Alternative Views of Crime: Legislative Policymaking in Gendered Terms

http://www.jstor.org

Alternative Views of Crime: Legislative Policymaking in Gendered TermsAuthor(s): Lyn KathleneSource: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 3, (Aug., 1995), pp. 696-723Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political ScienceAssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2960189Accessed: 02/05/2008 17:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2960189?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

Alternative Views of Crime: Legislative Policymaking in Gendered Terms

Lyn Kathlene Purdue University

A potential policy problem based on an actual study of prisons and recidivism rates was presented to 47 Colorado legislators during a taped interview that was later transcribed. Men and women in this study conceptualized the origins of and solutions to crime differently. These differences can be understood in terms of gendered socialization, experiences and opportunities in western societies. Women tended to see criminals as people interacting within the context of societal opportunities, while men tended to see criminals as autonomous individuals responsible for choosing a life of crime. These fundamentally different views of the origins of crime lead to distinctive policy solutions. Finally, the self- articulated orientations were compared with all the actual crime and prison bills proposed in the 1989 session. The gender differences uncovered in the interviews were also found in actual policy proposals. However, women were less successful than men in passing their legislation.

Despite the quantity, richness, and diversity of research on legislative politics, all are grounded in a common perspective: legislative politics as constructed by male politicians. Studies of political women paint a complicated and evolving pic- ture of their policy priorities, political behavior, and personal views of the process (for examples, see Antolini 1984; Bers 1978; Carroll 1985; Diamond 1977; Flammang 1985; Margolis 1980; Mezey 1978; Reingold 1992; Sapiro 1984). As women become more numerous in our legislative bodies, many scholars suggest that women's politics will change accordingly. That is, as women gain power and ascendence in the political domain, they will no longer hide or subsume their feminist agenda or their women's perspective (for examples, see Carroll 1985; Flammang 1985; Saint-Germain 1989; Thomas 1991). The question then is, will women parallel the politics of men or will women apply a different set of expecta- tions and attitudes that fundamentally change the legislative environment? Our ability to empirically examine this issue has only recently become a reality as women are gaining more political positions at the local and state levels.

THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, Vol. 57, No. 3, August 1995, Pp. 696-723 C 1995 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 1991, Chicago. The project was funded, in part, by the Center for the American Woman and Politics (CAWP), a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, under a grant from the Revson Foundation. I would like to thank Susan Clarke, Department of Political Science, and Barbara Fox, Department of Linguistics, both at the University of Colorado at Boulder, for their continuous intellectual support and feedback on this research.

Alternative Views of Crime 697

The research reported here presumes that gendered conceptualizations of society will affect a range of issues, beyond the important impact women are having on sponsoring feminist and women's issues (Saint-Germain 1989; Thomas 1991; Thomas and Welch 1991). This research is informed by social and psychological theories of gender translated into attitudinal orientations salient to political behavior. The attitudinal constructs provide both a basis for determining the locations in the political process where gender differences might appear and a framework for recognizing and interpreting gendered behaVior.

After discussing the attitudinal framework, I develop two hypotheses derived from the framework. Next, a discourse analysis of personal interviews with 47 state legislators reveals gendered attitudes toward and solutions for crime. Finally, the self-articulated differences are compared with the content and purpose of all crime (n = 20) and prison (n = 10) bills introduced during the session to determine if the gendered conceptualizations of social problems and solutions are translated into policy proposals.

GENDERED ATTITUDINAL CONSTRUCTS-LINKING THEORY TO BEHAVIOR

Gilligan's (1982) findings of gender differences in moral decision making provide the framework for examining gendered attitudes and behavior among the legislators. Gilligan argues that men have a tendency to concern themselves with people interfering with each other's rights, which leads them to have a justice orientation implemented, in part, through the development of universal laws to produce fair outcomes. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to concern themselves with the possibility of omission-of not helping others when one could help them-leading them to approach problems through a care orientation that relies, in part, upon a sensitivity to the unique circumstances of a given case to produce the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

Notwithstanding the critical debate surrounding Gilligan's research,' her work points toward several important research questions and methodological considera- tions. Two lessons from Gilligan have direct application for the study of political elites. First, we need to frame questions of women's impact in politics around the broader notion of women's standpoint in society.2 Second, we must use method- ologies that capture the differences Gilligan's work implies. Thus examining the voting behavior of men and women, while a worthy research project on partisan or ideological behavior, is not logically derived from Gilligan's notions of justice and

I Gilligan's methods, data, reliance on object-relations theory, and dangerous stereotyping of men and women have all been criticized. An entire issue of Social Research (1983) vol. 50, no. 3, is devoted to cri- tiquing Gilligan's book. Also see Signs (1986) 11:304-33. Anne Hockmeyer (1988) is particularly critical of Gilligan and other feminist scholars who rely on psychoanalytic object-relations theory or deriva- tions of it.

2For examples of standpoint theories, see Collins (1991) and Harding (1991). For a discussion of how standpoint relates to epistemology and methodology, see Fonow and Cook (1991), Harding (1987), Nielsen (1990), and Reinharz (1992).

698 Lyn Kathlene

care unless the research also examines the content of bills: i.e., how is the problem defined and how will the problem be solved? Studies of legislative issue areas, particularly those that look at women's or feminist issues, tap into a different notion of women's standpoint (i.e., women have a personal interest and/or experience in these issues), but gender differences in issue area are not implied in Gilligan's theory, either.

Translating Gilligan's work into attitudes and behaviors relevant to the political arena, two constructs reflecting the broad themes of individualism versus inter- dependence are constructed. The two distinctive orientations, labeled Instrumen- .talism and Contextualism, represent the values, goals, and actions that would be involved during public policy formation.3

The attitudinal constructs reflect a simplified set of complex gendered behavior. Men, I argue, tend to be more instrumental in their behavior and attitudes. Their dominant and relatively independent position and function in society has socialized them to view people as autonomous individuals in a hierarchical, competitive world. People are essentially self-centered and self-serving; therefore, subjective knowledge is suspect while objective knowledge is revered. The view of people as self- centered and in competition with each other leads to a strong adherence to the protection of individual rights to guarantee individual freedoms.

Women, on the other hand, approach the world from a more contextual viewpoint. Their subordinate and relatively dependent position and function in society has socialized them to view individuals in connection with each other and society. People's lives are interdependent, based on a continuous web of relationships. The World is not composed of distinct and separate spheres; thus women will not tend to view the world in terms of dichotomies. The public sphere is not separate from the private sphere. Subjective knowledge is not superior or necessarily distinct from objective knowledge (e.g., subjectivity affects the choice of how to measure a phenomenon and of which "facts" are presented to persuade the audience). Because women see individuals in terms of their symbiotic relationships to each other, women are more likely to be concerned with addressing the interrelated needs of individuals. This interconnected orientation may lead women to place less emphasis on the protection of individual rights when it impedes solutions to social problems.

It is important to remember that the attitudinal constructs describe a dichotomy of "ideal types." Obviously, such a gross simplification violates the very assump- tions of complex interactions and subtle but important gendered behaviors. Nevertheless, various feminist psychological theories of gender (Chodorow 1974; Dinnerstein 1976; Gilligan 1982; Johnson 1988; Miller 1976; Noddings 1984; Schaef 1981) postulate that women tend to display "contextual" behavior more often than men, who are more likely to display "instrumental" behavior. And re- cent empirical research in communication and psychology has found support for the "connectedness versus separateness" theories of gendered views of the social

3For a detailed discussion of the constructs, see Kathlene (1989, 1991).


world (Gilligan et al. 1988; Lang-Takac and Osterweil 1992; Turner 1992). The question that arises is whether or not people, based on their sex, tend to rely more on one approach than the other, especially in a similar context.

Hypotheses

The research reported here examines two hypotheses arising from gendered attitudes and behavior within the context of legislative policymaking. Given a women's world of interrelationships:

1. Women will formulate policy differently because they will see a problem as af- fecting many people and groups; hence, they take into account a broad range of information sources when making policy.

