Crime and deviance are criminological concepts that are believed to be strongly influenced by practical issues such as gender and media exposure. First, regarding gender; There have been numerous attempts to explain this idea, and one way to see the main difference is to investigate official crime statistics. In this way, criminologists have concluded that in most countries in the world, males commit more crimes than females, this is referred to as the “crime-gender gap” or the “crime-sex ratio” (Browne, Blundell and Law , 2016). '.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Official crime statistics for England and Wales in 2013-2014 show that males accounted for 75% of all people convicted of all crimes and 85% of all people convicted of more serious crimes and the 95% of prisoners are men (Browne, Blundell, & Law, 2016). Many criminologists criticize the use of official crime statistics and have attempted to use self-report studies to test their validity. Graham and Bowling (1995) did this after studying 1,721 boys aged 14 to 25 and concluded that, although males committed more crimes than females, this was only double rather than four times as suggested by official crime statistics . However, both the use of official crime statistics and self-report studies of crime can be criticized in similar ways, mainly on the basis of validity as both methods rely only on reported crimes. The data shows that, according to official statistics, “women were more likely than men to report physical injuries (42% vs. 18%) or to fear for their lives due to spousal violence (33% vs. 5%)” in 2009 (Hotton Mahony, 2010), therefore, the data may not be fully representative. This is known as the “dark figure” of crime, which refers to the amount of unreported crime. Furthermore, self-report studies lack further ecological validity as they have a relatively small sample size, so they too are not accurately representative. Many criminologists have attempted to explain these differences in crime rates between the sexes. First, the chivalry thesis was developed by Pollak in 1950 and argues that the criminal justice system is dominated by men and because gender stereotypes view women as more vulnerable and in need of protection, those within of the criminal justice system are socialized to treat female offenders. more lenient, protective, and patriarchal, so their crimes are less likely to appear in official crime statistics, further inhibiting the validity of these statistics (Browne, Blundell, & Law, 2016). On the other hand, in support of this thesis there is the work of criminologists such as Sear and Player (1986) who discovered that according to statistics from the Ministry of the Interior, supported by statistics from the Ministry of Justice, 35% of women judged offenders received cautions while only 19% of males did so and 50% of females received suspended sentences while only 36% of males did (Newburn, 2017). Furthermore, the Home Office also demonstrated that women were generally considered less of a threat by the police, thus benefiting from informal approaches to their charges such as warnings or warnings rather than being charged. However, the chivalry thesis has been criticized by many criminologists. It has been argued that the most “lenient” approach inagainst women in criminal justice is simply due to the fact that women commit less serious crimes than men, and also generally have more mitigating factors such as showing remorse and having caring responsibilities that are considered by criminal justice. system and can lead to a reduction in the length of the sentence. Another concept was developed to explain how women are treated more harshly and are subjected to oppressive and paternalistic forms of justice by the criminal justice system. This is known as double deviance since women are essentially judged twice, firstly for committing a crime and secondly for their deviance from stereotypes of femininity. This concept has been supported by many different criminologists such as Smart, who has argued that women may be treated more harshly/unsympathetically by the courts and may be stigmatized with negative identities such as “evil woman” if their criminal act is particularly deviating from gender role norms such as being caring and sensitive, such as child neglect/abuse or severe physical abuse. Similarly, some criminologists argue that social constructs regarding stereotypical gender roles influence crime rates. These ideas focus on concepts such as the aforementioned double deviance, as well as the role of socialization in explaining why women are less likely to commit crimes than men. Heidensohn (1985) argues that women are expected to base their lives within the “private domestic sphere of the home” where they will be occupied with responsibilities such as housework and childcare, leaving them neither time nor care. opportunity to commit crimes while they are teenagers. girls are also more likely to be supervised more closely by parents than boys, thus also reducing their chances of committing crimes (Browne, Blundell, & Law, 2016). This idea that women have less time and opportunity outside the confines of the home to commit crimes was also strengthened by Dobash and Dobash (1979) who found that some women were subjected to domestic violence and their husbands exacerbated their power through power financial, such as because they do not provide wives with sufficient funds for leisure activities, therefore limiting their time outside the home (Newburn, 2017). Further social impacts also include the idea of ​​labelling, as Lees, in her study “Losing out”, proposed the idea that women have fears about the threat of losing their reputation and being negatively labelled. It has been found that girls tend to avoid negative labels such as “dross” by conforming to the social controls imposed by their institutions such as family, education system and peers while boys do not have such fears therefore they are more likely to commit crimes since they do not they fear informal punishment from labels. A similar argument has also been used to describe how social constructs prevent women from moving up the professional ladder to more senior roles. This is known as the “glass ceiling” and criminologists argue that because women are less likely to hold these more powerful job roles, there are fewer opportunities for them to commit white collar crimes. Furthermore, criminologists also focus on many other factors that explain why women are believed to commit fewer crimes than women. One of these explanations was developed by Lombroso and Ferro (1895) who used biology as an explanation. They argued that by studying skeletal structure it is possible to distinguish between those who are criminals and those who are "normal" and sincewomen are "less evolved" than men, they are not able to deviate as much and therefore commit fewer crimes. Lombroso also stated that females are biologically devoid of the aggressive