Plastic Aesthetic Weight Loss Surgery

Recently, the Bangalore police nabbed a 40-year old serial killer. A chain snatching gang was caught by Delhi Police. And there is one startling theory coming forward-both had women as criminal and that they were performing acts that were hitherto relatively unheard as done by women in India before – serial-killing and robbery. Crime, in India, is not a male bastion anymore.　

However, when it comes to crime, until the last twenty years, the lack of literature on female criminality is often astounding. One reason given for lack of interest is that females have traditionally been seen as law-abiding. It is certainly true in the context of what the statistics speak but sex crime ration differ depending on what act is being considered as crime. The different involvement in crime of men and women is one of the most striking and criminological truth, and it is therefore surprising that it has to be more widely studied in order to ascertain are its causes.

The history of mankind reveals that the woman has been the foundation stone of a family in particular and society in general. Since the dawn of civilization, women have been seen as preservers of social norms, traditions, customs, morality and family cohesiveness. Woman has been given a position of pride in every religion. My immediate concern is why the woman, who is considered to be foundation stone of family and every spiritual faith, without whose blessings the work of infusing new life into humanity cannot be accomplished, has gone astray making her mark on the crime scene and this is what has encouraged me to write this paper of women’s involvement in criminality in the social, cultural, economic and political milieu of India.

 The gravity of the challenge increases manifold when we go through the latest available data on crime from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). While women criminals are still a minority- they comprise only 5% of the criminals convicted for heinous crimes. The Crime in India Reports reveal that the number of females arrested for criminals activities in 2003 were 1,51,675, and this shot upto 1,54,635 in 2007. Also, interestingly, the nature of crimes committed by them too, is gradually witnessing a sea change- from softer crimes like drug trafficking and prostitution to heinous crimes like murder. 3439 women were arrested for murder in 2005 and 3812 in 2007 that is an increase from 5.4% in 2005 to 6% in 2007 (NCRB figures). Also most of the crimes committed by females are ones in the age group 30-45 years.

 

FEMALE CRIMINALITY: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

 

 The early researchers attributed female criminality to biological or sociological antecedents.Although crime, as a behavioural or social problem, is complicated and not easily understood, the criminality of women is seen more complicated, less understood and subject to easy control. Women are considered as turning crime as a perversion of feminine role whether their causes are biological, psychological, social or environmental.

 

Innate Criminals/ Biological Viewpoint

 Ceasar Lombroso’s contribution is considered as the beginning of scientific study on female crime. He viewed, “female deviance as rooted in the biological make up or as inherent feature of the female species”. He observed female criminals to be more terrible than the male criminals because her cruelty was much more ‘refined’ and diabolic. Lombroso thought women shared many traits with children and they were morally deficient and their lack of intelligence was the reason of their relatively small participation in crime

In nineteenth century, Lombroso and Ferrero (1895) wrote a book called, “The Female Offender”. Their theories were based on atavism; a belief that all individuals displaying anti-social behavior were biological throwbacks. The born female criminal was considered to have the criminal qualities of men and the worst qualities of women.

Otta Pollak explained the influence of hormonal changes over menstruation, pregnancy and menopausal stage. He said that in the pregnancy and menopausal phase, the psychological characteristics such as emotional changes of moods, abnormal craving and impulses and temporary impairment of consciousness point in the direction of criminal causation.

But, in the present age of information technology and impersonal relations at the threshold of the 21st  century, such theories seem to be unreasonable and unscientific. All these theories depict crime as an inherent human trait which does not amply describe the phenomenal variations in the nature of crime being committed these days, when crime has risen upto the status of career for many, involving highly advanced professional skills and typical scientific techniques.