2. Women will conceptualize some policy issues in different terms. In explaining their position, the language they use may either be misunderstood (because the men have an alternative conceptualization) or may be discounted as tangential to the relevant policy problem and solution. Women may encounter resistance that thwarts passage of their bills.

These hypotheses articulate the broad political implications contained in a complex gender framework, moving us beyond the variable sex. It becomes clear that many of the more traditional political studies of elite women are unable to tap into some of the more subtle, and perhaps the most profound, gender differences. Thus, framing questions of legislative behavior based on attitudes theorized to be gender-related, along with methods capable of capturing these dimensions of gender differences, opens up a new and potentially fruitful research agenda.4

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

In 1989, Colorado ranked fifth among the 50 states in the number of women elected to state government (Center for the American Woman and Politics 1989). As is the case in most bicameral states, the number of women elected to the Colorado House far exceeded their election to the Senate, both in actual numbers and percentage of the chamber, with 33% women (22 out of 65) seated in the House and 20% (7 out of 35) in the Senate. This project focuses exclusively on the Colorado House because of the greater number of women.5

Sample Selection of Legislators

Of the 65 representatives in the Colorado House, 47 (72%) were asked to respond to a hypothetical policy problem on crime and recidivism rates during an interview.6 The sample is representative of sex and party distribution of the 1989

4For a discussion of methodological applications, see Kathlene (1990, 1991). 'For a full description of the research site, see Kathlene (1994). 60f the 65 House members: two legislators refused to be interviewed; four legislators could not be

contacted and therefore were not interviewed. Of the 59 completed interviews: two interview tapes

700 Lyn Kathlene

TABLE 1

PARTY AFFILIATION AND TERM OF INTERVIEWED

LEGISLATORS BY SEX (n = 47)

Females Males Total n n n(%)

Party

Republican 9 18 27 (57%) Democrat 7 13 20 (43%)

Term

First 3 8 11 (23%) Second 2 11 13 (28%) Third 6 6 12 (26%) Fourth+ 5 6 11 (23%)

Total 16 (34%) 31 (66%) 47 (100%)

House.7 Each interview was taped and then transcribed verbatim. Table 1 shows characteristics of the sample of legislators.

In addition to sex, party and seniority may be represented in the attitudinal constructs. Several attitudinal orientations lend themselves to a partisan explanation. Republicans generally favor a more passive government to protect individual rights to privacy, which translates into a rights-based view of crime where being "tough on criminals" serves to protect the rights of noncriminals. Democrats are more likely to favor an active government to address the needs of certain individuals that are adversely affected by the imperfections of the free-market system, which leads to support for intervention and rehabilitation programs for criminals. Length of service in the legislature is a potentially socializing influence that may mitigate against gender differences over time. If the institutional structure as defined through its formal and informal rules and precedents, and if the hierarchical structure of power is more conducive to instrumental orientations, then contextually oriented people will not "fit in." Over time, the pressure to conform may drive contextually oriented persons out of office or cause them to embrace the accepted instrumental norms.

Verbal Interactions Discourse Analysis

This research is based on the systematic language analysis of interviews. Language can reveal when gender differences and potential political impact are oc-

failed; 10 legislators were unable to find or recall the article used for the hypothetical policy problem (an unanticipated problem for some of the interviews done over the phone), leaving a final sample of 47 interviews for this analysis.

7For women only, freshmen are slightly overrepresented (18.8% in sample versus 13.6% for all women), second terms are underrepresented (12.5% versus 22.7%), and seasoned legislators (four or more terms) are slightly overrepresented (31.3% versus 27.3%).


curring. Of course, language is not just about words but about action, about influencing and persuading, about transmitting values, and about learning from others. Language, in this context, is verbalized thought.

Analyzing language for gender impact is operationalized through the attitudinal constructs I developed in an earlier analysis (Kathlene 1989) along with socio- linguistic findings of differing situational and gendered speech patterns (see for example, Fishman 1978; Gallois and Callan 1985; Hoppe-Graff et al. 1985; Houston and Kramarae 1991; Kramarae 1982; Smith 1979; Williams and Giles 1978): How issues are framed and which images are invoked is constrained by the words used to describe the situation (for an excellent example, see Cohn 1987). If women are bringing different priorities (Saint-Germain 1989; Thomas 1994; Thomas and Welch 1991) to the legislative process, we should expect to "hear" these different values in the interview transcripts. In this way, the impact of gender goes beyond mere sponsorship of bills to the everyday interactions and decisions that mold all public policy.

The analysis moves through three stages. First, a microlevel examination of the nouns used by the 47 legislators to describe criminals and personnel in the justice system provides the basis for defining gendered conceptualizations of criminals and the criminal justice system. Second, a textual analysis reveals the reasoning behind the legislators' recommendations for developing crime policy. The legislators' view of criminals, found in the first analysis, is linked to their reasoning processes in the second analysis. Finally, the gender differences found in the linguistic analyses provide the basis for judging the content and purpose of all the crime and prison bills introduced that year. The last stage provides a test for the translation of ,deeper cognitive gendered views of a social problem into actual policies and the transferability of findings from one group of interviewees to another larger group of policymakers.

ANALYZING THE INTERVIEWS

A potential policy problem was presented to each legislator during the interview using a current news clipping from a local newspaper.8 The article reported the results of a Justice Department study on recidivism rates in 11 states;9 it was chosen because of its timely topic,10 and the dual themes of law and punishment (a

8Legislators interviewed in person were given time to read the article, "Sixty-three percent of ex-

cons rearrested, study finds" (The Denver Post, 3 April 1989), during the interview. Legislators interviewed over the phone were mailed the article and asked to have it in hand during the interview. There

were no gender differences between who did in-person or phone interviews. However, there were slight

geographical differences, with proportionately more rural legislators from the western slope of Colorado interviewed over the phone. A copy of the newspaper article is available from the author upon request.

9The states were California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas. Colorado was not included in the study. "?Prison overcrowding and highway funding were the top two issues in the 1989 Colorado legislative

session. Prison bills were hotly debated and compromises among the two houses and the governor were

not forged within the regular session. A special session was called to address prison overcrowding (and

702 Lyn Kathlene

traditionally male domain) and helping individuals and society (a female domain). The news clipping emphasized the high recidivism rates found in 11 states studied between 1983 and 1986. Beginning with the overall statistic that "about 62.5 percent of the former inmates had been rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor. . ." the article described the types of new crimes committed and broke down recidivism rates by several demographic characteristics and previous criminal history. Young prisoners and prisoners with extensive prior records had the highest recidivism rates. The article ended by noting that:

"In general, the rates did not appear related to the amount of time served, though prisoners who had served more than 5 years were rearrested less frequently than those with shorter terms" (Associated Press, "Sixty-Three Percent of Ex-cons Rearrested, Study Finds," Denver Post, 3 April 1989, p. 3A).

After each legislator read the article, three questions were asked:

1. What is your initial reaction to this article? 2. Why do you think there is such a high recidivism rate? 3. What do you think needs to be done?

The following analysis focuses on the language used by women and men to talk about the problem of crime and recidivism. Men and women differed in their interpretation of the article, with most men proposing some solutions unsupported by the study's findings. As neither the men nor the women rejected the article and its findings, these differences were not due to opposing assessments of the article's credibility. The gender differences found in the discounting of data that were contrary to previous knowledge or opinions on the subject indicate that the men, more than the women, either (1) had extensive knowledge that contradicted the research results (although only two of the men verbally disagreed with any of the findings); or (2) had developed strong opinions about the prison system and recidivism rates that influenced them, consciously or subconsciously, to overlook contrary facts. That the women did not display this reaction indicates that they (1) did not have extensive previous knowledge about the problem although proportionately more women (38%) than men (29%) in the interview sample had sponsored crime or prison bills in 1989; or (2) that women's previous knowledge and opinions about the problem were not in opposition to the new data. Given that the men and women had similar interest levels (half of the women as well as the men mentioned prisons or crime as top legislative priorities in a different interview question), and a greater proportion of women in this sample had more direct involvement, therefore expertise, in the crime problem, proposition one for both sexes is rejected. If proposition two best explains the gendered utilization differences, the question now posed is why would female legislators' knowledge and opinions be more con- gruent with the data? Presumably there are no systematic gender differences in ac-

highways). The legislators verified the importance of the prison issue, with 50% interviewed naming prison issues as one of the top legislative priorities in 1989.


cess to previous information; therefore the differences are likely to be at the level of cognitive integration and interpretation.