trait possessed by males, thus are less likely to be involved in criminal activity of an aggressive nature. This idea has also been supported by other scholars who argue that it is the hormone testosterone that leads to committing a crime, hence the reason why women commit less because they lack this hormone. Criticizing this, Smart (1977) argues that this explanation is oppressive as it ignores the idea of ​​free will and suggests that biological influences predetermine an individual's actions, as well as the fact that it does not address the social constructs of gender roles that might lead to a difference in crime rates between the sexes (Newburn, 2017). Despite many arguments as to why males commit more crimes than females, female involvement in crime has recently increased. This is evidenced by the fact that the number of women accused of criminal offenses has increased from 304,343 in 2009/2010 (Women and Criminal Justice System Statistics, 2011) to 314, 175 in 2015/16 (Women and Criminal Justice System Statistics, criminal justice 2015, 2016). Some have argued that this may be due to an increase in widespread drug use, as 47% of female offenders reported using crack cocaine in the year prior to their arrest, compared to only 35% of female offenders male sex; however, this figure is based on personal considerations. -relationship in the sense that it lacks reliability. The second practical problem in today's society is the effect the media has on criminal behavior and aggression. Aggression can be defined as “Feelings of anger or dislike that result in hostile or violent behavior; readiness to attack or confront” (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.) this can refer to both physical and/or verbal behavior such as hitting, shouting or swearing. The media can be defined as “the major means of mass communication” (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.) for example TV, newspapers, radio and the internet. Many criminologists have argued that with increased exposure to the media, there is a direct correlation with increased levels of aggressive behavior in society; this has been supported by work such as that of Anderson (2003), whose research concluded that violence in the media increases the likelihood of both immediate and long-term aggressive behavior (Browne, Blundell, & Law, 2016). This link may be due to factors such as desensitization, imitation, and the stimulation of desire for inaccessible goods. Firstly, it has been argued that exposure to violence and crime through the media leads an individual to become desensitized towards them as increased exposure to aggressive behavioral behaviors leads them to be less fearful or understanding, thus they are socialized to accept aggression as normal everyday behavior. Research supporting this theory includes the work of Bartlett et al (2009) who conducted a study involving 69 male participants who were randomly assigned to play a violent or non-violent video game, then asked to choose a quantity of hot sauce given to an individual who has indicated that he does not like spicy food. It was found that those who played the violent video game chose to administer significantly more than those who played the nonviolent video game (Busching, Allen, & Anderson, 2016). This supports the idea that exposure to aggressive behavior leads to a greater likelihood of the individual displaying traitsaggressive, however this research lacks both demographic and ecological validity as it occurred in a laboratory and had a small all-male sample, making generalization difficult. to the wider population. Furthermore, this argument has been challenged by theorists such as Young (1981) who have argued that rather than becoming desensitized, exposure to aggression and violence actually leads an individual to become positively “sensitized” as individuals become increasingly aware of the consequences of violent acts through examples seen through the news or television and therefore become less tolerant and may try to avoid it (cgp). Another theory is that the media creates moral panics and popular devils which leads to the amplification of deviance through labeling. Moral panic occurs when the media amplifies the perceived risk of being a victim of a crime leading to a public response of panic or outrage (cgp). Stanley Cohen (1972) developed this idea and used the example of “mods and rockers” in 1964, two groups of working class youth clashed in a seaside town and the media created a moral panic by exaggerating the extent of the violence between them and negatively labeled each group, even transforming them into folk devils; individuals or groups who pose an exaggerated threat to society (Browne). Other examples of this theory include how the media can exaggerate isolated incidents of student bad behavior in schools leading the public into a moral panic and belief that all students are deviant and a threat to the social order. This label may then be internalized by some students, leading to the self-fulfilling prophecy in which the label becomes actualized leading to greater deviance. This process in which the media exaggerates or creates these problems leading to a social control response from authorities such as the police, which in turn causes further deviance, is known as deviance amplification (cgp). One criticism of this theory of amplification of deviance and moral panic is that it is outdated. McRobbie and Thornton (1995) stated that in a media saturated society with a variety of different types of media such as the Internet, social media and television means that there is a wider diversity of media reports and interpretations of events. This means that it is more difficult for media sources to portray false or exaggerated issues or events in a way that causes moral panic (Browne, Blundell, & Law, 2016). Furthermore, this theory is deterministic as it ignores the concept of free will and relies on labeling as a cause of deviance, implying that deviance would be non-existent without labels. Additional theories that examine the causes of deviance and crime without accounting for media influences include Personality Difference Theories. First, it has been found that a genetic disorder that leads to an extra Y chromosome in males leads an individual to possess more irrational, impulsive and neurotic personality traits, so these people are more likely to behave aggressively. Stochholm et al conducted a longitudinal study from 1978 to 2006 comparing the chromosomes of criminal men aged 15 to 70 years with those of the general population. It was found that the conviction rates of men carrying the extra y chromosome were significantly higher, thus supporting the hypothesis that the presence of this extra sex chromosome could lead to a greater likelihood of aggressive and criminal behavior (Stochholm et al ., 2012). . Although this study has high population validity due to its wide range of male participants which makes it.