chapter+2


 * __LITERATURE REVIEW__**

In this previous chapter, we have explained the fundamentals of the present study. To provide a clearer understanding of this study, we will thus discuss a few information that consistenly envelope the discussion of crime studies. We will explain the concept of crime, causes of crime and effect of the crime towards female and the way to prevent it.

__Crime Towards Female__ In the study of social problem, we are focus to discuss the crime towards female. Crime is generally defined as a legal wrong, the remedy for which is the punishment of the offender, at the instance of the state (Crosss and Jones). Besides that, crime is also define as an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or making the omission liable to punishment (Criminal Code Act;Section 2;Nigeria). In addition, the concept of crimes implies the existing norms or rules of conducts established through societal consensus, codification of such rules in the form of criminal laws, a deviation from the rules or violation of the laws and prescription or sanctions or punishment.

 __Abstract__  We argue that resource scarcity drives both property and violent offending in women. Property offenses reflect women’s attempts to provision themselves while violence reflects female–female competition for provisioning males. Evolutionary pressure (the critical importance of maternal survival to females’ reproductive success) resulted in females’ lower threshold for fear, relative to males, when faced with the same level of objective physical danger. This adaptation inhibits women’s involvement in crime, makes them more likely to be involved in property rather than violent crimes and, when direct confrontation is inevitable, causes them to use low-risk or indirect tactics. We discuss the  D   2001 Elseviercompatibility of our proposal with mainstream theories of sex differences in crime. Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Received 29 November 1999; received in revised form 25 February 2000; accepted 4 April 2000 Two major questions have driven theorising about sex differences in crime; the extent to which the same variables explain crime in both sexes and why females are less criminal than males (LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). Our proposed evolutionary model of sex differences addresses both these issues. With regard to the first question, we present correlations approaching unity between their male and female rates of crime across different regions, states, and nations, suggesting that whatever ecological conditions drive crime in one sex, drive it in the other also. With regard to the second question, women’s lower involvement in criminal behavior relative to men is a human universal (Steffensmeier et al., 1980; Simon & Baxter, 1989; Kruttschnitt, 1993). This suggests either that societies everywhere show a very high degree of uniformity in their differential treatment of males and females or that there is a ‘‘crime threshold’’ difference between the sexes that exhibits itself over a wide range of environmental conditions. In pursuing this latter argument, we will argue that women’s lower level of engagement in crime results from an evolved difference in fear between the sexes.

__Biological Foundation__ Prominent advocates of this school are Cesare Lombroso and Enrico Ferri have an argued that criminals are biologically inferior individuals (salvages and apes), insensitives to pain, excessively idle, lovers of orgies, with an irresistible craving for evil for its own sake. The biological school believes that genetics traits underlie human behaviour and that a substantial fraction of human behavioural variation is based on genetic differences. Moreover, each individual is genetically unique and distinguished by brain code and biochemical impulses. __ Social Inequality Foundation __ One of the commonly shared values in a society is the idea taht individuals have equal access to the available resources and opportunities. The main rule of conduct in this context of meritocracy, whereby whatever the individual achieves is seen to have been merited.
 * Causes of Crime**

 1. __Evolutionary psychology: an overview__ Evolutionary psychology holds that psychological attributes that conferred significant benefits in terms of survival and reproduction upon their bearer (relative to others who did not possess such attributes) are present today in the form of evolved modules designed to solve such specific ancestral problems as detecting social cheaters (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992), enhancing paternal certainty (Wilson & Daly, 1992), optimising mate selection (Buss, 1994), speedily acquiring language (Pinker, 1994), comprehending the mental state of others (Baron-Cohen, 1997) and weighting the costs of risky encounters (Campbell, 1999). An evolved mental adaptation demonstrates evidence of special design (e.g., economy, efficiency, complexity, precision, specialization and reliability) and it emerges maturationally over a wide latitude of environmental inputs. Evolutionary explanations have sometimes been misinterpreted as implying biological determinism; the untenable belief that genes alone direct development and behavior. In fact, the inclusive fitness of an individual in evolutionary terms depends upon phenotypic behavior, which in turn derives from the confluence of genetic disposition, developmental experiences, and environmental influences. For example, for normal development, the eye must be exposed to a variety of visual inputs early in life and the operation of the eye at any particular point in time is a function of both external (prevailing light, stimulus distance) and internal (task-specific saccadic search patterns) conditions. Evolved psychological modules may be selectively activated by the presence of particular developmental and current inputs. It is this plasticity that allows humans considerable flexibility in their response to varying environments. For this reason, evolutionary arguments do not require invariance in the expression of evolved adaptations; ‘‘manifest expressions may differ between individuals when different environmental inputs are operated on by the same procedures to produce different manifest outputs’’ (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992, p. 45). People ultimately speak different languages but they possess the same language acquisition device at birth. Although some feminist critics (e.g., Fausto-Sterling, 1992; Bem, 1993) have objected that an evolutionary explanation naturalises or justifies the status quo, it is evolutionary psychologists who have argued most forcibly against the naturalistic fallacy—the belief that what is natural is morally right or desirable. Natural selection operates as a sieve allowing some organisms in particular environments to pass through and others to die. This process knows nothing of right or wrong, just or unjust. There is a clear distinction between what we as humans hold to be morally desirable and what natural selection has blindly retained as an adaptation. The majority of natural pressures, such as vulnerability to predation and parasite infestation, operated equally on men and women, resulting in their marked similarity with regard to most psychological competencies and traits. Sex differences are expected only where the form or degree of selection pressures differed between the sexes. Such differences are most likely to be the result of sexual selection. In the present article, we shall focus on  natural selection   pressure operating on both sexes and on sexresource scarcity as a   sexual selection   pressuresdifferences in fear threshold, which, we shall argue, arose from on women, specifically the long period of infant dependency in our species which made a woman’s reproductive success (to a greater degree than a man’s) dependent upon her ability to avoid danger. <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"> __2. Women, fear, and crime__ <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">Low levels of criminal involvement by women are particularly remarkable because more women than men live below the poverty line and women are the chief providers for dependent children. In this section, we offer an evolutionary account of women’s lower rate of involvement. Our argument hinges on the fact that the mother’s presence was more critical to her offspring’s survival (and hence to her reproductive success) than was the father’s. This means that those females who showed an aversion to risky confrontations in our evolutionary past, would have been more likely to successfully reproduce and so have ensured the continuance of any such genetic tendency in women today (see Campbell, 1999). We should emphasize that risk avoidance is a function of parental investment rather than sex per sec. Among primates, sex differences in adult survivorship vary directly with the degree of infant care afforded by each sex. Where males make the larger parental investment (in owl and titi monkeys), the sex difference in mortality is reversed as a function of parental investment (Allman et al., 1998). These males live longer and this difference in survival is most marked during the young adult years indicating that the effect is mediated by risk-avoidance rather than differences in senescence. The importance of the mother’s survival is indicated by five major considerations. (1) <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">are measured in hours vs. years and the metabolic costs are equally disparate. Lower fitness variance among females increases the replacement cost and hence the value of each child. (2) Maternal investment: the relative time costs of reproduction to males and females respectively   <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">his paternity. (Contemporary data suggest that between 7% and 14% of infants are not fathered by the mother’s partner and a woman is also more likely to conceive during an extra-marital affair than with her husband, Bellis & Baker, 1990). A mother, unlike a father, can be certain that any sacrifices she makes to ensure her offspring’s survival are not in vain from the point of Maternal certainty: concealed ovulation in humans means that a man can never be certain of  <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">Mother–infant attachment   <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">view of genetic replication. (3) : a mother’s motivation to ensure her   <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">child’s survival is matched by the greater dependency of the infant on the mother rather than the father. The large endocranial size of our species together with a narrowing of the birth canal caused by bipedalism meant that infants had to be born relatively immature with correspondingly longer period of dependency (Lancaster & Lancaster, 1983). In all societies, women take primary resposibility forinfant care (Ember, 1981; Brown, 1991). In hunter– gtherer societies, like the ones in which humans evolved, fathers provide less than 7% ofchildcare(West & Konner, 1976). Cross-culturally, children aged 3–6 years spend between 3 <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">and 10 times as much time with their mother than with their father (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">and by the ages of 4–10 years, they are with their mother two to four times longer than with the <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">father (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). <span style="font-size: 110%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">