[nitial Reaction

Two men (a Republican and a Democrat) both perceived a bias by the press that interfered with the completeness of the information being reported. Needless to say, perhaps each believed the article was biased against his ideological position. Another male Republican felt the statistics were accurate but the implications of the findings were at odds with his philosophy. Of the two women (a Republican and a Democrat) who questioned the article, both wanted more than statistical trends. They were frustrated that the article did not delve into reasons underlying or theories regarding high recidivism rates. Nevertheless, none of the legislators in- .terviewed, even the five legislators who expressed some objections to the article, disputed the results reported in the article nor did they indicate any sense of sur- prise about the findings. When asked, "What is your initial reaction to this article," typical responses from men included:

I think it's a sad statement. [male, first term, Democrat] About the recidivism? I wasn't too surprised about it. [male, second term, Republican] The problem is so obvious and the solution is so obvious that you just lengthen sentences and

keep them off the streets. [male, second term, Democrat] It states something that I was aware of before. [male, third term, Republican] It's the same facts that we've had for the last 50 or 60 years. It hasn't changed. [male, third

term, Democrat] I'm not surprised. [male, fourth+ term, Republican]

Typical responses from women included:

I read an article in Reader's Digest before I ran for office that made many of the same state- ments that the two-, three-time offender is the one that [sic] commits the majority of the crimes. And I am not surprised at all. [female, second term, Republican]

It points out a real problem that exists after the people are back in society. And there is not the support group or the support that these people need back when they return back in to society. [female, third term, Republican]

My first reaction is that our trend, I know here in Colorado for the last 10 years, has been to warehouse prisoners. Oftentimes I don't believe that we look to the reasons why, number one, people are involved in a life of crime. [female, fourth+ term, Democrat]

I think it's more than likely very accurate. As they say some of the percentages really haven't changed that much. Recidivism rates among the youngest offenders is still quite high. [female, fourth+ term, Republican]

Visually what is most striking is the short one- or two-sentence answer of the males versus the more extended reaction of the females. As shown later, women saw the problem and its possible solutions as multifaceted, while the men tended to define criminals and crime policy in less inclusive terms. Both men and women agreed with the findings reported in the article, but they diverged markedly when discussing the origins of crime and how to address the problems of high recidivism.

704 Lyn Kathlene

An analysis of word types and usage suggests how these gendered differences were manifested.

Words Referring to Criminals

An examination of all nouns referring to people who commit crimes reveals that males and females discussed such people at differing rates (men averaged 9.8 references to criminals; women averaged 12.1 references to criminals). Moreover, the types of nouns used to describe criminals, and the frequency of type used varied dramatically. First, women and men referred to criminals or possible criminals in two distinct ways: (1) in general population terms (i.e., "people," "person," "somebody," "individuals," etc.), and (2) in crime-specific terms ("offenders," "prisoners," "criminal," "inmate," etc.). Women were three times more likely to refer to criminals in noncriminal terms (75% noncriminal references by females) rather than crime-related terms (25%). Men, on the other hand, were less than half as likely to refer to criminals with noncriminal terms (59% noncriminal references by males) rather than crime-related (41%). Table 2 lists all the references to criminals by women and men.

Moreover, when examining the variety of crime-related nouns, men used nearly all the same labels women did (8 of their 10) plus articulated 16 additional crime labels (for a total of 24 unique crime-related terms). Male vocabulary was rich with criminal labels, both in terms of the proportion of specific references and in the variety of criminal terms used, while women's vocabulary relied overwhelmingly on general population descriptions when referring to criminals.

The differences between men and women are particularly revealing considering the news article that described criminals in three main categories: (1) general population terms (36%, e.g., "men," "women," "people," etc.), and (2) criminal terms (64%) of which (2a) broad criminal labels represented 62% of the criminal terms ("inmates," "offenders," and "prisoners"), and (2b) crime-specific terms represented 38% of the criminal terms ("burglars," "drug offenders," "rapists," and "murderers"). While both men and women used more general population terms to refer to criminals than the article, men's creation of additional criminal terms goes well beyond the article. This was especially true for nonviolent crime labels. Interestingly, nearly all the specific labels mentioned by the legislators referred to nonviolent crimes (women: 94%; men: 99%) despite the article's highlighted box discussing rapists and murderers. Women's language remained internally consis- tent as they tended to talk about crime in nonspecific ways; whereas men's strong tendency to speak of crime in a wide variety of criminal terms was not logically fol- lowed through by differentiating between violent and nonviolent criminals.

This analysis can be taken a step further. The women did not focus on particular types of crime, which were in the article. Women's overwhelming use of nonspecific labels, both in general population terms and general criminal labels, is striking. Women's response to the article is heavily weighted not only toward the general terminology in the article but, arguably, against any crime specificity at all.

TABLE 2

SPECIFIC NOUNS REFERRING TO CRIMINALS BY LEGISLATORS BY SEX

References Made by Women (based on 16 interviews)

General Population (n = 14 terms) Crime Related (n = 10 terms)

Term Frequency Rate* Term 'Frequency Rate

People 88 5.5 Offender(s) 14 .9 Person 13 .8 Prisoner(s) 10 .6 Individual(s) 8 .5 Criminal(s) 8 .5 Somebody 8 .5 Felons 4 .3 Anyone 5 .3 DUI (people/crimes) 3 .2 Themselves 5 .3 Rapists 3 .2 Men/man 4 .3 Bad check writer(s) 2 .1 Someone 4 .3 Inmate(s) 2 .1 Everybody 3 .2 Convicts 1 .1 Members of society 3 .2 Drug abusers 1 .1 Disadvantaged 2 .1 Everyone 2 .1 Citizens 1 .1 Others 1 .1

Total 146 9.1 48 3.0 (75%) (25%)

References Made by Men (based on 31 interviews)

General Population (n = 15 terms) Crime Related (n = 24 terms)

Term Frequency Rate Term Frequency Rate

People 102 3.3 Criminal(s) 31 1.0 Person 23 .7 Prisoners 21 .7 Individual(s) 17 .5 Inmate(s) 15 .5 Themselves 9 .3 Prison population 11 .4 Guy(s) 6 .2 Ex-con(s, -victs) 9 .3 Somebody 5 .2 Offender(s) 8 .3 Someone 5 .2 Convicts 4 .1 Others 4 .1 Dropouts 4 .1 Members of society 2 .1 Ring leader(s) 3 .1 Women 2 .1 Burglar(s) 2 .1 Everyone 1 <.1 Felons 2 .1 Guests 1 <.1 Purse snatchers 2 .1 Offspring 1 <.1 Violators 2 .1 Peers 1 <.1 Animal 1 <.1 Student 1 <.1 Delinquents 1 <.1

Drug Abusers 1 <.1 Followers 1 <.1 Outpatient 1 <.1 Parolees 1 <.1 Rapist 1 <.1 Repeats 1 <.1 Sex offenders 1 <.1 Suspect 1 <.1 Thieves 1 <.1

Total 180 5.8 125 4.0 (59%) (41%)

*Rate calculation: Frequency of word divided by the number interviewed (by sex). Provides a com- parative standardized measure.

706 Lyn Kathlene

Women defined crime as people in a society rather than as a specific event (the crime: a burglary) or specific people (the crime committed by the person: a burglar).

Men, on the other hand, appear to have a different selectivity bias. Given that the men used fewer general population terms (yet, still more than found in the article), it follows that they would not be likely to distinguish violent and nonviolent crimes in general terminology either. Indeed, this was true. However, given that the men relied on criminal labels, the fact that men shied away from discussing violent crimes is contradictory to their crime-specific language. Men focused on nonviolent crimes through repeating the article's references as well as through their .own additional labels, resulting in an emphasis of specific nonviolent crimes and criminals themselves over a general discussion of crime. Ultimately, men's language elevated all discussion of specific crimes to nonviolent types.

