Women,‌‌Incarceration,‌‌and‌‌Violent‌‌Crime:‌‌A‌‌Briefing‌‌in‌‌Response‌‌to‌‌
Plans‌‌for‌‌Building‌‌a‌‌New‌‌Women’s‌‌Prison‌‌in‌‌Massachusetts‌1‌ ‌
‌
“[T]he‌‌effort‌‌to‌‌divide‌‌up‌‌the‌‌world‌‌into‌‌the‌‌violent‌‌and‌‌the‌‌nonviolent,‌‌or‌‌into‌‌any‌‌other‌‌sharply‌‌
drawn‌‌dichotomous‌‌categories,‌‌blinds‌‌us‌‌too‌‌often‌‌to‌‌the‌‌gradations‌‌that‌‌actually‌‌characterize‌‌
our‌‌collective‌‌life”‌‌(Sklansky,‌‌2021,‌‌p.‌‌5).‌ ‌ ‌

Introduction‌ ‌
The‌‌Massachusetts‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correction‌‌(DOC)‌‌has‌‌announced‌‌its‌‌intention‌‌to‌‌close‌‌
MCI-Framingham,‌‌the‌‌oldest‌‌functioning‌‌women’s‌‌prison‌‌in‌‌the‌‌country,‌‌by‌‌2024‌‌(Williams,‌‌
2020).‌‌The‌‌primary‌‌state‌‌prison‌‌for‌‌women,‌‌MCI-Framingham‌‌currently‌‌houses‌‌fewer‌‌than‌‌200‌‌
women.‌2‌‌ ‌This‌‌number‌‌includes‌‌women‌‌awaiting‌‌trial‌‌as‌‌well‌‌as‌‌women‌‌sentenced‌‌on‌‌a‌‌wide‌‌
range‌‌of‌‌governing‌‌charges‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2021).‌ ‌
To‌‌replace‌‌MCI-Framingham,‌‌Governor‌‌Baker’s‌‌administration‌‌plans‌‌to‌‌build‌‌a‌‌new‌‌women’s‌
prison‌‌or‌‌substantially‌‌renovate‌‌an‌‌unused‌‌men’s‌‌prison‌‌at‌‌an‌‌estimated‌‌cost‌‌of‌‌$50,000,000.‌
That‌‌sum‌‌is‌‌in‌‌addition‌‌to‌‌the‌‌operating‌‌cost‌‌of‌‌$162,000‌‌per‌‌woman‌‌per‌‌year‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌
2021).‌‌ ‌
In‌‌response,‌‌coalitions‌‌of‌‌community‌‌organizations,‌‌academics,‌‌social‌‌workers,‌‌and‌‌attorneys‌‌
argue‌‌that‌‌the‌‌time‌‌has‌‌come‌‌to‌‌end‌‌the‌‌punitive‌‌policies‌‌that‌‌gave‌‌rise‌‌to‌‌mass‌‌incarceration;‌‌that‌‌
$50,000,000‌‌could‌‌be‌‌put‌‌to‌‌better‌‌use‌‌supporting‌‌housing,‌‌families,‌‌education,‌‌parks,‌‌local‌‌
businesses‌‌and‌‌services‌‌that‌‌build‌‌up‌‌people,‌‌not‌‌prisons‌‌(Building‌‌Up‌‌People‌‌Not‌‌Prisons,‌‌n.d.).‌‌ ‌
The‌‌population‌‌of‌‌women‌‌incarcerated‌‌for‌‌crimes‌‌labeled‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌has‌‌emerged‌‌as‌‌a‌‌sticking‌‌
point‌‌in‌‌efforts‌‌to‌‌balance‌‌concerns‌‌for‌‌public‌‌safety‌‌with‌‌the‌‌rights‌‌and‌‌well-being‌‌of‌‌women‌‌
and‌‌communities‌‌most‌‌impacted‌‌by‌‌pro-incarceration‌‌policies‌‌of‌‌the‌‌late‌‌20th‌‌and‌‌21st‌‌centuries.‌‌ ‌
To‌‌help‌‌ground‌‌these‌‌concerns‌‌in‌‌research,‌‌this‌‌briefing‌‌presents‌‌an‌‌overview‌‌of‌‌the‌‌scholarly‌‌
literature‌‌on‌‌women,‌‌violence,‌‌and‌‌crime.‌‌That‌‌literature‌‌is‌‌illustrated‌‌through‌‌the‌‌stories‌‌of‌‌real‌‌
women‌‌who‌‌have‌‌been‌‌incarcerated‌‌for‌‌crimes‌‌classified‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌in‌‌Massachusetts.‌ ‌
‌

T
‌ his‌‌briefing‌‌was‌‌written‌‌by‌‌Rebecca‌‌Stone,‌‌Susan‌‌Sered,‌‌Amanda‌‌Wilhoit,‌‌and‌‌Cherry‌‌Russell‌‌together‌‌with‌‌
members‌‌of‌‌the‌W
‌ omen‌‌and‌‌Incarceration‌‌Project‌‌‌at‌‌Suffolk‌‌University.‌‌ ‌Corresponding‌‌author:‌s‌ sered@suffolk.edu‌.‌ ‌
It‌‌is‌‌one‌‌in‌‌a‌‌series‌‌of‌‌reports‌‌published‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Women‌‌and‌‌Incarceration‌‌Project.‌‌Click‌h‌ ere‌‌‌for‌‌additional‌‌
reports.‌‌Click‌h‌ ere‌‌‌for‌‌a‌‌shorter‌‌version‌‌of‌‌this‌‌paper.‌ ‌
‌
2
T
‌ hat‌‌number‌‌includes‌‌‌women‌‌who‌‌are‌‌sentenced,‌‌women‌‌awaiting‌‌trial,‌‌and‌‌civil‌‌commitments.‌‌The‌‌
Massachusetts‌‌DOC‌‌“female‌‌custody‌‌population”‌‌has‌‌decreased‌‌by‌‌75%‌‌since‌‌2014‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2021‌,‌‌p.‌‌12).‌‌ ‌
1

