Feminism, matching to Mitchell and Oakley (1986:3) claim that it is 'easier to establish feminism in its absence rather than its occurrence. ' Delmar (1986) defines it that, a feminist keeps that women suffer from discrimination for their sex, they have needs that happen to be neglected and unsatisfied, and that the satisfaction of the needs requires a radical change. However, he obviously states that to be able distinguish feminists or feminism from the multiplicity of these worried about women issues, feminism should be thought as a field, even though diverse, but women can make no state to an exclusive affinity for or copyright over problems impacting on women. Feminist criminology therefore proceeds from the assertion that girls have been highly marginalised and are all too often unseen and when they have been the centre of attention it has not been detected and cared for with sympathy. In the centre of feminist criminology, a critique of extant criminology lurks for the reason why below, the failure to theorise or engage in the empirical review of female offending, the neglect of woman victimisation and, especially, male assault against women and the over focus on the impact of the unlawful justice system on male offenders.
Carol Smart (1976) brought up two crucial areas of concern. They were; that there was a particular threat of studying women independently from men would cause more marginalisation and this would also lead to the perpetuation of any man dominated criminology and the next one was that, increasing academics attention on female crime would have the unintended and unwanted consequence of increasing open public and criminal justice attention on these activities. Smart also argued that, women offenders weren't only being cured as criminals but also as having transgressed their gender jobs. Edwards (1984:213) said, "Girl defendants are prepared within the criminal justice system relative to the crimes that they committed and the degree to which the percentage of the act and its character deviate from appropriate female behaviour. "
Smart questioned the criminology organization and resulted in a considerable issue on feminism. (Edwards, 1981; Heindensohn, 1985; Rafter and Stanko, 1980; Young, 1996) Pat Carlene (1992) defined the idea of feminist criminology as neither appealing nor possible. However, Gelsthorpe and Morris (1990) have said that criminology is a major constraining somewhat than creative impact for feminist authors and researchers. Another critique, Cain (1989) argued that courts, victims, solicitors, social employees could be things of exploration however our explanations must reach beyond and encompass most of them, this in a way argued that feminist criminology is not possible and it disrupts the other types of criminology itself. Cain's argument was that work in theoretical criminology should question the assumptions of traditional criminology and also verify how gender is produced by the state body', however; she had not been strictly dismissive of feminist criminology. Carlen (1992) was similar sceptically however she was arguing for the potential within feminist scholarships which would help in transcending the limits of criminology as a self-control.
On the other side, the still left realist were critical and said critique is not steady, that is to say, criticising criminology because of its real essentialism in dealing with crime just like a significant category yet on the other palm using conditions like rape and child sexual abuse yet they may also not be at the mercy of the same criticism. (Mathew and Young, 1992) Feminist criminology criticises theoretical criminology because it was made by men and then for men. It is argued by Valier (2002) that it does not analytically explain the different patterns in offences completed by females. He further points out that the majority of the theories do not analytically describe patterns of criminal offenses by females; these theories will only show the particular social scientists have found out presently which is the fact that they don't seek to clarify human behavior as they lay claim but only clarify understandings of male behavior. This is not good practice because it has instead created a single theoretical canopy for men and women even though it is evidently obvious that their communal realistic are very different. (Valier, 2002)
Frances Heidensohn (1987) viewed four different characteristics of several of the female offenders which have been the main topic of recent research in the past ages. These characteristics would then be used to carry out analytical research on female criminology and also help understand feminine offending better. The four characteristics that she looked at included; Economic rationality, women were mainly involved in property crimes which were determined by the financial concerns. This is different from what the sooner portrayals of Lombroso and Pollak which understood female criminality to be illustrative of irrationality and the effect of biology. Second characteristic was that of heterogeneity of the offences whereby women commit less offences as compared to men and are less likely to be recidivists or professional criminals which implies that they add less to the crime tariffs and also clarifies that crimes committed by males and females derive from different conditions like cultural circumstances, distinctions in opportunities for men and women and the socialisation process. The 3rd characteristic is dread and impact of deviant stigma. This is whereby the criminalisation process has a differential impact on women and men. It is because female offending is less intensive than male offending, produces a larger sense of stigmatisation. The final attribute was that of experience of double deviance and dual jeopardy. Double deviance like being dubbed as 'unlike girl' together with the being called a criminal produces double jeopardy. The unlawful justice system will punish the criminal offense but also seek to impose adjustments over women behaviour. (Heidensohn, 2006)