We now see that violent crime is overlooked by most of the legislators but in very different ways. For the men, specific violent crimes are selectively omitted in favor of specific nonviolent crimes, perhaps because nonviolent crimes are likely to be more familiar to the middle class. This personal connection is likely the case for men since it was only the men who brought up stories about their own or their friends' victimization. For women, the infrequent mention of specific violent crimes and specific nonviolent crimes favors, instead, a discussion of crime in broader general terminology. To the extent that women grounded their responses in personal experience with crime, it was through their capacity as elected officials touring state prisons, conversing with local officials about crime in their communities, producing a broader (i.e., less language specific) discussion of crime.

These gender differences in terminology also could be revealing men's propensity to delineate the status of and their positional placement in relation to the sub- jects they discuss, while women's discourse displays their tendency to focus on establishing a connection with the subject (Tannen 1990). For men, this could mean that they need to speak about criminals in specific terms to disassociate themselves from the criminal while establishing their higher (at least different) social status. For women, this could mean that they can see criminals as people, too, which while they may not equate themselves with criminals, they do not feel compelled to differentiate themselves either. Women's language implicitly emphasized the interrelationships between people '(as criminals) and people (in society) through few de- marcations of the crime type or crime event; men's language implicitly removed society by focusing on the individual and the event (through crime labels). This distinction, as I show later; proves critical in understanding men's and women's differing responses to solving the problem.

An examination of references to criminals by party affiliation and seniority is shown in table 3. Women, regardless of party or terms in the legislature, are more likely than their male counterparts to rely on general population terms when referring to criminals and less likely to use crime-specific language. Overall, the same gendered trends as found previously are present within each party and among junior and senior members of the legislature.


TABLE 3

ANALYSIS OF NOUNS USED BY WOMEN AND MEN LEGISLATORS REFERRING

TO CRIMINALS CONTROLLING FOR PARTY AND SENIORITY

Democrats Republicans

Women Men Women Men Type of Noun (n = 7) (n = 13) Type of Noun (n = 9) (n = 18)

General 76% 57% General 75% 61% population (59) (83) population (87) (97)

Crime 24% 43% Crime 25% 39% related (19) (62) related (29) (63)

Junior (1st & 2nd term) Senior (3rd+ terms)

Women Men Women Men Type ofNoun (n = 5) (n = 19) Type ofNoun (n = 11) (n = 12)

General 77% 56% General 74% 63% population (70) (106) population (76) (74)

Crime 23% 44% Crime 26% 37% related (21) (81) related (27) (44)

Words Referring to Noncriminals

.General Noncriminal References. Within the general nouns, men and women used similar terms but tapped into different perspectives. For example, the words "community" and "country" were invoked when describing the effects of crime, but only women used these words to also discuss the origins of crime and the barriers to innovative solutions. For women, communities were not only victimized by criminal activity but were also responsible for creating the economic and social conditions that breed crime. As one African-American woman stated, "there needs to be a review in this country of wages, of what we pay people, of what provides people to be able to live and exist . . ." so that people do not engage in crime. Even more striking is the gendered use of the word "society." Twice as many women (69%) as men (39%) discussed crime in relation to society. Women linked crime to society broadly as a social problem, a social cost (unproductive members), or a social responsibility (a lack Qf a good education and/or economic opportunities). Men focused on the individual criminal being released back into society and the debt owed to society "for the violence of whatever they committed." The men were more likely to see crime in terms of individual deficiencies (making bad choices, character flaws), the monetary cost of imprisonment (use of honest taxpayers' dol- lars), or a lack of individuals taking responsibility for themselves.

Quotes from the second question, "Why do you think there is such a high recidivism rate?" demonstrate a gendered perspective. The most common theme

708 Lyn Kathlene

echoed by two thirds (n = 21) of the men from both parties (and only the men displayed this singular attitude) was individual responsibility:

It's just become a way of life for these people. [male, second term, Republican] Because I think once people get into a state of mind where they can commit crime and feel that

is an acceptable way of behavior it's very difficult to turn them around. [male, third term, Republican]

Because we're not coming to grips with the reason why crime is committed, which, I believe, is because criminals are, they want to do bad things to people. They've made that as a choice, of a life-style, and just keeping them off the street doesn't change that mind set. [male, second term, Democrat]

I guess part of it is due to probably character and circumstances. I think, you know, our prison's population is inhabited by, for the most part, people who probably deserve to be there. [male, fourth+ term, Democrat]

A lot of these guys don't take responsibility for their actions and that they don't really want to change their ways. [male, second term, Democrat]

I think the first and foremost is drugs . . . the minute they get out of prison, they're back on drugs again, which is a parole violation, and back they are, again, in prison. [male, second term, Republican]

Less than one fifth of the women (n = 3) referred to the problem in terms of the individual's responsibility, but these women, unlike most of the men who saw crime in individualistic terms, also referred to the need for intervention or rehabilitation (a more detailed analysis of rehabilitation strategies is pursued later).

I think that there are certain people that find that crime is their way of life. And you're not going to change them. Now the first time offender, if you can correct him or her as the case may be, and work with them, I think you might be successful. [female, second term, Republican]

I think crime becomes a way of life . . . I think treatment and prevention, while important, maybe that in combination with longer prison terms might be more successful with young offenders ... If you want rehabilitation, then you need to put those programs in place, and most states, including Colorado, do not. [female, third term, Republican]

They blame others, and the hate feeling that they have, the frustrations, and the hate feelings that they come in with to the prison system get worse in that system instead of getting better ... we're not doing a whole lot to stop that from happening. [female, first term, Democrat]

The remaining 13 women (81%) along with 11 men (35%) saw the high rates of recidivism in terms of society failing the criminal, albeit the societal basis of crime is seen through gendered lenses. Four men blamed society for not accepting former convicts into the community once released, foreclosing job opportunities, and ultimately pushing them back into a life of crime. Another four men discussed societal failings circumscribed within the private domain as the "breakdown of the family," "broken families," and "lousy parents" that have "failed to instill discipline and self-worth in their offspring." Women from both parties (n = 6) and three Demo- cratic men implicated society broadly for failing people before becoming criminals due to a disparate educational system, low wages, poor or no job opportunities, lack of support for families (e.g., parent training, quality daycare, child support), and/ or racism (only one African-American woman and two Hispanic men mentioned racism).


A particularly interesting difference in perspective arose around the role of the family. For more than half of the men who discussed families or parents (n = 7), they were seen as the locus of all power and influence over their children, essentially autonomous entities with no explicit or even implicit connection to the opportunities or barriers present in society. One man was -particularly articulate in this simple linear relationship across the generations:

The same people who were abused as children abuse their children. The same people whose parents were on welfare are on welfare now. The same people whose parents were in prison are now in prisons themselves. Uninsured motorists. On and on and on. [male, first term, Republican]

In contrast, none of the women saw families, parenting, or childhood experiences separated from social circumstances. When women mentioned families (n = 6), they speculated that criminals oftentimes came from families that struggled from a lack of various resources (e.g., monetary, educational, psychological) needed to raise healthy, motivated children. Situating families within a larger social framework led these women (three Republicans, three Democrats) along with three Democratic men to discuss specific prevention strategies to crime, such as increasing funding for and access to early childhood education programs, revamping school programs to be responsive to the needs of today's families, and revising the minimum wage to allow people a decent minimal standard of living. Alternatively, when families are envisioned separate from society, prevention strategies are re- duced to abstract rhetoric, such as "strengthening the family unit," or a hands-off approach that sees little hope for the "same 10% or 15% of the population that gives us most of our problems."

There were also gendered perspectives of prisons and prison policy. Women from both parties (7 of 16) discussed the social philosophy underlying our prison system as directly linked to recidivism rates. Was the purpose of prison to punish people or to prevent people from further engaging in a life of crime once released? For these women, the two philosophical bases were incompatible with each other and importantly lead to differing crime and prison policies. Punishment orientations resulted in longer sentencing approaches to make prisons function as holding pens or warehouses. On the other hand, prevention orientations focused on early childhood education and opportunities, early intervention strategies for first-time offenders, alternative sentencing programs, prison rehabilitation programs, and concern over social barriers leading to both a life of crime and continued criminal behavior.

Men, too, made the distinction between different types of crime policy but without addressing the social philosophy underlying the policy approaches. In fact, all the men who spoke about rehabilitation programs did so by keeping the criminal away from society (warehousing) or with the intent to punish (one male legislator made this distinction). While most of the men saw prison policy as not working well, only two newly elected Democrats, both Hispanic men, mentioned the need to rethink its philosophical basis.

710 Lyn Kathlene

Perhaps the most telling clue-between these gendered responses is to be found in the orientations of three men (two Republicans, one Democrat) who felt that current prison policy did not punish. They proposed increased mental and physical deprivation policies because we need to "quit treating them like hotel guests." Another man explained his view of imprisonment:

I don't think prison is such a bad place to be ... they get three square meals a day, the buildings are brand new, they're well-lighted, they're well-decorated. They have something to entertain them from football to television . . . get to play some sports, get to go to some classes and maybe work if they choose. You're not really talking about a bad place to be and I think that's a part of the problem. [male, second term, Republican]

While these three men represented a more extreme stand, the fact is that only two Hispanic men saw current prison policy as punishment. All the other men saw it as no punishment or as warehousing. The idea of warehousing does not necessarily invoke notions of individual punishment but rather societal protection from the criminal. Not one woman, not even the woman who also mentions warehousing (the only one) or the woman who has served more than four terms, finally rejecting any hope for rehabilitation, sees incarceration as anything but punishment. For the women, locking a person up with no intentions of offering alternative opportunities is punishment. It is social deprivation; it removes the person from a normal social life with no hope for individual gain. For men, incarceration as punishment goes unrecognized. The criminal exists as an autonomous being both inside and outside the prison system.

Specific Noncriminal References. Looking beyond the proportional usage of general and specific references to noncriminals, we also see differences in content among the specific references. An exhaustive list of the common and gendered usage of words is shown in table 4. While women were inclined to think about crime in general population terms (as previously discussed), among their specific references to noncriminals women overwhelmingly focused on a variety of individuals who were either victimized by crime (e.g., homeowner, victim) or who were part of the larger society (outside of government) that could be part of the solution to preventing crime (e.g., teachers, experts) or rehabilitating criminals (e.g., counselors, doctors). Nearly two thirds of women's unique noncriminal specific references fell into this category (compared with 19% of men's references). Men's focus was strikingly different from the women's. Men saw crime in very specific legal and political terms, with 75% of men's unique references (compared with 35% of women's) focused on governmental organizations (e.g., congress, courts, parole board) or individuals in government (e.g., senator, correction officials).

The differing frequency and word types used to describe both criminals and all other people suggests that women see crime in more inclusive social terms over the course of a lifetime (supporting Hypothesis 1) rather than more exclusive terms focused on a specific event (the crime and the system that directly responds to

TABLE 4

SPECIFIC NOUNS REFERRING TO NONCRIMINALS

IN LEGISLATOR INTERVIEWS, n = 47

Used by Used by Used by Men and Women Women only Men only

Noun Categories (n = 13 terms) (n = 31 terms) (n = 48 terms)

1. Specific Parent(s) Author Constituents individuals Taxpayers Counselors Father

Doctors Friend Educators Lawyer Experts Wife Grandmother Homeowner Students Teachers Victim

Category %: M = 26%; F = 16% 61% 19%

2. Specific Churches Civic organizations groups Family(ies)

Category %: M =28%; F = 26% 3% 0%

3. General Business(men, man) Company business Business community Industries

Employers Private organizations Private Sector

Category %: M = 13%; F =26% 0% 6%

4. Individuals in District attorney Elected officials Commander government Governor Lawmakers Congressional aide

Judge Policymakers Correction officials Legislator(s) County commissioner

Deputy FBI agent Intern Parole officers Personnel Policeman Senator Representative

Category %: M = 19%; F 21% 13% 33% (continued)

712 Lyn Kathlene

TABLE 4 (continued)

Used by Used by Used by Men and Women Women only Men only

Noun Categories (n = 13 terms) (n = 31 terms) (n = 48 terms)

5. Government Legislature Legislative body Administration organizations Prison industries Air Force

Prosecution Army Task force Commission Police department Congress

Courts Department Government Marines Parole board Social services Squadron State agency

Category %: M 13%; F 11% 23% 42%

*Category % is a proportional measure calculated as the frequency of word(s) in a noun category divided by the total frequency of words in all five noun categories within each of the three columns (i.e., words shared by men and women, words used by only women, words used by only men).

crime). Because women see crime and society as tightly linked, their assessment of the causes and solutions differs from the men's.

Policy Recommendations

Since men tend to focus on the crime event, the policy questions they ponder are more narrowly defined such as how to improve the administrative aspects of the criminal justice system or the prison system (n = 7), how to keep criminals off the streets (n = 7), and/or how to make criminals take responsibility for their behavior (n = 8). Women's propensity to view crime in terms of a lifetime process led to broader policy questions such as how to prevent people from turning to a life of crime (n = 9) and/or how to make the criminal a functioning part of society after incarceration (n = 13). Women, like men, saw behavior modification as an important factor to prevent recidivism, but women combined a lack of responsibility with low self-esteem and, unlike the men, saw behavior modification as one of many interconnected components necessary to rehabilitate an inmate. Most men felt behavior modification came first (before or instead of education and vocational training), but they were pessimistic about its results, feeling that "it is virtually impos- sible to break the cycle of crime in [the criminal's] mind." Conversely, women were more optimistic as they saw the intangible-gaining "self-confidence and self- worth"-as connected to and emanating from the tangible-"more training pro-


grams [and] education programs"-both of which are necessary for successful rehabilitation. When asked the last question "What do you think needs to be done?" their specific policy recommendations were grounded in these gendered views of crime.

Preventative versus Reactive. Just as the women connected the causes and effects of crime to society at large, they generally saw criminal policy needing to focus on the social conditions that breed crime. When asked for policy recommendations, more than half of the women (9 of 16) spoke about prevention in terms of early childhood education, public school education that is responsive to today's families, educational programs for at-risk children and their families, youth diversion programs, more job opportunities in high unemployment communities, or jobs paying decent wages. Only two Democratic men also addressed these issues of prevention. Typical recommendations included:

I think there needs to be prevention to keep people from going into a life of crime. I think there needs to be a review in this country of wages, of what we pay people, of what provides people to be able to live and exist, and to elevate and promote people into a sense of feeling that they count and that they see a reward in achieving. [female, fourth+ term, Democrat]

We also need to do some things to keep people from getting in prison in the first place. And they're talking about education on the public school level, too. And drug programs and all of that. [female, first term, Democrat]

I think education. Early education. Early. Like preschool for the disadvantaged ... That early childhood, I can remember my grandmother telling'me that a child is made or broken in the first five years of life. And I truly believe that. And if we're going to impact crime, anyone, the welfare roles, it has to be those children in the first five years of life. [female, second term, Republican]

I think in a whole generation if you really focus the right attention you might end up with some results. Maybe it's right now to say something as simple as spending a lot more money on education, you know, all that stuff on the front end. [male, first term, Democrat]

Most men did not talk about criminals as products of society but rather as individuals responsible for their choices, as "people who probably deserve to be there" or who "want to do bad things to people . . . made that as a choice of a life-style." This focus on the individual's present actions, rather than on the underlying social causes, resulted in reactive policy recommendations for stricter sentencing, longer prison terms, and rehabilitation in prison, but few preventive measures or early intervention strategies.

Approaches to Rehabilitation. Both men and women addressed the issue of rehabilitation. Both expressed sentiments about the lack of legislative commitment to rehabilitation programs resulting in merely "warehousing" prisoners. All legislators also noted the general lack of success in rehabilitation programs; yet, this did not dissuade them from recommending rehabilitation in the form of basic education (reading and writing), job skills, and abuse counseling.

However, nearly half (n = 7) of the females talked about directing rehabilitation to those people most likely to benefit from -it. And for them, this was the first-time

714 Lyn Kathlene

offender, rather than the repeat offender, a distinction made repeatedly in the article. Extensive rehabilitation programs are expensive and not likely to be funded; targeting scarce resources to the group most likely to benefit represented the best use of funds and a good legislative strategy. The women had a distinctively pragmatic approach to rehabilitation. On the one hand, it was imperative that legislators and society recognize that not "absolutely everyone can be rehabilitated" but at the same time everyone deserves a chance. Three of the women tied their recommendations for rehabilitation programs for first-time offenders to stiffer and longer sentences for repeat offenders.

The women's approach to rehabilitation contrasted sharply with the men's approach. Most males did not differentiate between those prisoners who could or could not be successfully rehabilitated. Either it simply was not addressed or "90%" of the criminals were categorized as drug users that could not be rehabilitated until they gave up their addictions. An interesting difference between the men and women was this mention of substance abuse. The men stated precise percentages (ranging from 50% to 90%) of the inmates who were, in one form or another, "there because of drugs."11I Rehabilitation programs, for these legislators, consisted first of abuse counseling in or out of prison (during parole periods).

Somewhat similar to the women's recommendations for improving the success rate of rehabilitation programs, one man did suggest "screening the convicted felons and deciding those who really don't have a very good chance of rehabilitation versus those for which some help may benefit them"; but this screen was to be based on the type of crime, the role in the crime (a "follower" rather than a "leader"), the type of prison (not maximum security), and age of offender (the young need programs). These predetermined selection criteria (or any others) were unlike the women's approach of selecting all first-time offenders. As one woman put it, "I don't think anybody has a crystal ball to see into anyone else's mind to say that this person is forever going to be a danger to society," so each and every one should have a chance to be rehabilitated. But, this same woman, continuing, also believed that while everyone should be given a chance, there are limits to how many chances society can give them:

The second time [incarceration], maybe I'll double that length of sentence, but the third time they will never come out again, And if I were a judge, that's exactly how I would sentence.

This approach to differentiating among prisoners is fundamentally different from the man who would rely on evaluations to choose the best candidates. Moreover, when the other men did distinguish prisoners, it was based on the crime committed as opposed to the number of incarcerations, even though the article stated just the opposite was related to recidivism. A few women, too, noted different types of offenses, but they referred to offenses in the context of "appropriate" or "creative" sentencing rather than based on rehabilitation success.

II The connection of drugs to crime and the percentages of criminals using drugs were not facts mentioned in the newspaper article. Only drug offenses, as a separate charge, were reported.


Alternative Sentencing. Two men (6%) discussed in general terms the need to use more community corrections programs due to a lack of prison space, which would entail, according to one man, the removal of judicial and social biases against placing some violent offenders in halfway houses. The other man advocated de- ferred sentencing, where the convicted person would not be incarcerated for the crime unless he or she defied parole conditions. In contrast, three women (19%) talked about alternative sentencing that had structured programs or clearly defined goals as being more appropriate for some criminals. A concern over the social cost of sentences based solely on punishment, the monetary cost of imprisoning more and more people, and the release of prisoners unprepared to enter society led these women to consider alternative sentencing in detail. Stressing the need for the legal system to be more responsive to crime types, one woman wonders why society puts bad check writers in prison. Most of these people, she thought, "have no concept of how to use money [and] ... they don't have a problem with using other people's ... ." Such people will not stop their behavior after incarceration. Instead, society should deal with the problem by not allowing people who "write bad checks .. . from ever getting a checking account." To this woman, even if incarceration could protect society from the bad check writer once released, it is an "extremely expensive" solution. There are alternative methods to employ. In her discussion, she focuses solely on the reality of the bad check writer within society. Her concern is long- term and pragmatic. Her approach does not incorporate societal retribution or punishment.

Another woman addressed alternative sentencing at a broader level, advocating community correction programs for those offenders who were not "hard line" criminals (i.e., convicts or violent offenders). Monitored living environments with curfews and work schedules could be effective for some people on probation or parole. It would help them get back on their feet with a job and protect society in the future by integrating the offenders into an acceptable way of life. She believed a monitored, structured environment made more sense than removing the person from society and causing integration problems in the future (at the time of prison release).

PRISON AND CRIME BILLS PROPOSED IN 1989

Do these gendered viewpoints found in the hypothetical policy problem translate into actual differences in legislative proposals? An examination of the 20 crime and the 10 prison bills introduced in the Colorado House in 198912 support the interview findings that men and women have different approaches to addressing crime and prison issues.

2All the crime and prison bills introduced in 1989 were analyzed. Some of the bills were sponsored by legislators that were not in the interview sample. I will be extrapolating the gendered viewpoints from one group of legislators to the actual bills sponsored by a different, though overlapping, group of legislators.

716 Lyn Kathlene

For definitional purposes, prison bills dealt with the actual incarceration of prisoners, holding of arrested people, or prison-related issues. Crime bills dealt with issues before incarceration such as criminal law, sentencing law, criminal records, and programs related to crime but not to imprisonment or punishment. Of these types of bills, women sponsored eight crime bills and four prison bills, and men sponsored 12 crime bills and six prison bills in 1989.'1 Table 5 lists the titles of the crime bills sponsored by females and males; table 6 lists the same for the prison bills.14

As table 5 shows, two of the eight bills sponsored by women addressed crime issues through prevention and/or intervention. None of the men sponsored such legislation. Just as women were more likely to discuss crime in terms of prevention strategies, only women proposed preventive crime policies. While several of these crime bills dealt indirectly with victims (e.g., number 1205 attempts to reduce dog attacks on innocent people by making their owners criminally liable; number 1075 attempts to reduce incidents of child sexual abuse through more severe criminal penalties for repeat offenders) or provided a partial direct relief to victims (e.g., such as one of the omnibus crime bills, number 1091, that changes how existing law treats child-victim testimony in abuse cases), only a female-sponsored bill was solely and comprehensively directed toward victims (number 1302). Just as only women mentioned victims in the interview, only a woman sponsored a victim rights bill.15

The men's crime bills are particularly striking. Eleven of the 12 bills dealt with legal issues. Four of these address changes in legal proceedings (such as rules regarding new evidence in criminal court cases), three expand existing laws to in- clude new crimes, and four increase penalties in existing criminal law. In the interviews, men talked most frequently about crime in relation to legal and political personnel. These actual crime bills, with their legal focus, and their "get tough on

"In the 1989 Colorado legislative session, sponsorship does reflect individual efforts because of low cosponsorship rates. Among the crime and prison bills, 70% (21 out of 30) were sponsored by only one person in the House. Moreover, even among the cosponsored crime and prison bills, a gender analysis is still valid. Men tended to cosponsor with other men (an average of 68% of their cosponsors were men) and women tended to cosponsor with other women (an average of 69% of their cosponsors were women).

14The sponsorship of crime and prison bills was not dominated by a few legislators or disproportion- ately sponsored by one sex. Rather many women and men introduced these bills in 1989. Nine women (41% of the female legislators) sponsored the 12 crime and prison bills; 15 men (35% of the male legislators) sponsored the 18 crime and prison bills. Overall, men and women displayed similar rates of sponsorship for crime and prison bills, which represented 9% of all the bills (n = 133) that women introduced and 8% of all the bills (n = 227) that men introduced in 1989. A summary of each crime and prison bill is available from the author upon request.

"However, the analysis of victims cannot be explored fully since very few references in the interviews dealt with victims or victimization. Probably the focus on criminals in the newspaper clipping (along with no references to victims) produced an overemphasis on the offender in the interview. Even so, the word victim was brought up only by women. Further study needs to be conducted to determine if this one link to what appears to be a gender difference in personal interest and the propensity to sponsor victim rights legislation is more than a coincidence.

TABLE 5

CRIME BILLS INTRODUCED IN 1989 SESSION,

COLORADO STATE HOUSE, BY SEX OF SPONSOR

Female-Sponsored Bills (n = 8) Male-Sponsored Bills (n = 12)

Bill# Title Purpose Outcome Bill# Title Purpose Outcome

1027 Release of Rec- Intervention PI* 1091 Concerning Legal LAW ords Pertain- Criminal procedures ing to Juvenile Procedures"* Offenders

1197 Dismissals of Legal LAW 1072 Crime Preven- Prevention! PI Actions"* procedures

tion Resource intervention Center 1162 Concerning Legal VETOED

Crimes"* procedures 1302 Strengthen Victim help LAW

Crime Victim 1231 Discovery in Legal LAW Compensation Criminal Pro- procedures Act ceedings**

1099 Financing Judi- New financing PI 1054 Obstruction of Expands Law PI cial Facilities"* for increased Peace Officer's

court expenses Animal"*

1226 Concerning New financing PI 1245 Safety on Educ. Expands Law LAW Court for police to Institution Actions"* fight drugs Premises

1205 Criminal Pen- Stricter PI 1259 Expand Crime Expands law LAW alties for Ani- sentencing of Equity mal Owners"* Skimming"*

1111 Driving Privi- Stricter LAW 1028 Maintenance of Stricter LAW leges of sentencing Juvenile Records sentencing Minors"*

1075 Crime of Sexual Stricter LAW

1289 Alcohol Re- Expands law, LAW Abuse"* sentencing lated Vehicular stricter law, Offenses"* stricter sen- 1335 Gang-Related Stricter LAW

tencing Crimes sentencing

Passage rate: 38% 1166 Driver's License Stricter LAW Revocation for sentencing Drugs"*

1124 Crimes Involving Rehabilitation LAW Acts of Domestic Violence"*

Passage rate: 83%

*PI = Postponed indefinitely " Sponsored by a person in the interview sample.

718 Lyn Kathlene

TABLE 6

PRISON BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE 1989 SESSION,

COLORADO STATE HOUSE, BY SEX OF SPONSOR

Female-Sponsored Bills (n = 4) Male-Sponsored Bills (n = 6)

Bill# Title Purpose Outcome Bill# Title Purpose Outcome

1090 Temporary Intervention LAW 1257 Juvenile Partial alt. to PI* Juvenile Hold- Wilderness incarceration ing Facilities"* Experience

1340 Concerning Alt. to prison PI 1074 Correctional Response LAW Community incarceration Facility time Corrections Emergency

Response 1067 Intensive Alt. to prison LAW

Supervision incarceration 1225 Charges to Legal protec- LAW Programs for Inmates for tion for state Offenders Medical Visits

1275 Placement of Financing LAW 1219 State Board Expand PI Prisoners in county jails of Parole"* board County Jail"* holding state

prisoners 1069 Construction New prison PI of Fremont (pork barrel)

Passage rate: 75% County Prison

1345 Minimum New prison PI Security (pork barrel) Facilities

Passage rate: 33%

*PI = Postponed indefinitely " Sponsored by a person in the interview sample.

crime" approach parallel the men's discussion and policy recommendations in the interviews. While women, too, sponsored stricter sentencing bills (three of the eight crime bills), this legal approach to crime was not their overwhelming method.

Looking specifically at the prison bills, again, only a woman's bill dealt with ar- rests from an interventionist standpoint. This bill kept arrested juveniles separate from the adult population to protect the youths. Two of the four prison bills sponsored by women dealt with alternatives to prison incarceration. And while one male-sponsored bill provided for alternative sentencing (a two-week wilderness program), it was limited mostly to minor offenses or a few weeks early release from juvenile detention centers. Women designed bills to provide alternatives to full incarceration through more structured community correction programs and inten-


sive supervision programs. Again, it was the women in the interviews who spoke about alternative and more appropriate creative sentencing to address recidivism problems more effectively.

In contrast, two of the six prison bills sponsored by men proposed new prisons in response to the serious overcrowding problem of the state's prisons. The prison issue also became a "pork barrel" issue as rural legislators attempted to guarantee or increase the chances that the new "industry" would be built in their district. The political battle was so heated that an extraordinary session had to be called to settle the issue,'6 but to no avail. The issue of a new prison was not settled in 1989.

Interestingly, the women's approach to jail overcrowding can be seen as part of their propensity to sponsor alternative sentencing. Additionally, only the women addressed the monetary costs to the municipal cour-t systems, the county jails, and the local police forces arising from the stricter sentencing legislation passed over the years. Two of women's crime bills and one prison bill dealt with providing more money to these local entities. As found in previous research (Kathlene 1991), women's direct active connection with local politics may give them more insight and information about the negative impacts caused by state policy. None of the men addressed these negative spinoff effects of the hard-line criminal legislation they tended to propose.17

Overall, two thirds of the men's crime and prison bills became law compared with one-half of the women's bills. Comparing crime and prison bills separately, only 37% of the women's crime bills became law compared with 83% of the men's crime bills. In particular, women's intervention and prevention bills were postponed indefinitely, as were their bills that attempted to address the monetary impact on the county court system (stemming from prior stricter sentencing laws).

One intervention bill (number 1027) exemplifies the conflict between a justice and care orientation. Sponsored by a female school counselor, the bill proposed to remove the restrictions that barred school and court personnel from sharing their respective institutional records on a juvenile offender. Such restrictions are based on justice notions of privacy and individual rights. However, from a care perspective there is a need for a holistic assessment of a juvenile to create a personalized program (be it in the school and/or through the juvenile court system) to best meet the needs of a troubled youth. While it seems unlikely that legislators objected to goals of this bill, the changes needed to produce this outcome were incompatible with a strict justice (or instrumental) view of criminal law.

The outcome columns shown in table 5 contrast sharply between men and women. Only two of the 12 male-sponsored crime bills were unsuccessful. All but one of these 12 bills approached crime through legal procedures, expansion of existing law, and stricter sentencing. It is significant that of the few "successful"

6The special session dealt with two topics: prisons and highway funding. 7The increasing burden placed on the local entities that deal with the vast majority of criminal cases

is a serious issue. A case in point was the national War on Drugs and the effect of swelling caseloads in the municipal court system (see Martin 1990).

720 Lyn Kathlene

crime bills sponsored by women, two of the three also approached crime through stricter sentencing and expansion of the law. It appears that the 1989 legislative session was more accepting of the male's instrumental approach to crime.

However, the outcome for prison bills was the opposite. Women were more successful, as 75% of their bills became law, including one intervention bill, one alternative to incarceration, and one that provided funds for counties to hold state prisoners due to prison overcrowding. Men, on the other hand, passed only 33% of their prison bills. In part, this was due to the unresolved political battle that ensued over two bills designed to secure the prison location in a particular district. Just as important, the women's prison bills directed at alternative sentencing dealt imme- diately with the problem of overcrowded jails and prisons, whereas the men's prison bills proposed new prisons that would not be operational for a decade. No doubt, the need for the legislature to respond quickly to prison overcrowding pushed the women's bills forward. Here, the political environment was conducive to accepting what might be seen as a-more untraditional prison policy. However, the successful passage of women's alternative sentencing bills does not necessarily reflect a reconceptualization of prison policy into more contextual terms (as in the philosophical issues women discussed earlier), but rather was seen as a stopgap measure for alleviating swelling incarceration rates reflecting the reasoning men had articulated in the interviews when discussing the role of community corrections. Hence, to see the high passage rate of women's prison bills as evidence of gender impact ignores the context that facilitated their passage. If women had changed the political discourse, we should have seen similar successful passage of their alternative contextual crime bills, but, in fact, this was not the case.

Another explanation of these differences in success rates by bill types might be understood partly in terms of the nature of the bills. Prison bills dealt directly with crime and criminals. Crime bills, as I defined them, were a broader category as they could deal directly with the crime/criminal or indirectly by projecting or anticipat- ing crime. It was only the women who sponsored the more indirect crime bills (e.g., prevention, intervention, indirect court expenses). Women's broader conceptions before incarceration may not have been accepted as appropriately addressing the problem of crime (providing potential verification of Hypothesis 2). However, only a reading of the committee transcript could verify this interpretation.

CONCLUSION

This research differs from past efforts in that it attempts to bridge the gap between theory and behavior by redefining the theoretical concepts of gender differences into attitudinal orientations likely to be important in the political arena. Men, I argue, tend to be more instrumental in their behavior and attitudes; women, on the other hand, approach the world from a more contextual viewpoint.

In the interview analysis, I found that the sample of 47 women and men state legislators saw crime and prison issues in very different terms. The women emphasized


the societal link to crime, which led them to speak about long-term preventative strategies as well as intervention measures. The view of the world as connected and interacting led them to see criminal problems as part of a lifelong issue-problems stemming from early childhood experiences, poor education, and a lack of opportunities in adulthood. They tend to see the criminal as a person who is both a victim of circumstances and a perpetrator of a crime. Their solutions were contextual, multifaceted, and long-term.

The men in the sample emphasized individual responsibility, which led them to propose stricter sentencing and increased prison space. They had a propensity to talk about criminals in terms of the crime itself rather than as people in society. And their tendency to recommend and sponsor bills that responded directly to the crime event is more evidence that they took a more instrumental view of the world, seeing it comprised of distinct actions that could be responded to in terms of the event itself. Thus, these men rarely talked about or sponsored legislation that addressed crime from a long-term perspective; rather, they sponsored legislation that responded directly to the crime event.

The attitudinal orientations expressed in the interviews did translate into differing policy approaches as exemplified in the crime and prison bills proposed in the 1989 legislative session. Overall, the bills women sponsored in the 1989 Colorado House were not as readily accepted by the legislature, as women had a lower success rate than men. Of the female-sponsored crime bills, those that addressed the problem in "male terms" became law. Passage appeared dependent upon a "traditional" instrumental conceptualization of the problem and a rejection of more contextual approaches. However, there were unexpected differences arising between the types of bills, notably the high success rate of women-sponsored prison bills. This is particularly intriguing since each of these bills embodied a more contextual response to incarceration. It may be that certain circumstances, specifically prison overcrowding and a tight budget, provide an opening for more untraditional contextual solutions to crisis problems without a fundamental reconceptualization of the policy problem.

More generally, though, some scholars have suggested that a postindustrial society provides for a business and political environment ripe for change (for example, see Bellah et al. 1-985). And this change, not coincidentally, mirrors the contextual perspective. Quality circles (Peters 1982) and interactive leadership (Rosener 1990) in the corporate world both emphasize the social needs of people as well as the interdependent relationship among and between employees and managers. And pro- nouncements that election year 1992 would be the "Year of the Woman" was not so much a liberal feminist call for proportional representation of women as it was a moral imperative that women can "clean House." Because of traditional notions of women as caretakers in society, most women are seen as and, indeed, are outsiders to power politics. Here we see a meeting of the minds: between scholars researching gender differences and public (or at least media) perceptions of women's potential contribution to politics. As this research demonstrates, these seemingly subtle but

722 Lyn Kathlene

substantively important gender differences do emerge in the formulation of public policies. How women and men talk about specific issues is more than simply just another way of saying the same thing.

Manuscript submitted 3 August 1992 Final manuscript received 3 November 1994

REFERENCES

Antolini, Denise. 1984. "Women in Local Government: An Overview." In Political Women, ed. Janet A. Flammang. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart. New York: Harper & Row.

Bers, Trudy H. 1978. "Local Political Elites: Men and Women on Boards of Education." Western Political Quarterly 78:381-91.

Carroll, Susan. 1985. Women as Candidates in Atmerican Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Center for the American Woman and Politics. 1989. "Women in State Legislatures 1989." Fact Sheet.

New Brunswick: Rutgers University. Chodorow, Nancy. 1974. "Family Structure and Feminine Personality." In Women, Culture and Society,

ed. Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cohn, Carol. 1987. "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals." Signs 12:687-718. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of

Empowerment. New York: Routledge. Diamond, Irene. 1977. Sex Roles in the State House. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dinnerstein, Dorothy. 1976. The Mermaid and the Minotaur. New York: Harper Colophon. Fishman, Pamela M. 1978. "Interaction: The Work Women Do." Social Problems 25:397-406. Flammang, Janet A. 1985. "Female Officials in the Feminist Capital: The Case of Santa Clara County."

Western Political Quarterly 38:95-118. Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Judith A. Cook, eds. 1991. Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as

Lived Research. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Gallois, Cynthia, and Victor J. Callan. 1985. "Situational Influences on Perceptions of Accented

Speech." In Language and Social Situations, ed. Joseph P. Forgas. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press. Gilligan, Carol, Janie V. Ward, Jill McLean Taylor, Betty Bardige, eds. 1988. Mapping the Moral

Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harding, Sandra, ed. 1987. Feminism & Methodology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press. Hockmeyer, Anne. 1988. "Object Relations Theory and Feminism: Strange Bedfellows." Frontiers

10: 20-28. Hoppe-Graff, Siegfried, Theo Herrmann, Peter Winterhoff-Spurk, and Roland Mangold. 1985.

"Speech and Situation: A General Model for the Process of Speech Production." In Language and Social Situations, ed. Joseph P. Forgas. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Houston, Marsha, and Cheris Kramarae. 1991. "Speaking from Silence: Methods of Silencing and of Resistance." Discourse & Society 2:387-99.

Johnson, Miriam M. 1988. Strong Mothers, Weak Wives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kathlene, Lyn. 1989. "Uncovering the Political Impacts of Gender: An Exploratory Study." Western

Political Quarterly 42: 397-21.


Lyn Kathlene is assistant professor of political science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1363.

Kathlene, Lyn. 1990. "A New Approach to Understanding the Impact of Gender on the Legislative Process." In Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences, ed. Joyce McCarl Nielsen. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Kathlene, Lyn. 1991. "Gender, Public Policy and the Legislative Process: Delineating the Gendered Perspectives and Outcomes of Policymaking in the 1989 Colorado State House." Ph.D. diss. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. "Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Position and Gender in Committee Hearing Debates." American PoliticalScience Review. 88:560-76.

Kramarae, Cheris. 1982. "Gender: How She Speaks.>' In Attitudes Toward Language Variation, ed. Ellen Bouchard Ryan and Howard Giles. London: Edward Arnold.

Lang-Takac, Esther, and Zahava Osterweil. 1992. "Separateness and Connectedness: Differences between the Genders." Sex Roles 27:277-89.

Margolis, Diane. 1980. "The Invisible Hands: Sex Roles and the Division of Labor in Two Local Political Parties." In Women in Local Politics, ed. Debra W. Stewart. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.

Martin, John A. 1990. "Drugs, Crime, and Urban Trial Court Management: The Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs." Yale Law & Policy Review 8:117-45.

Mezey, Susan Gluck. 1978. "Does Sex Make a Difference? A Case Study of Women in Politics." Western Political Quarterly 31:492-501.

Miller, Jean Baker. 1976. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon. Nielsen, Joyce McCarl, ed. 1990. Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences.

Boulder: Westview. Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University

of California Press. Peters, Thomas J. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row. Reingold, Beth. 1992. "Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators."

Legz.Isative Studies Quarterly 17: 509-37. Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosener, Judy B. 1990. "Ways Women Lead." Harvard Business Review (Nov. /Dec.): 119-25. Saint-Germain, Michelle A. 1989. "Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women

on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature." Social Science Quarterly 70:956-68. Sapiro, Virginia. 1984. The Political Integration of Women. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Schaef, Ann Wilson. 1981. Women s Reality. Minneapolis, MN: Winston. Smith, P. 1979. "Sex Markers in Speech." In Social Markers in Speech, ed. Klaus R. Scherer and

Howard Giles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York:

Morrow. Thomas, Sue. 1991. "The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies." Journal of Politics 53:

958-76. Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press. Thomas, Sue, and Susan Welch. 1991. "The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State

Legislators." Western Political Quarterly 44:445 - 56. Turner, Lynn H. 1992. "An Analysis of Words Coined by Women and Men: Reflections on the Muted

Group Theory and Gilligan's Model." Women and Language 15:21-26. Williams, J., and H. Giles. 1978. "The Changing Status of Women in Society: An Intergroup

Perspective." In Studies in Intergroup Behavior, ed. Henri Tajfel. London: Academic.

Alternative Views of Crime: Legislative Policymaking in Gendered Terms

Documents

Transcript of Alternative Views of Crime: Legislative Policymaking in Gendered Terms