Five‌‌points‌‌clearly‌‌emerge‌‌from‌‌the‌‌literature:‌ ‌
● Classification‌‌of‌‌acts‌‌into‌‌“violent”‌‌and‌‌“non-violent”‌‌is‌‌problematic‌‌and‌‌inconsistent‌‌in‌‌
American‌‌law‌‌and‌‌practice,‌‌and‌‌has‌‌problematic‌‌racial‌‌and‌‌gender‌‌implications.‌ ‌
● Women‌‌have‌‌very‌‌low‌‌rates‌‌of‌‌arrests‌‌and‌‌convictions‌‌for‌‌violent‌‌crimes.‌ ‌
● Women‌‌are‌‌more‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌be‌‌victims‌‌than‌‌perpetrators‌‌of‌‌violent‌‌crimes.‌ ‌
● Women‌‌who‌‌commit‌‌violent‌‌crimes‌‌usually‌‌do‌‌so‌‌in‌‌the‌‌context‌‌of‌‌household‌‌or‌‌intimate‌‌
partner‌‌abuse.‌ ‌
● Women‌‌released‌‌from‌‌prison‌‌after‌‌serving‌‌time‌‌for‌‌violent‌‌crimes‌‌are‌‌unlikely‌‌to‌‌commit‌‌
a‌‌subsequent‌‌violent‌‌crime.‌ ‌

“Violent‌‌crimes”:‌‌An‌‌ambiguous‌‌category‌ ‌
The‌‌categorization‌‌of‌‌crimes‌‌into‌‌“non-violent”‌‌and‌‌“violent”‌‌is‌‌inconsistent‌‌over‌‌time‌‌and‌‌
throughout‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States.‌‌Some‌‌acts‌‌that‌‌lay‌‌people‌‌may‌‌not‌‌consider‌‌violent,‌‌for‌‌example,‌‌
purse‌‌snatching,‌‌burglary‌‌of‌‌an‌‌empty‌‌home,‌‌or‌‌driving‌‌under‌‌the‌‌influence,‌‌are‌‌categorized‌‌as‌‌
violent‌‌offenses‌‌in‌‌some‌‌jurisdictions‌‌but‌‌not‌‌in‌‌others‌‌(O’Hear,‌‌2019).‌‌Other‌‌acts‌‌that‌‌lay‌‌people‌‌
may‌‌consider‌‌violent‌‌are‌‌not‌‌always‌‌categorized‌‌that‌‌way.‌‌For‌‌example,‌‌simple‌‌assault‌‌is‌‌not‌‌
considered‌‌a‌‌violent‌‌felony‌‌in‌‌most‌‌jurisdictions.‌‌ ‌
While‌‌Congress‌‌has‌‌attempted‌‌to‌‌provide‌‌a‌‌uniform‌‌definition‌‌of‌‌a‌‌crime‌‌of‌‌violence,‌‌“courts‌‌
have‌‌struggled‌‌to‌‌assess‌‌the‌‌scope‌‌of‌‌that‌‌definition”‌‌(Smith,‌‌2018,‌‌p.‌‌4).‌‌According‌‌to‌‌the‌‌
Federal‌‌Bureau‌‌of‌‌Investigation‌‌(FBI)‌‌Uniform‌‌Crime‌‌Reporting‌‌(UCR)‌‌Program‌‌(Federal‌‌
Bureau‌‌of‌‌Investigation‌‌[FBI],‌‌2018),‌‌violent‌‌crimes‌‌are‌‌defined‌‌as‌‌offenses‌‌that‌‌involve‌‌force‌‌or‌‌
threat‌‌of‌‌force.‌‌‌That‌‌definition,‌‌however,‌‌allows‌‌a‌‌great‌‌deal‌‌of‌‌room‌‌for‌‌interpretation‌‌regarding‌‌
what‌‌constitutes‌‌the‌‌threat‌‌of‌‌force‌‌and‌‌whose‌‌perception‌‌of‌‌threat‌‌counts.‌‌“Police,‌‌prosecutors‌‌
and‌‌juries‌‌have‌‌a‌‌great‌‌deal‌‌of‌‌discretion‌‌in‌‌deciding‌‌whether‌‌to‌‌treat‌‌an‌‌incident‌‌as‌‌simple‌‌
assault‌‌[not‌‌a‌‌violent‌‌offense],‌‌aggravated‌‌assault‌‌[a‌‌violent‌‌offense],‌‌or‌‌not‌‌an‌‌assault‌‌at‌‌all”‌‌
(Sklansky,‌‌2021,‌‌p.‌‌170).‌‌ ‌
Plea‌‌bargaining—which‌‌accounts‌‌for‌‌approximately‌‌95%‌‌of‌‌criminal‌‌convictions—further‌‌
obscures‌‌any‌‌clear‌‌relationship‌‌between‌‌a‌‌conviction‌‌for‌‌a‌‌crime‌‌that‌‌has‌‌been‌‌labeled‌‌by‌‌the‌‌
courts‌‌or‌‌legislature‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌and‌‌the‌‌action‌‌an‌‌individual‌‌engaged‌‌in‌‌(Savitsky,‌‌2012).‌‌Of‌‌
particular‌‌relevance‌‌to‌‌this‌‌paper,‌‌women‌‌may‌‌be‌‌especially‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌accept‌‌plea‌‌bargains‌‌due‌‌to‌‌
coercion‌‌from‌‌male‌‌partners,‌‌fear‌‌of‌‌losing‌‌custody‌‌of‌‌children,‌‌and‌‌lifetimes‌‌of‌‌socialization‌‌into‌‌
ideas‌‌that‌‌women‌‌should‌‌be‌‌agreeable‌‌and‌‌not‌‌challenge‌‌authority‌‌(Jones,‌‌2011;‌‌Sankofa,‌‌2018).‌ ‌
Further‌‌complicating‌‌matters,‌‌in‌‌Massachusetts‌‌the‌‌DOC‌‌classifies‌‌crimes‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌or‌‌
non-violent‌‌according‌‌to‌‌criteria‌‌that‌‌reflect‌‌neither‌‌commonsense‌‌nor‌‌widely‌‌accepted‌‌legal‌‌
notions‌‌of‌‌violence.‌‌According‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Massachusetts‌‌DOC‌‌“Prison‌‌Population‌‌Trends‌‌2020,”‌a‌ ll‌‌
crimes‌‌against‌‌persons‌‌and‌‌sex‌‌crimes‌‌are‌‌categorized‌‌as‌‌violent.‌‌The‌‌Caveats‌‌and‌‌Definitions‌‌
section‌‌of‌‌that‌‌document‌‌defines‌‌person‌‌offenses‌‌and‌‌sex‌‌offenses‌‌as‌‌“primarily‌‌set‌‌forth”‌‌in‌‌
M.G.L.‌‌ch.265‌‌and/or‌‌M.G.L.‌‌ch.272‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2021,‌‌pp.‌ ‌57,‌‌58).‌‌Those‌‌chapters‌‌in‌‌the‌‌

