FEMINIST THEORY, CRIME, AND JUSTICE*

By S. Simpson. 1989

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment (2017, background): “little attention has been given to validating these models on more diverse populations, in spite of the fact that there is a robust body of academic literature that captures a variety of gendered and racialized pathways to crime [9, 12, 62].”
Risky Lifestyles, Low Self-control, and Violent Victimization Across Gendered Pathways to Crime (2015, methodology): “taking the gendered contexts of victimization into account is relatively simple: estimate separate multivariate models for males and females (Belknap and Holsinger 2006; Holtfreter and Cupp 2007; Simpson 1989).”
Assessing the Impact of Gender Inequality on Female Homicide Victimization Across U.S. Cities (2002, background): “Although there is no one feminist theory of female victimization, feminist literature is teeming with perspectives on violence against women (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988; Simpson, 1989).”
Gender and general strain theory: A preliminary test of Broidy and Agnew's gender/GST hypotheses (2004, background): “Criminological theories have traditionally focused on explaining male delinquency (gender-specific theories of deviance) and have been criticized for failing to provide adequate explanations for female criminality (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988; Simpson, 1989; Tibbetts & Herz, 1996; Vold, Bernard, & Sni”
Assessing Recidivism Risk Across Female Pathways to Crime (2006, background): “Accordingly, feminists reject the notion that the same ordered sets of propositions explain both male and female criminality (Belknap, 2001; Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988; Simpson, 1989), and argue that male-centered theories fail to appreciate a variety of elements unique to female ”