 

Psychological Viewpoint

 

Freudian hypotheses hold that women who are not passive and content with their traditional roles as mothers and wives are maladjusted. Women who accept traditional roles as mothers and wives are “adjusted ones” and are different from the maladjusted women, who refuse or fail to internalize the values associated with the role in the society. He also said that women who do not internalize the traditional roles and values of the society, attend institutions for higher learning, take up professions outside the four walls of their homes, join feminist movements or commit crimes. He maintained that all females experience some degree of jealousy of males but ‘normal’ women manage to accept and internalize societal definitions of femininity, centred around single minded interest in motherhood.

The limitations of an attempt to explain crime strictly in psychological terms are partly conceptual which fail to appreciate the significance of social factors in generating the deviant behaviour. 

 

Sociological Viewpoint

 

A plethora of writings on sociological viewpoint emerged during the last few decades including the following:

1. Equality theory

2. Economic theory

3. Opportunity theory

4. Social disorganisation theory

5. Role theory

Predominant theories such as Thomas (1907) and later, Pollack (1961), believed that criminality was socially induced rather than biologically inherited. Pollack (1961) believed, it is the learned behaviour from a very young age that leads girls into a masked character of female criminality, that is, how it was and still is concealed through under-reporting and low detection rates of female offenders. He further states, in our male-dominated culture, women have always been considered strange, secretive and sometimes dangerous. A greater leniency towards women by police and the justice system needs to be addressed especially if a true equality of genders is to be achieved in such a complicated world.

 These contemporary theorists reject earlier theories based on psychological and physiological viewpoints. Criminal behaviour, as Sutherland and Cressy insisted, is learned through interaction with other persons. The learning includes both techniques for committing the crime and a more subjective element- the specific direction of motives, derives, rationalisations and attitudes. Role theorists like Heidensohn and Hoffman offer explanation of female criminality in terms of social differentiation of gender roles. Hoffman emphasised that different socialisation given to girls expect them to be non- violent and do not allow them to learn how to fight and use weapons. It prevents the women to acquire necessary technical ability or strength for crime.

 ‘Double burden’ of work and household responsibilities, official indifference to the needs of women, the increasing rate of family breakdown, the alcoholisms of husbands, the psychological trauma of divorce and financial difficulties in rearing up ‘left with children’- all contribute to incidents of female criminality.

Unfortunately, these role theorists have desperately failed to propound any concrete idea about the etiology of crime.

 Psychological Viewpoint

Freudian hypotheses hold that women who are not passive and content with their traditional roles as mothers and wives are maladjusted. Women who accept traditional roles as mothers and wives are “adjusted ones” and are different from the maladjusted women, who refuse or fail to internalize the values associated with the role in the society. He also said that women who do not internalize the traditional roles and values of the society, attend institutions for higher learning, take up professions outside the four walls of their homes, join feminist movements or commit crimes. He maintained that all females experience some degree of jealousy of males but ‘normal’ women manage to accept and internalize societal definitions of femininity, centred around single minded interest in motherhood. The limitations of an attempt to explain crime strictly in psychological terms are partly conceptual which fail to appreciate the significance of social factors in generating the deviant behaviour.

Sanyal also observed that women convict\s displayed emotional stability, insecurity, rejection or frustration in childhood. They encountered harsh living conditions, disappointments in love and a large number of unfortunate experiences which generally made it difficult for them to face realities of life.

 Feminist theory

In light of this demographic shift in incarcerated populations, and the failure of traditional criminology to account for women’s crime, some criminologists have begun taking steps to fill the void in the criminological literature that addresses female criminality. The feminist pathways research is explicit in its pursuit of life events that lead/force/nudge women into crime. Again, even this approach has its own drawbacks. This approach is often ethnographic and uses retrospective data (i.e., interviews with incarcerated women asking them how they ended up in jail) to develop an understanding of the key transitions in women’s lives that place them in jeopardy of entering the criminal justice system.

 Although it may be true that society has changed since the days of Lombroso and Ferrero, past theories appear to remain within much of today’s criminal justice system. Women have so many choices of which they didn’t before. It may appear naive to assume that women and crime may be explained by any one theory. Any crime for that matter, whether male or female, may not be explained by any one theory. It is an established and non-arguable fact that males and females differ biologically and sociological influences, such as gender-specific role-playing appears to continue within most families. Its a matter of proportion not difference. According to Edwards (1984), the enemy is within every woman, but is not her reproductive biology; rather it is the habit regarding it into which she has been led by centuries of male domination

This unequal position of women in society due to social oppression and economic dependency on men and the state needs to be addressed. Offences by women remain sexualised and pathologised. In most ways, crimes women commit are considered to be final outward manifestations of an inner medical imbalance or social instability. Their punishment appears to be aimed principally at treatment and reconciliation.

 Many argue, the main culprit for aggression as seen in many men is testosterone. This hormone appears responsible for much of the male crime, even in todays society of increased knowledge on the subject. In contrast, extensive research over the past twenty-five years done on the testosterone/aggression link focusing on prenatal testosterone predisposing boys to be rougher than girls, concluded it was very difficult to show any connection between testosterone and aggressive behaviour. Cross-cultural studies of ninety-five societies revealed 47% of them were free of rape while at least thirty-three societies were free of war and interpersonal violence was extremely rare. Based on these studies, it may be evident to suggest that sociological factors and environmental influences appear to have greater credibility in explaining criminal behaviour, whether male or female.

 

 In is evident from the numerous specific studies already published that no single theory or type of explanation is adequate for the wide variety of behaviour variously called ‘crime’. Despite many theories have been offered but no view point can sufficiently satisfy the quest for the area. The involvement of women in terrorist activities, smuggling, violence, communal riots etc. witnessed the adoption of untraditional trends of crime by them, defying all available theories and trends of crime, because most of these crimes are problems of structural immorality and ethnic affinity. It therefore, becomes the need of the day to study the problem from fresh angle in order to understand the phenomenon in its totality- recent trends, etiology, personality traits and its impact on society.

 

CASE LAWS

 

State CBI/ SIT v. Nalini & Others

 

On the night of 21 May 1991 a diabolic crime was committed. It stunned the whole nation. Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by a human bomb in Tamilnadu. Assasin Dhanu, an LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) activist, who detonated the belt bomb concealed under her waist and Haribabu, a photographer (and also a conspirator) engaged to take photographs of the horrific sight, also died in the blast. A camera was found intact on his body at the scene of crime. The film in the camera when developed led to unfolding of the dastardly attacks committed by the accused and others. A charge of conspiracy for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; Indian Penal Code,1860; Explosive substances Act 1908; Arms Act 1959; Passport Act 1967; Foreigners Act 1946; Indian wireless Telegraphy Act 1933; was laid against 41 persons, 12 of whom were already dead and 3 absconded. All were awarded death sentence on the charge of conspiracy to murder under S120B read with S302 IPC and various other minor offences.

Nalini along with the deceased accused Sivarasan, Dhanu and Shubha met Haribabu, met at a bus stand and proceeded to the venue of the public meeting on 21st May 1991. Nalini provided cover to Dhanu and Shubha and when Rajiv Gandhi arrived , Dhanu gained access near him and while in close proximity to him, she detonated the explosive device kept concealed in her waist belt, resulting in the blast. The apex court by an unanimous verdict confirmed death sentence against Santhan, Murugan and Arivu. As regards the extreme penalty of death to Nalini was concerned it was confirmed by majority of 2:1 (JJ Wadhwa and Quadri concurred). J Thomas commuted sentence of death to life imprisonment.

 State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar

The appeals were filed by Delhi administration and other by Indian Federation of Women Lawyers came up before the SC of India against the judgement of Delhi HC acquitting the respondents.Laxman was married to Sudha and were living with Laxman’s brother and their family. Shakuntala, the mother-in law of the deceased used to visit frequently.One day, cries for help were heard from their house. On hearing the cries, neighbours rushed to the flat and found Sudha aflame. The neighbours extinguished the fire and she was taken to the hospital where she died the next day. Sudha made a categorical statement soon after the neighbours gathered near the flat, and while on her way to the hospital, pointed to her mother-in-law, as the killer, stating that she had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her body. Sudha also indicated Laxman as having actually set her on fire after pouring kerosene.

SC awarded life imprisonment to Shakuntala and Laxman, holding them responsible for killing Sudha by setting her on fire.

 

Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra

 

The SC on 1 September 2006, in one of its historic judgements, upheld death penalty to two sisters, Renuka and Seema, who had horrified Maharashtra by describing them as a menace to society.

The facts of the case were horrifying. Nine of 13 children in the age group between nine months and two and a half years in Sholapur and Nasik districts of Maharashtra, had been kidnapped from time to time either from school or market during 1990-96 and killed by the accused. The accused, with a perfect accomplice in their mother Anajanabai, and husband Kiran Shinde had made chain and purse snatching as their profession. Anjanabai died before trial and Shinde got pardon on turning approver.

The trial court of Kolhapur found the sisters, guilty of murdering six children and awarded death sentence to them and Bombay HC confirmed their sentence. The appellants were not committing these crimes under any compulsion but they took it very casually and killed all the children, least bothering about their lives or agony of their parents.

 

Regina v. Kiranjit Ahluwalia

 

Back in September, 1992 Kiranjit Ahluwalia made news after she was released after serving three and a half years of a mandatory life sentence for murdering her husband, Deepak, whom she had drenched in petrol while he was sleeping and set alight. Her retaliation followed 10 years of systematic abuse, but what caused her to flip on that fateful evening was that he had pressed a hot iron against her, the scars of which she still bears. Kiranjit was released by Appeal Court judges on ground of “diminished responsibility”.

 

 

 

Ice- cream parlour case

 

The scandal had rocked the State in 1996 with prosecution alleging that one Sreedevi was running a brothel from an ice-cream parlour. It was alleged that the lady used to supply girls to various influential people, including politicians. The complainant K. Ajitha had submitted in her petition that though there were 51 prosecution witnesses in the case, all others except her had turned hostile as the accused were influential and used money and muscle power to coerce them.The trial court had acquitted all the accused without appreciating the facts; and the High Court also upheld the acquittal without bothering to examine as to why such a large number of witnesses turned hostile. The Supreme Court too however, dismissed the case when it came on appeal. The accused in the case included former Mayors of the Kozhikode Corporation T.P. Dasan and O. Rajagopal. Aravindakshan.

 

 

 

Priya Payel v. State of M.P

 

The present case holds its importance for being the only celebrated case in which the question whether a lady may be prosecuted for gang rape has been taken up. The facts of the present matter were that the prosecutrix was returning by train after attending a sports meet. When she reached her destination, accused Bhanu Pratap Patel (husband of the accused appellant) met her at the railway station and told her that her father has asked him to pick her up from the railway station. The prosecutrix accompanied accused Bhanu Pratap Patel to his house. He committed rape on her. When commission of rape was going on, his wife, the present appellant reached there. The prosecutrix requested the appellant to save her. Instead of saving her, the appellant slapped her, closed the door of the house and left place of incident. On the basis of the complaint lodged, investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed. While accused Bhanu Pratap Patel was charged for rape under IPC, the appellant was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 (punishment for causing hurt) and 376(2)(g) (punishment for committing gang rape) of IPC. The revision filed before the High Court questioned legality of the charge framed so far as the appellant is concerned, relatable to Section 376(2) (g) IPC. It was contended that a woman may not be charged for commission of offence of rape. The High Court was of the view that though a woman may not commit rape, but if a woman facilitates the act of rape, Explanation-I to Section 376(2) comes into operation and she may be prosecuted for gang rape.

 

The Supreme Court, apparently, had a different view. The apex court held that, after a reading of Section 375 of the IPC, rape may be committed only by man. A contention was raised by the counsel of the state that the woman may be held liable for Abetment as under section 108 of the IPC. The court on this said that such contention should have been raised in the trial court or in High Court, but it may not be done in the SC.

So we see that apart from minor offences such as theft, prostitution, drug trafficking etc., the participation of women in the scene of crime for major offences cannot be done away with. The involvement of women in crimes are also evident by the recent reported cases in the newspaper, one of them being that of Fehmida Syed, who along with her husband Hanif Syed got capital punishment for carrying out the twin blasts in 2003 at Zaveri Bazar and Gateway of India. The Syed’s are the second couple after Nalini and Murugan to get Death Sentence.

 

The notorious Jammu & Kashmir sex scandal, which surfaced after police discovered which showed a minor girl being sexually abused. The police arrested a local resident Sabina, who confessed sending girls to politicians, senior bureaucrats and policemen. Dubbed as the scandals kingpin, Sabina ran a brothel in Srinagar and lured young girls promising them jobs and monetary benefits.

 

Another shocking case was the murder of Sister Abhaya. Sister Abhaya had come to know about the illicit relations of two priests with Sister Stephy. The two priests and nun arrested for her murder, allegedly confessed to the crime after being administered truth serum by CBI Investigators. Narco analysis however, is not relied upon by courts as primary evidence. Both the priests and nun said that the narco analysis CD was edited by the CBI. There was a public outcry and the CBI officer who began the investigation put in his papers alleging pressure to close it down.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

All the above cases show no particular trend, reason nor do any of the above theories sufficiently prove the causes for these crimes. The social environment contributes a lot to the making of women criminals. “If people have been abused, the chances of their taking to crime are high. But in most cases, it is more to do with the patriarchal society. Men get women into crime” says psychologist Anchal Bhagat.It appears that female offenders have lost faith in social system. Despite constitutional guarantees of equal rights and privileges, women’s fate could not be changed. Discrimination prevails from birth till last breath. Even her education, her involvement in every work equally is not enough to give any credit to her. The problem becomes manifold when despite her awareness and ability she is to obey orders of man (in form of father, brother, husband etc.) of lesser ability. Her own opinion is brutally crushed overheard and she is subjected to victimisation because she is a woman.

 

The best example I can think of would be of Phoolan Devi- the bandit queen turned politician who life tells us the story that when Society and law fail the people, often the victim can turn into a victimiser. Her parents called her a flower. Thats what her name Phoolan meant. How did she then turn out to be a thorn in the flesh of so many? The question takes us to the sociology of crime, especially in the Indian context. The story of Phoolan is a parable on our pathology; a case study on how our society spews up the poison that endangers its own life.Her abusive childhood turned her that way and we all know that. Therefore we can say, the blame for crimes committed by women to some extent, if not fully, can be accounted to our system of biases which always weigh the woman as subordinate. It may also be a possibility that her sudden awareness to her rights and her craze to prove herself equal to man or it is a revolution against cultural ethos or its a mere identity crisis resulting out of social crises are one of the few reasons which account to a woman’s hand in crime. These compelling factors such as want of economic independence, recognition in society and to earn her respectable position is what probably forces these women to resort to these extreme steps of taking law in their hands according to my view.

 

I conclude that the courts while deciding cases, should look at the reasons and compelling factors which led a women to commit that particular crime. As observed in most of the above cases that our unbiased social system is one of the main reasons why women resort to crime as a retaliation to her suppression the Court should therefore import the concepts such as “diminishing responsibility” (as was allowed to Kiranjit Ahaluwalia), battered women’s syndrome etc. Attention should be paid on providing her with proper medical aid and even on rehabilitation. In case a female offender suffers from a mental condition and she comes out of prison after serving her term, she would probably continue to commit crimes because the problem still subsists in her, and who knows it would have probably even become from bad to worse.

 

As I have told before, there can be no straight jacket formula or a particular theory to explain female criminality. A detailed study by criminologists could probably provide an answer to our unanswered questions.

 

And

Indian Federation of Women Lawyers v. Shakuntala