Massachusetts‌‌General‌‌Laws‌‌comprise‌‌long‌‌lists‌‌of‌‌crimes‌‌including‌‌crimes‌‌classified‌‌by‌‌the‌‌FBI‌‌
and‌‌the‌‌courts‌‌as‌‌non-violent‌‌(e.g.,‌‌prostitution‌‌and‌‌other‌‌offenses‌‌“against‌‌.‌‌.‌‌.‌‌morality”)‌‌
(M.G.L.‌‌ch.272).‌‌ ‌
Acknowledging‌‌the‌‌deeply‌‌problematic‌‌nature‌‌of‌‌the‌‌term‌‌“violent‌‌crime,”‌‌we‌‌use‌‌it‌‌in‌‌this‌‌
document‌‌for‌‌the‌‌following‌‌reasons:‌‌(1)‌‌recognition‌‌that‌‌all‌‌legal‌‌concepts‌‌are‌‌social‌‌constructs‌‌
and‌‌that‌‌social‌‌constructs‌‌have‌‌real,‌‌palpable‌‌effects‌‌in‌‌the‌‌world;‌‌(2)‌‌respect‌‌for‌‌the‌‌perspectives‌‌
and‌‌lived‌‌experiences‌‌of‌‌women‌‌who‌‌have‌‌been‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌violent‌‌crimes;‌‌and‌‌(3)‌‌it‌‌is‌‌the‌‌only‌‌
available‌‌classification‌‌that‌‌offers‌‌any‌‌insight‌‌into‌‌the‌‌frequency‌‌of‌‌acts‌‌of‌‌violence.‌‌Our‌‌use‌‌of‌‌
the‌‌term‌‌is‌‌not‌‌meant‌‌to‌‌endorse‌‌how‌‌it‌‌is‌‌constructed‌‌or‌‌applied‌‌in‌‌Massachusetts‌‌or‌‌elsewhere.‌ ‌

Gender,‌‌race‌‌and‌‌the‌‌categorization‌‌of‌‌crimes‌ ‌
In‌‌theory,‌‌the‌‌U.S.‌‌criminal‌‌legal‌‌system‌‌punishes‌‌people‌‌for‌‌particular‌‌acts,‌‌not‌‌for‌‌their‌‌
characters‌‌or‌‌social‌‌identities.‌‌The‌‌legal‌‌system,‌‌however,‌‌has‌‌long‌‌used‌‌both‌‌race‌‌and‌‌gender‌‌
implicitly‌‌and‌‌explicitly‌‌in‌‌the‌‌assessing‌‌and‌‌punishing‌‌behaviors.‌ ‌
Black‌‌Americans‌‌historically‌‌have‌‌been‌‌described‌‌and‌‌treated‌‌as‌‌less‌‌able‌‌than‌‌white‌‌people‌‌to‌‌
control‌‌their‌‌violent‌‌impulses.‌‌This‌‌racialized‌‌understanding‌‌has‌‌taken‌‌a‌‌variety‌‌of‌‌forms‌‌over‌‌the‌‌
years,‌‌from‌‌justifying‌‌slavery‌‌to‌‌lynching‌‌Black‌‌men‌‌accused‌‌of‌‌lusting‌‌after‌‌white‌‌women,‌‌to‌‌
aggressive‌‌policing‌‌in‌‌Black‌‌communities‌‌and‌‌current‌‌mass‌‌incarceration‌‌of‌‌Black‌‌men.‌‌Scholars‌‌
trace‌‌how‌‌portrayals‌‌of‌‌“violent‌‌criminals”‌‌and‌‌“predators”‌‌in‌‌American‌‌legal‌‌and‌‌public‌‌
discourse‌‌since‌‌the‌‌late‌‌1960s‌‌function‌‌as‌‌a‌‌thinly‌‌veiled‌‌racist‌‌dog‌‌whistle‌‌invoked‌‌to‌‌support‌‌
tough-on-crime‌‌political‌‌agendas,‌‌even‌‌during‌‌periods‌‌in‌‌which‌‌crime‌‌rates‌‌are‌‌going‌‌down‌‌
(Sklansky,‌‌2021;‌‌Alexander,‌‌2010).‌‌ ‌
Gender,‌‌too,‌‌shapes‌‌statuses‌‌and‌‌encounters‌‌in‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌legal‌‌system.‌‌Men‌‌and‌‌maleness‌‌tend‌‌
to‌‌be‌‌assumed‌‌normative‌‌while‌‌women’s‌‌experiences‌‌frequently‌‌are‌‌described‌‌as‌‌“unique.”‌
Scholars‌‌argue‌‌that‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌legal‌‌system‌‌is‌‌male-centric,‌‌beginning‌‌with‌‌laws‌‌that‌‌defined‌‌
women‌‌as‌‌the‌‌property‌‌of‌‌husbands‌‌(and‌‌therefore‌‌permitted‌‌men‌‌to‌‌rape‌‌and‌‌“discipline”‌‌their‌‌
wives),‌‌and‌‌manifested‌‌today‌‌by‌‌judicial‌‌disregard‌‌for‌‌family‌‌responsibilities‌‌when‌‌sentencing‌‌
individuals‌‌to‌‌prison‌‌(cf.‌‌Cook,‌‌2016).‌ ‌
Throughout‌‌American‌‌history,‌‌conventional‌‌notions‌‌of‌‌proper‌‌femininity‌‌often‌‌have‌‌led‌‌to‌‌
harsher‌‌punishment‌‌and‌‌stigma‌‌for‌‌women‌‌seen‌‌as‌‌violating‌‌conventional‌‌gender‌‌norms‌‌
(Kruttschnitt‌‌&‌‌Gartner,‌‌2008).‌‌For‌‌example,‌‌a‌‌woman‌‌accused‌‌of‌‌harming‌‌a‌‌child‌‌may‌‌be‌‌
portrayed‌‌as‌‌monstrous—as‌‌suffering‌‌from‌‌a‌‌character‌‌defect‌‌even‌‌if‌‌the‌‌harmful‌‌act‌‌was‌‌a‌‌
consequence‌‌of‌‌a‌‌particular‌‌situation‌‌such‌‌as‌‌coercion‌‌by‌‌an‌‌abusive‌‌partner‌‌(Roberts,‌‌1997;‌‌
Weare,‌‌2017).‌‌More‌‌broadly,‌‌one‌‌could‌‌argue‌‌that‌‌any‌‌physically‌‌forceful‌‌act‌‌performed‌‌by‌‌a‌‌
woman‌‌is‌‌at‌‌risk‌‌of‌‌being‌‌seen‌‌as‌‌deviant.‌ ‌
Women‌‌of‌‌color‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌be‌‌perceived‌‌as‌‌deviating‌‌from‌‌societal‌‌standards‌‌of‌‌femininity‌‌and‌‌
treated‌‌especially‌‌harshly‌‌within‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌legal‌‌system‌‌(Carlyle‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2014;‌‌Campbell‌‌&‌‌
Jensen,‌‌2019).‌‌In‌‌discussing‌‌the‌‌relationship‌‌between‌‌“selective‌‌chivalry”‌‌and‌‌race,‌‌Romain‌‌and‌‌

Freiburger‌‌(2016)‌‌point‌‌out‌‌that‌‌women‌‌of‌‌color‌‌and‌‌women‌‌in‌‌nonheterosexual‌‌relationships‌‌
may‌‌have‌‌their‌‌violent‌‌behavior‌‌labeled‌‌as‌‌masculine‌‌and‌‌excessive.‌‌Their‌‌analysis‌‌of‌‌domestic‌‌
violence‌‌cases‌‌and‌‌prosecutors’‌‌decisions‌‌to‌‌reduce‌‌charges‌‌found‌‌that‌‌white‌‌women‌‌were‌‌much‌‌
more‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌see‌‌their‌‌charges‌‌reduced‌‌than‌‌non-white‌‌women‌‌(Romain‌‌&‌‌Freiburger,‌‌2016).‌ ‌
Scholars‌‌hypothesize‌‌that‌‌there‌‌is‌‌“selective‌‌chivalry”‌‌at‌‌play‌‌in‌‌women’s‌‌sentencing‌‌outcomes,‌‌
where‌‌women‌‌who‌‌commit‌‌offenses‌‌which‌‌more‌‌strongly‌‌violate‌‌gender‌‌role‌‌expectations‌‌are‌‌
less‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌receive‌‌leniency‌‌in‌‌sentencing‌‌(Farnworth‌‌&‌‌Teske,‌‌1995).‌‌This‌‌hypothesis‌‌has‌‌
been‌‌supported‌‌in‌‌studies‌‌of‌‌women‌‌who‌‌commit‌‌violent‌‌offenses‌‌(Rodriguez,‌‌Curry,‌‌&‌‌Lee,‌‌
2006).‌ ‌ ‌

Women‌‌at‌‌MCI-Framingham‌‌ ‌
Paula’s‌‌Story‌3‌ ‌
A‌‌petite‌‌woman‌‌now‌‌in‌‌her‌‌fifties,‌‌Paula‌‌describes‌‌herself‌‌as‌‌having‌‌been‌‌“a‌‌very‌‌troubled‌‌
kid.”‌‌After‌‌a‌‌childhood‌‌in‌‌foster‌‌care,‌‌Paula‌‌was‌‌homeless‌‌on‌‌and‌‌off‌‌for‌‌years.‌‌Often‌‌turning‌‌
to‌‌sex‌‌work‌‌as‌‌her‌‌main‌‌source‌‌of‌‌income,‌‌she‌‌served‌‌a‌‌number‌‌of‌‌short‌‌jail‌‌sentences‌‌for‌‌
drugs‌‌or‌‌trespassing.‌‌She‌‌survived‌‌multiple‌‌encounters‌‌and‌‌relationships‌‌with‌‌abusive‌‌men,‌‌
has‌‌been‌‌prescribed‌‌“dozens‌‌of‌‌medications‌‌for‌‌anxiety”‌‌and‌‌spent‌‌several‌‌brief‌‌stints‌‌in‌‌
psychiatric‌‌hospitals.‌‌ ‌
Paula‌‌has‌‌one‌‌conviction‌‌for‌‌a‌‌crime‌‌the‌‌courts‌‌have‌‌labeled‌‌violent:‌‌assault‌‌and‌‌battery‌‌with‌‌
a‌‌dangerous‌‌weapon.‌‌She‌‌explains,‌‌“I‌‌was‌‌living‌‌on‌‌the‌‌streets,‌‌drinking‌‌and‌‌[taking]‌‌pills‌‌and‌‌
heroin.‌‌I‌‌was‌‌at‌‌the‌‌end‌‌of‌‌my‌‌rope‌‌and‌‌my‌‌family‌‌shut‌‌me‌‌off‌‌with‌‌[no‌‌more]‌‌money.‌‌I‌‌went‌‌to‌‌
my‌‌sister’s‌‌house.‌‌We‌‌fought,‌‌I‌‌pushed‌‌her,‌‌and‌‌she‌‌called‌‌the‌‌police.”‌‌Paula‌‌clarifies‌‌that‌‌this‌‌
was‌‌not‌‌punitive‌‌but‌‌rather‌‌her‌‌sister‌‌was‌‌desperate‌‌to‌‌get‌‌her‌‌straightened‌‌out.‌‌“Now‌‌we‌‌are‌‌
wicked‌‌close.”‌‌ ‌
After‌‌a‌‌year‌‌at‌‌MCI-Framingham‌‌and‌‌a‌‌post-release‌‌facility,‌‌Paula‌‌was‌‌back‌‌on‌‌the‌‌streets‌‌
dealing‌‌with‌‌the‌‌same‌‌problems‌‌of‌‌poverty,‌‌insecure‌‌housing,‌‌anxiety‌‌and‌‌substance‌‌misuse,‌‌
and‌‌now‌‌a‌‌crime‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌on‌‌her‌‌record.‌ ‌
Like‌‌Paula,‌‌the‌‌majority‌‌of‌‌Massachusetts‌‌women‌‌caught‌‌up‌‌in‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌legal‌‌system‌‌are‌‌
charged‌‌with‌‌offenses‌‌directly‌‌related‌‌to‌‌poverty,‌‌histories‌‌of‌‌abuse,‌‌poor‌‌health‌‌and‌‌substance‌‌
misuse.‌‌Many‌‌of‌‌the‌‌women‌‌cycle‌‌in‌‌and‌‌out‌‌of‌‌jail,‌‌shelters,‌‌hospitals,‌‌treatment‌‌programs‌‌and‌‌
temporary‌‌housing‌‌(cf.‌‌Sered‌‌&‌‌Norton-Hawk,‌‌2014).‌‌For‌‌the‌‌most‌‌part,‌‌women‌‌sentenced‌‌for‌‌
crimes‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌fit‌‌the‌‌same‌‌overall‌‌social‌‌profile‌‌as‌‌women‌‌sentenced‌‌for‌‌
non-violent‌‌offenses.‌‌ ‌

3

‌“Paula”‌‌is‌‌a‌‌pseudonym.‌‌Sered‌‌has‌‌interviewed‌‌Paula‌‌numerous‌‌times‌‌over‌‌the‌‌past‌‌decade‌‌as‌‌part‌‌of‌‌ongoing‌‌
research‌‌with‌‌formerly‌‌incarcerated‌‌women‌‌in‌‌Massachusetts‌‌(Sered‌‌&‌‌Norton-Hawk,‌‌2014).‌ ‌

Altogether‌‌fewer‌‌than‌‌200‌‌women‌‌are‌‌incarcerated‌‌at‌‌MCI-Framingham‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2021).‌‌
According‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Massachusetts‌‌DOC,‌‌most‌‌new‌‌commitments‌‌to‌‌MCI-Framingham‌‌(67%‌‌of‌‌
new‌‌court‌‌commitments‌‌in‌‌2020‌‌and‌‌76%‌‌of‌‌new‌‌court‌‌commitments‌‌in‌‌2019)‌‌are‌‌for‌‌offenses‌‌
labeled‌‌non-violent‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2021;‌‌Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2020).‌‌Because‌‌offenses‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌
typically‌‌result‌‌in‌‌longer‌‌sentences,‌‌women‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌these‌‌crimes‌‌make‌‌up‌‌a‌‌larger‌‌part‌‌of‌‌
the‌‌prison‌‌population:‌‌75%‌‌of‌‌the‌‌female‌‌population‌‌in‌‌DOC‌‌on‌‌January‌‌1,‌‌2021‌‌had‌‌a‌‌governing‌‌
offense‌‌that‌‌was‌‌labeled‌‌by‌‌the‌‌courts‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌(Cannata‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2021).‌‌However,‌‌as‌‌noted‌‌above‌‌
(see‌‌“‘Violent‌‌crimes’:‌‌an‌‌ambiguous‌‌category”‌‌section),‌‌serious‌‌problems‌‌with‌‌the‌‌classification‌‌
criteria‌‌used‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Massachusetts‌‌DOC‌‌mean‌‌that‌‌the‌‌numbers‌‌of‌‌women‌‌incarcerated‌‌for‌‌
“violent‌‌crimes”‌‌is‌‌less‌‌than‌‌meaningful.‌‌ ‌

Women‌‌as‌‌victims‌‌and‌‌perpetrators:‌‌A‌‌hazy‌‌distinction‌ ‌
Nan’s‌‌Story‌4‌ ‌
Nan‌‌had‌‌long‌‌suffered‌‌from‌‌poor‌‌mental‌‌health‌‌when‌‌she‌‌met‌‌Frank‌‌in‌‌the‌‌mid-1990s.‌‌For‌‌a‌‌
time,‌‌she‌‌sold‌‌sex‌‌to‌‌finance‌‌their‌‌life‌‌together,‌‌but‌‌typically‌‌they‌‌were‌‌unhoused‌‌and‌‌out‌‌of‌‌
money.‌‌After‌‌a‌‌year‌‌or‌‌so,‌‌Nan‌‌became‌‌pregnant‌‌and‌‌Frank‌‌became‌‌abusive.‌‌Several‌‌months‌‌
into‌‌the‌‌pregnancy,‌‌they‌‌broke‌‌into‌‌a‌‌house‌‌she‌‌believed‌‌to‌‌be‌‌empty.‌‌The‌‌homeowner‌‌returned,‌‌
however.‌‌Nan‌‌then‌‌ran‌‌outside,‌‌where‌‌she‌‌heard‌‌a‌‌shot‌‌fired.‌‌Nan‌‌and‌‌Frank‌‌were‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌
second‌‌degree‌‌murder.‌‌ ‌
Nearly‌‌fifteen‌‌years‌‌later,‌‌Nan‌‌was‌‌allowed‌‌an‌‌appeal‌‌on‌‌the‌‌basis‌‌of‌‌newly‌‌revealed‌‌
information‌‌regarding‌‌Frank’s‌‌abuse.‌‌At‌‌the‌‌second‌‌trial,‌‌she‌‌testified‌‌that‌‌Frank‌‌constantly‌‌
threatened‌‌to‌‌kill‌‌her‌‌and‌‌the‌‌baby‌‌and‌‌physically‌‌prevented‌‌her‌‌from‌‌escaping‌‌his control.‌‌She‌‌
stated‌‌that‌‌all‌‌of‌‌her‌‌actions‌‌to‌‌help‌‌cover‌‌up‌‌the‌‌murder‌‌were‌‌induced‌‌by‌‌a‌‌fear‌‌of‌‌Frank. Nan‌‌
explained‌‌that‌‌her‌‌failure‌‌to‌‌speak‌‌about‌‌her‌‌abuse‌‌earlier‌‌was‌‌also‌‌due‌‌to‌‌fear,‌‌as‌‌she‌‌and‌‌
Frank‌‌were‌‌incarcerated‌‌before‌‌and‌‌during‌‌trial‌‌in‌‌the‌‌same‌‌building.‌‌Experts‌‌testified‌‌that‌‌
Nan’s‌‌experience‌‌of‌‌abuse‌‌had‌‌made‌‌her‌‌unable‌‌to‌‌defend‌‌herself‌‌before‌‌the‌‌Court‌‌out‌‌of‌‌fear‌‌
of‌‌Frank,‌‌and‌‌explained‌‌that‌‌her‌‌behavior‌‌was‌‌consistent‌‌with‌‌battered‌‌women’s‌‌syndrome.‌‌
The‌‌Court‌‌did‌n
‌ ot‌‌‌find‌‌in‌‌her‌‌favor.‌ ‌
Five‌‌years‌‌after‌‌her‌‌unsuccessful‌‌appeal‌‌Nan‌‌was‌‌granted‌‌parole.‌‌Frank‌‌is‌‌still‌‌in‌‌prison‌‌
where,‌‌according‌‌to‌‌reports,‌‌he‌‌continues‌‌his‌‌violent‌‌and‌‌abusive‌‌behavior.‌ ‌
According‌‌to‌‌the‌‌FBI’s‌‌crime‌‌data,‌‌of‌‌all‌‌offenses‌‌that‌‌the‌‌FBI‌‌labels‌‌violent,‌‌only‌‌17%‌‌of‌‌
incidents‌‌reported‌‌in‌‌2019‌‌involved‌‌female‌‌suspects‌‌(FBI,‌‌2019).‌‌Criminologists‌‌offer‌‌a‌‌variety‌‌
of‌‌explanations‌‌for‌‌this‌‌gender‌‌gap‌‌(Kanazawa‌‌&‌‌Still,‌‌2000).‌‌Recent‌‌scholarship‌‌points‌‌to‌‌
cultures‌‌of‌‌“toxic”‌‌masculinity‌‌in‌‌the‌‌perpetration‌‌of‌‌violent‌‌crimes‌‌(Marganski,‌‌2019).‌ ‌

4

‌A‌‌pseudonym.‌‌The‌‌details‌‌are‌‌gleaned‌‌from‌‌Court‌‌records‌‌and‌‌newspaper‌‌reports.‌ ‌

The‌‌literature‌‌emphasizes‌‌one‌‌outstanding‌‌characteristic‌‌of‌‌women‌‌charged‌‌with‌‌committing‌‌
crimes‌‌that‌‌are‌‌typically‌‌labeled‌‌violent:‌‌the‌‌experience‌‌of‌‌having‌‌been‌‌a‌‌victim‌‌of‌‌abuse.‌‌
Women‌‌who‌‌have‌‌been‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌childhood‌‌abuse‌‌are‌‌substantially‌‌more‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌be‌‌arrested‌‌
for‌‌crimes‌‌alleged‌‌to‌‌be‌‌violent‌‌both‌‌as‌‌juveniles‌‌and‌‌as‌‌adults‌‌than‌‌women‌‌who‌‌have‌‌not‌‌
(Widom‌‌&‌‌Osborn,‌‌2021;‌‌Pizarro,‌‌DeJong,‌‌&‌‌McGarrell,‌‌2010).‌‌Even‌‌among‌‌women‌‌with‌‌
extensive‌‌histories‌‌of‌‌disadvantage‌‌and‌‌victimization,‌‌childhood‌‌physical‌‌abuse‌‌has‌‌been‌‌found‌‌
to‌‌be‌‌the‌‌strongest‌‌predictor‌‌of‌‌adult‌‌involvement‌‌with‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌justice‌‌system‌‌(Cernkovich‌‌et‌‌
al.,‌‌2008;‌‌see‌‌also‌‌Morash‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2018;‌‌Leigey‌‌and‌‌Reed,‌‌2010).‌ ‌
In‌‌a‌‌national‌‌study‌‌of‌‌women‌‌serving‌‌life‌‌sentences‌‌(nearly‌‌all‌‌for‌‌murder),‌‌80%‌‌of‌‌respondents‌‌
reported‌‌having‌‌experienced‌‌physical‌‌abuse,‌‌77%‌‌having‌‌experienced‌‌sexual‌‌abuse,‌‌and‌‌84%‌‌
having‌‌witnessed‌‌violence‌‌at‌‌home‌‌(The‌‌Sentencing‌‌Project,‌‌2019).‌‌Research‌‌particularly‌‌notes‌‌
the‌‌role‌‌of‌‌abusers‌‌in‌‌introducing‌‌women‌‌to‌‌drugs‌‌and‌‌alcohol,‌‌and‌‌encouraging‌‌or‌‌forcing‌‌
women‌‌to‌‌engage‌‌in‌‌illegal‌‌acts‌‌(cf.‌‌Fedock,‌‌2018).‌ ‌
An‌‌analysis‌‌of‌‌data‌‌from‌‌the‌‌U.S.‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Justice‌‌Survey‌‌of‌‌Inmates‌‌in‌‌State‌‌Correctional‌‌
Facilities‌f‌ ound‌‌that‌‌the‌‌vast‌‌majority‌‌of‌‌offenses‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌committed‌‌by‌‌women‌‌involved‌‌
single‌‌victims‌‌who‌‌were‌‌current‌‌or‌‌former‌‌intimate‌‌partners‌‌or‌‌other‌‌family‌‌members‌‌or‌‌friends.‌‌
Forty-two‌‌percent‌‌of‌‌the‌‌offenses‌‌took‌‌place‌‌in‌‌a‌‌family‌‌residence,‌‌most‌‌often‌‌one‌‌shared‌‌by‌‌the‌‌
woman‌‌and‌‌the‌‌victim‌‌(Willison,‌‌2016).‌‌These‌‌results‌‌indicate‌‌that‌‌women‌‌are‌‌much‌‌less‌‌likely‌‌
than‌‌men‌‌to‌‌commit‌‌acts‌‌of‌‌violence‌‌against‌‌strangers.‌ ‌
In‌‌a‌‌national‌‌survey‌‌of‌‌604‌‌women‌‌serving‌‌time‌‌for‌‌murder‌‌or‌‌manslaughter,‌‌at‌‌least‌‌30%‌‌said‌‌
they‌‌were‌‌protecting‌‌themselves‌‌or‌‌a‌‌loved‌‌one‌‌from‌‌physical‌‌or‌‌sexual‌‌violence,‌‌33%‌‌said‌‌that‌‌
they‌‌had‌‌been‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌committing‌‌their‌‌crime‌‌with‌‌a‌‌male‌‌partner,‌‌and‌‌13%‌‌said‌‌that‌‌they‌‌
had‌‌been‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌committing‌‌their‌‌crime‌‌with‌‌their‌‌abuser‌‌under‌‌duress‌‌from‌‌the‌‌abuser.‌‌
(van‌‌der‌‌Leun,‌‌2020‌5‌;‌‌see‌‌also‌‌Campbell‌‌&‌‌Jensen,‌‌2019).‌‌A‌‌study‌‌of‌‌525‌‌women‌‌at‌‌a‌‌mental‌‌
health‌‌center‌‌who‌‌had‌‌suffered‌‌abuse‌‌and‌‌who‌‌had‌‌committed‌‌at‌‌least‌‌one‌‌crime‌‌found‌‌that‌‌
nearly‌‌half‌‌had‌‌been‌‌coerced‌‌into‌‌committing‌‌crimes‌‌by‌‌their‌‌abusers‌‌(Loring‌‌&‌‌Beaudoin,‌‌
2000).‌‌ ‌
It‌‌is‌‌not‌‌unusual‌‌for‌‌a‌‌woman‌‌to‌‌be‌‌convicted‌‌in‌‌a‌‌joint‌‌venture—a‌‌situation‌‌in‌‌which‌‌one‌‌person‌‌
commits‌‌a‌‌crime‌‌in‌‌the‌‌presence‌‌of‌‌another,‌‌with‌‌both‌‌individuals‌‌facing‌‌charges‌‌for‌‌the‌‌offense,‌‌
which‌‌was‌‌the‌‌case‌‌in‌‌Nan’s‌‌story.‌‌In‌‌Massachusetts,‌‌conviction‌‌for‌‌a‌j‌oint‌v‌ enture‌‌‌requires‌‌the‌‌
other‌‌person‌‌to‌‌have‌‌knowingly‌‌and‌‌intentionally‌‌participated‌‌in‌‌the‌‌commission‌‌of‌‌the‌‌particular‌‌
crime.‌‌Intent,‌‌however,‌‌can‌‌be‌‌difficult‌‌to‌‌ascertain‌‌or‌‌disprove,‌‌particularly‌‌in‌‌situations‌‌in‌‌
which‌‌the‌‌co-defendant‌‌is‌‌afraid‌‌of‌‌the‌‌perpetrator.‌‌ ‌

T
‌ his‌‌study‌‌consisted‌‌of‌‌written‌‌surveys‌‌filled‌‌out‌‌by‌‌incarcerated‌‌women.‌‌Not‌‌all‌‌respondents‌‌answered‌‌all‌‌the‌‌
questions.‌ ‌
5

Intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence‌ ‌
Sherl’s‌‌Story‌6‌ ‌
Sherl‌‌was‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌murder‌‌in‌‌the‌‌first‌‌degree‌‌in‌‌the‌‌death‌‌of‌‌her‌‌ex-partner,‌‌Tommy.‌‌As‌‌she‌‌
disclosed‌‌to‌‌the‌‌police,‌‌Tommy‌‌regularly‌‌abused‌‌and‌‌assaulted‌‌her.‌‌The‌‌morning‌‌of‌‌the‌‌
incident,‌‌a‌‌friend‌‌witnessed‌‌Tommy‌‌dragging‌‌Sherl‌‌by‌‌force‌‌up‌‌to‌‌Tommy's‌‌apartment.‌‌The‌‌
friend‌‌alerted‌‌a‌‌family‌‌member‌‌of‌‌Sherl’s.‌‌That‌‌person‌‌came‌‌to‌‌the‌‌apartment‌‌and‌‌interrupted‌‌
a‌‌beating.‌‌The‌‌friend,‌‌family‌‌member,‌‌and‌‌Sherl‌‌left‌‌and‌‌then‌‌returned‌‌to‌‌Tommy's‌‌apartment‌‌
with‌‌a‌‌weapon.‌‌The‌‌family‌‌member‌‌shot‌‌Tommy‌‌multiple‌‌times.‌‌ ‌
On‌‌appeal,‌‌the‌‌Court‌‌found‌‌that‌‌Sherl’s‌‌attorney‌‌had‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌call‌‌expert‌‌witnesses‌‌to‌‌testify‌‌
about‌‌the‌‌impact‌‌of‌‌abuse‌‌on‌‌Sherl's‌‌mental‌‌state,‌‌her‌‌rational‌‌intellect,‌‌and‌‌her‌‌free‌‌will.‌‌The‌‌
Court‌‌ordered‌‌a‌‌new‌‌trial.‌‌The‌‌trial‌‌was‌‌not‌‌held‌‌but‌‌she‌‌was‌‌released‌‌under‌‌supervision‌‌and‌‌
required‌‌to‌‌attend‌‌a‌‌variety‌‌of‌‌programs‌‌and‌‌court‌‌dates.‌‌ ‌
Men‌‌are‌‌the‌‌offenders‌‌in‌‌80%‌‌of‌‌incidents‌‌of‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence‌‌(Fridel‌‌&‌‌Fox,‌‌2019).‌‌
Rates‌‌of‌‌men‌‌killing‌‌women‌‌within‌‌marriage‌‌are‌‌five‌‌times‌‌greater‌‌than‌‌the‌‌rates‌‌of‌‌women‌‌
killing‌‌men‌‌(Ellis,‌‌Stuckless,‌‌&‌‌Smith,‌‌2015).‌‌ ‌
As‌‌in‌‌Sherl’s‌‌experience,‌‌incidents‌‌of‌‌women’s‌‌violence‌‌towards‌‌male‌‌intimate‌‌partners‌‌usually‌‌
occur‌‌in‌‌the‌‌context‌‌of‌‌violence‌‌against‌‌them‌‌by‌‌their‌‌male‌‌partners,‌‌and‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌be‌‌motivated‌‌by‌‌
self-defense‌‌and‌‌fear‌‌(Swan‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2008).‌‌The‌‌New‌‌York‌‌State‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correctional‌‌
Services‌‌found‌‌that‌‌67%‌‌of‌‌women‌‌sent‌‌to‌‌prison‌‌in‌‌2005‌‌for‌‌killing‌‌someone‌‌close‌‌to‌‌them‌‌were‌‌
abused‌‌by‌‌the‌‌victim‌‌of‌‌their‌‌crime‌‌(New‌‌York‌‌State‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correctional‌‌Services,‌‌2007).‌‌
An‌‌earlier‌‌New‌‌York‌‌study‌‌reported‌‌that‌‌93%‌‌of‌‌women‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌killing‌‌intimate‌‌partners‌‌
had‌‌been‌‌physically‌‌and/or‌‌sexually‌‌abused‌‌by‌‌an‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌during‌‌adulthood‌‌(New‌‌York‌‌
State‌‌Division‌‌of‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice‌‌Services,‌‌1996).‌‌ ‌
Increases‌‌in‌‌severity‌‌and‌‌frequency‌‌of‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence‌‌abuse‌‌may‌‌lead‌‌women‌‌to‌‌the‌‌
belief‌‌that‌‌killing‌‌the‌‌abuser‌‌is‌‌necessary‌‌for‌‌survival.‌‌The‌‌need‌‌for‌‌self-defense‌‌is‌‌further‌‌
illustrated‌‌by‌‌the‌‌fact‌‌that‌‌married‌‌women‌‌are‌‌more‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌kill‌‌within‌‌a‌‌marriage‌‌while‌‌married‌‌
men‌‌are‌‌more‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌do‌‌so‌‌as‌‌their‌‌spouses‌‌are‌‌trying‌‌to‌‌leave‌‌the‌‌marriage‌‌(Ellis,‌‌Stuckless,‌‌&‌‌
Smith,‌‌2015).‌‌ ‌
Despite‌‌greater‌‌understanding‌‌of‌‌how‌‌gender‌‌disparities‌‌fuel‌‌power‌‌differentials‌‌associated‌‌with‌‌
domestic‌‌violence,‌‌the‌‌number‌‌of‌‌women‌‌arrested‌‌for‌‌domestic‌‌violence‌‌has‌‌increased‌‌in‌‌recent‌‌
decades.‌‌This‌‌likely‌‌reflects‌‌changes‌‌in‌‌policing‌‌and‌‌prosecutorial‌‌practices‌‌rather‌‌than‌‌actual‌‌
behavior‌‌(Miller,‌‌2001).‌‌Scholars‌‌point‌‌out‌‌that‌‌the‌‌wave‌‌of‌‌“mandatory‌‌arrest”‌‌and‌‌other‌‌
pro-arrest‌‌policies‌‌implemented‌‌across‌‌the‌‌U.S.‌‌through‌‌the‌‌1990s‌‌had‌‌the‌‌unintended‌‌
6

‌“S
‌ herl”‌‌and‌‌“Tommy”‌‌are‌‌pseudonyms.‌‌Her‌‌story‌‌is‌‌based‌‌on‌‌Court‌‌records‌.‌ ‌
‌

consequence‌‌of‌‌increasing‌‌arrests‌‌of‌v‌ ictims‌‌‌of‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence‌‌(Kraft-Stolar‌‌et.‌‌al,‌‌
2011;‌‌Richie,‌‌1996;‌‌Bierria‌‌&‌‌Lenz,‌‌2019;‌‌Hovmand,‌‌Ford,‌‌Flom,‌‌&‌‌Kyriakakis,‌‌2009;‌‌Frye,‌‌
Haviland,‌‌&‌‌Rajah,‌‌2007;‌‌Chesney-Lind,‌‌2002;‌‌Renauer‌‌&‌‌Henning,‌‌2005).‌‌ ‌
Mandatory‌‌arrest‌‌policies‌‌have‌‌disproportionately‌‌affected‌‌marginalized‌‌women,‌‌especially‌‌
Black‌‌women‌‌(Richie,‌‌1996;‌‌Reeves‌‌&‌‌Meyer,‌‌2021;‌‌West,‌‌2004;‌‌Romain‌‌&‌‌Freiburger,‌‌2016).‌‌
These‌‌policies‌‌also‌‌have‌‌resulted‌‌in‌‌the‌‌criminalization‌‌of‌‌girls‌‌involved‌‌in‌‌intra-family‌‌conflict,‌‌
particularly‌‌girls‌‌of‌‌color‌‌(Sherman,‌‌2016).‌ ‌

Recidivism:‌‌A‌‌reality‌‌check‌ ‌
Betti’s‌‌Story‌7‌ ‌
Betti‌‌was‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌second‌‌degree‌‌murder‌‌for‌‌killing‌‌a‌‌client‌‌in‌‌the‌‌mid-1990s.‌‌At‌‌that‌‌time,‌‌
she‌‌supported‌‌herself‌‌through‌‌sex‌‌work,‌‌was‌‌involved‌‌in‌‌a‌‌relationship‌‌with‌‌an‌‌abusive‌‌man,‌‌
and‌‌used‌‌drugs‌‌to‌‌manage‌‌her‌‌post-traumatic‌‌stress‌‌disorder.‌ ‌
Due‌‌to‌‌her‌‌good‌‌behavior‌‌in‌‌prison,‌‌she‌‌was‌‌released‌‌on‌‌parole‌‌after‌‌serving‌‌almost‌‌two‌‌
decades,‌‌but‌‌was‌‌sent‌‌back‌‌to‌‌prison‌‌several‌‌months‌‌later‌‌for‌‌drug‌‌use.‌‌A‌‌few‌‌years‌‌later,‌‌she‌‌
was‌‌freed‌‌again,‌‌until‌‌she‌‌tested‌‌positive‌‌for‌‌cocaine‌‌after‌‌several‌‌years‌‌on‌‌the‌‌outside.‌‌
Released‌‌for‌‌a‌‌third‌‌time‌‌a‌‌year‌‌later,‌‌the‌‌conditions‌‌of‌‌her‌‌release‌‌include‌‌being‌‌home‌‌each‌‌
night‌‌between‌‌10‌‌p.m.‌‌and‌‌6‌‌a.m.,‌‌wearing‌‌an‌‌electronic‌‌monitoring‌‌device,‌‌regular‌‌screening‌‌
for‌‌drugs‌‌and‌‌alcohol,‌‌one-on-one‌‌mental‌‌health‌‌counseling,‌‌and‌‌attendance‌‌at‌‌Alcoholics‌‌
Anonymous‌‌or‌‌Narcotics‌‌Anonymous‌‌group‌‌meetings‌‌three‌‌times‌‌a‌‌week.‌ ‌
Individuals‌‌sentenced‌‌for‌‌crimes‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌have