when compared to his feelings for his own children. Simone’s diminished self-worth was in keeping with that felt by Angela as a result of her own victimization at home. Both had reached out to their mothers for protection, with no success. For these women therefore, the home was not a place of safety, but the location of trauma, and one which necessitated escape.
Some of the participants indicated that violence was also a normal part of their adult relationships. Though in some cases not one-sided, participants described being hit and pushed regularly by their male partner with few women however, referring to these occurrences as abusive. There were however, instances of extreme violence that appeared to characterize the lives of a very small number of participants. The case of Latisha was particularly disturbing:
My husband was physically abusive. He cut me up with a knife multiple times. Right now I cannot open my left hand fully because of a slash he gave me. There’s also a large scar running from my elbow up my left arm. I feel like being buried alive when I think about it. He is a demon. He made life a prison for me. The worst thing he did to me was to take a concrete block and throw it at my head. I went to buy a bicycle for my kids when he attacked me. I told him I didn’t want him anymore and he picked up the brick and hit me. I was unconscious for a day. I was in hospital for nine days.
Richie (1996) explained that violent assaults, in these environments were routine and tended to increase in severity over time. She argued that scars such as those suffered by Latisha served as constant reminders of their traumatic experiences. The loss of dignity that accompanies such abuse was evident from Latisha’s testimony. Women such as these, oppressed by poverty and, in a few cases abuse, are forced to employ a number of coping mechanisms to ensure their survival and that of their children. Clarke (2002) found that the survival mechanisms of domestic workers—one of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in Jamaica ranged from legitimate to illegal methods including trading in seasonal fruits, rearing and selling small animal stock and vegetables, eating less, as well as stealing from their employers. Indeed as stated earlier, Richie’s theory of gender entrapment emphasized the role of poverty and abuse in limiting responses among women and leading to illegitimate activity (Richie, 1996). With little education and skill, these women resort to activities such as prostitution, stripping, stealing, or drugs (Arnold, 1995).
The participants in the present study explained how financial pressures and child rearing had combined to influence their decisions. They appeared to view their involvement in criminal activity as a necessity, given their financial obligations, and the absence of alternatives. Research elsewhere suggested that crime was often seen by women as a form of work, carried out as a result of this necessity (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Gilfus, 1992). Brenda, a 28-year-old inmate from Guyana explained
When I was 18 I decided to get married to Richard. My daddy gave me my things—passport, ID and said I was on my own. I went to live with Richard. In 2008 he was murdered and I went to live in an apartment on my own. I started working part time at Subway. Things weren’t going well for me and my children. I couldn’t pay the rent. Things were hard. I told this girl at work about my situation and she told me she could help me out if I wanted to make quick money. She told me about the drugs. At the time I was told I had to move out of the apartment because I couldn’t pay rent. I needed the money quick. I didn’t even think about getting caught. She said it would be USD $6,000. I didn’t think about getting caught . . . only about the money and the children.
The experience of Angela too is instructive:
I had my first child when I was 15. The father was worthless and didn’t want to work. I dropped out of school when I was 16 and started to strip and stuff. I got JA $600 a night. Had to do it every night just to survive. My children give me the strength to move. I had to take care of them
The case of Latisha illustrates the overlapping nature of victimization and participation in criminal behavior:
He (husband) was so abusive I just wanted to earn some money to be able to survive on my own and move out. I started selling panties and brassiers. My aunt used to sell drugs—cocaine from her house. I started buying from she and selling it back to people. Then before long I start buying my own and selling. Then I started selling marijuana. At first I would earn only enough for food. Then I started taking drugs out of the country. Did it a whole lot of times. French Guyana to Surinam, Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados. One trip would earn USD $3,000 . . . different amounts but the most I ever earned was USD $4,000. I would buy things for the kids and the house . . . the majority for the kids—food, clothes, school fees. I would do it to be sure there’s food on the table.
The family tension and violence experienced by these women, forced some to actively seek alternative living arrangements that in turn increased their financial burden and significantly affected their ability to survive. The physical abuse experienced by Simone at the hands of her father played an integral role in determining her pathway into criminal activity:
. . .had to get away from him. I moved out eventually. Got an apartment with a girlfriend in Westmoreland. It was hard though man. I have two children and I could barely survive. My friend knew I was going through a really hard time. In 2009 she made me an offer and I took it. I needed to pay rent; to pay for CXC (exams) for my daughter; I needed things for my son. So I wanted the money. It was USD $5,000. She made me the offer and I needed it.
This section describes the victimization suffered by the majority of participants in the study. Culturally defined gender expectations in keeping with Richie’s depiction of gender entrapment (Richie, 1996) led to marginalization as a result of extreme poverty which in some cases was compounded by abusive family and intimate partner relationships. As with Richie’s sample, this led to a transition into criminal activity.
Emotional Dependence
As stated earlier, there is evidence pointing to the role of coercion in the decision making process of female drug mules (Campbell, 2008; Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2003). The narratives of some of the women in the present study supported this interpretation and the influence of a male partner appeared to play an important role in the decisions to operate outside the law. This was the second most common explanation given for the current incarceration and those in this group were typically from relatively comfortable financial backgrounds. From the narratives, it appeared that some were unknowing participants in the illegal activity. Cindy, a 20-year-old inmate from Jamaica explained
I lived in a peaceful community in Manchester. Some people were poor but we lived in a three-bedroom house with kitchen, bathroom, veranda and indoor plumbing. We as children were given priority. I was still living at home when I got arrested. Things were even better for my family. My mother started her own business selling toiletries so more money was coming in. I was getting money from my parents and my big sister. Also cousins, aunts and others abroad would send money. I was able to save. After graduation from high school I got a job as an insurance broker. Then I met my boyfriend. We were together for two years. He was a really down-to-earth person. He had come to Barbados for one month. He asked me to come and see him and bring along a suitcase that his brother would give to me. Drugs were planted in the suitcase—made into the suitcase. Customs at the airport searched the suitcase, probably felt something there and ripped it open . . . he calls but I refuse to talk to him.
Similar too, was the case of Deborah, a 19-year-old inmate from St. Vincent:
I lived in a three bedroom townhouse with my parents—garden, pets. My father is in security and my mother is in child-care administration. We used to go on holidays, always had food, no issues with school fees. I met my boyfriend at carnival. He was 21 and I was 17 at the time. We had broken up because he had a child with someone else but we got back together last year. Soon after he said that we should go on a holiday to Barbados. Soon before we were supposed to leave he backed out and said that I should take a friend. I went by myself but I was supposed to meet up with his uncle. I was going through immigration in Barbados and an officer greeted me and took my bags. They x-rayed and cut open my suitcase and found cocaine. I have no idea how it got there. I packed my suitcase but the bag was given to me by my boyfriend . . . he set me up from the start. I blame myself. I should not have been so naïve. Even when I didn’t come back from holiday he went to my parents’ house and didn’t say a word. It’s obvious I was set up. If I never met him I wouldn’t be here.
Both Cindy and Deborah were raised in financially secure environments and had envisioned legitimate paths towards success for themselves. Neither had any inclination to participate in illegal activities and their unknowing involvement was directly attributable to their relationships with their boyfriends. The anger that both women felt upon incarceration was due to the effect of the victimization at the hands of men whom they trusted.
Others took part knowingly as a result of their emotional attachment. Richie (1996) demonstrated the manner in which the women in her African American sample committed crimes as a result of their feelings of loyalty towards men. So desperate were they for intimacy and stability in their relationships that they knowingly committed crimes in an effort to obtain a closeness that they felt would be achieved through involvement in a common enterprise. This loyalty ensures the emotional dependence of poor women on men and there were examples among participants in the present study of those who became involved for these reasons. Marsha, a 30-year-old inmate from Guyana represents a useful example:
I met this guy. He real sweet. He owned his own business. We started as a friendship but it grew. I love him so much. I couldn’t even eat when we were in problems. One night he called me and told me he was going to Barbados and asked me to come the following week with his suitcase. I didn’t really question it because I didn’t want to seem to hype. I knew what was in it but I like he real bad for truth. When I got to Barbados they took me out of the line. They went straight for what they were looking for. When they arrested me they asked me questions but I wouldn’t tell them it was my boyfriend . . . Now I haven’t heard from him in three months, before then he used to send me things. . .
Although Marsha was aware of the drugs in her possession, her participation was heavily influenced by the desire to please her boyfriend. Whether knowingly involved, or betrayed through dishonesty, the actions of these women were determined by coercion at the hands of someone they trusted. The forms of manipulation described by the women in this section represent further examples of victimization experienced by female inmates and lend additional support to the notion of limited agency.
Nonpassive Participation
The narratives of the women thus far have represented somewhat passive participation in crime as a result of victimization due either to family/social structures or the actions of an intimate partner. The vast majority of the participants fell into this category. As discussed previously, while explanations for female criminality have tended to focus on these explanations and thus ascribing limited agency to their actions, there has been relatively little attention paid to the relationship between female offending, and alternative explanations. Participation in delinquent subcultures or other socioenvironmental explanations of which greed and a desire for wealth are a part, have been attributed primarily to the male offender. Young men steal as part of a broader pattern of masculinity while girls and women steal out of necessity (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Daly, 1993).
There is evidence from the present study however, that supports the notion of the existence of agency among the possible explanations for female criminality. The testimony of one inmate revealed motivations borne not out of poverty or desperation, but of a desire for financial and material wealth as well as the type of street capital traditionally assumed to be limited to male crime (Alder & Polk, 1996; Hochstetler & Copes, 2003; Katz, 1988; Messerschmidt, 1993; Mullins, 2006; Oliver, 1994; Winlow, 2001). Pamela—a 21-year-old Barbados national living in the United States described the conditions under which she grew up:
We didn’t have much money or food. We were poor, but not that poor. We moved to New York when I was 11 or 12. Both my parents went back to school. We lived in a trashy ghetto. Was overcrowded . . . small apartment. My two sisters and I were in one bedroom and my three brothers in another. My parents slept in the living room. Ninety percent of the time we had food to eat. Some nights we had peanut butter and jelly for dinner. Other nights we had more. With six kids you have to make money stretch. My mother knew how.
Despite the difficult conditions under which Pamela spent the majority of her childhood, things had begun to improve as she got older and both parents had completed their studies. Though from a poor background, Pamela’s testimony indicated that in stark contrast to the majority of her fellow inmates, her entrance into criminal activity was predicated not on need but on motivations typically reserved for men:
By the time I started in drugs my parents were well off. Grandma also had left an oil well so we got cheques from time to time. I always loved material possessions. I was greedy. I wanted nice things . . . wanted to look good all the time. Was conceited. Doing things like working at McDonalds was beneath me. I started lying to my parents saying that I was working here and there but I was moving drugs.
Research has suggested that such crimes are opportunities for men to exert their agency and are portrayed as rational manifestations of the manner in which male criminals operate with the primary desire of making money (Alder & Polk, 1996; Katz, 1988; Messerschmidt, 1993; Winlow, 2001). As stated earlier however, very little attention has been paid to the manner in which women operate towards a similar end (Maher, 1997). The case of Pamela in the present study suggests however that for some women, crime represents an opportunity to exert their agency in the same fashion. Her testimony runs counter to the belief that women who become involved in the drug trade do so at the hands of a husband or boyfriend (Koester & Schwartz, 1993; Maher & Curtis, 1992) or as a result of financial desperation (Green, 1998; Huling, 1995). Pamela continued
I started talking to different people and making connections. Then I started transporting cocaine from the tip of Florida to New York. I was carrying kilos and kilos of uncut Columbian cocaine. USD $75,000 or $100,000 - $200,000 if mixed. Then I started buying 5 kilos at a time and making my own money. I would do it on the weekend. I was living my dream. I always stayed in the U.S. so that if I got caught I knew I would go to a U.S. jail. Then I went to visit a friend at college and met 3 Nigerian boys who had a set up in Guyana. I could make USD $500,000 in one trip. I did it three or four times. They never thought a sweet pretty girl like me would be carrying drugs. I used to tell myself that once I got a certain amount of money I would stop, but the rush, thrill, power is addictive. I am addicted to money. This last trip I was headed from Barbados to London. Had the cocaine in a picture frame. I checked the bags and went to smoke a cigarette when an officer approached me. That was it.
Pamela’s testimony provides support for the view of Davies (1999) who as stated earlier was critical of the notion of victimization being ascribed to the actions of all female offenders. Davies argued that researchers should not be reluctant to recognize greed and other explanations typically reserved for men as being responsible for female criminality as well.
Conclusion
What has been described in this study cannot be interpreted to be representative of the motives of all female criminals in the Caribbean. The research was limited by the small number of women incarcerated on the island for a specific crime. The testimonies however provide valuable insight into an underresearched area within the West Indian context. Female motivations for drug smuggling could be organized into two main categories.
Victimization—Poverty, Abuse, Emotional Dependence
Motivations rooted in poverty characterized the experiences of the majority of participants in the study. Allen (1987) had warned of the dangers of ascribing victimization/desperation to the actions of female lawbreakers and in so doing perpetuate the notion of the absence of agency that characterizes research in this area. Some have criticized the thesis that difficult life circumstances be used to explain female involvement in crime (Davies, 1999). However the accounts of participants in this study represented victimization on a number of different levels. Some faced victimization from domestic abuse; were involved in oppressive family relationships while most were marginalized through poverty. Driven by the chaos in their lives, these women turned to crime.
Added to the difficult life circumstance that motivated a large proportion of the study participants, testimony from a smaller proportion of inmates also revealed victimization of another form. In keeping with previous research in the field of female drug smuggling, (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2003; Green, 1998; Huling, 1995) the narratives revealed that some of the women became involved as a result of coercion by a male partner. This manifested itself either in the unknowing transportation of drugs, or the deliberate transport in order to gain favor. Here, victimization occurs through the exploitation of poverty and emotional dependence of the women.
Nonpassive Participation
Although limited to only one participant, the case of Pamela suggests that among female offenders, there exist examples of agency and motivations that are aligned with those typically ascribed to men. This finding has considerable implications particularly considering the ongoing debate on the importance of gender-specific programming to reduce female crime. In order to develop effective programs for reducing female crime, it is essential to develop a comprehensive profile of female offending or risk the development of policies that fail to provide the necessary options to deal with the issue (Bloom & Covington, 1998). As stated earlier, within the Caribbean the typical profile is of socially and economically marginalized women who suffer various forms of victimization on their journey to crime. Interventions for women therefore, prove inadequate when compared with those designed for their male counterparts. Pamela’s experience highlights the need for a rethink of policy since nonpassive offending requires specific intervention, and equality of service delivery for both men and women is essential to ensure that all forms of female offending, receive the full range of opportunities and treatment services, to ensure a reduction in the number of women that run afoul of the law.
The issue of women and crime however remains a severely underresearched area within the Caribbean. An increasing number of women are appearing before the courts for crimes such as drug smuggling. An understanding of the motivating factors that influence their actions should be high on the agenda of criminologists in the region as this proves integral to reversing this trend.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.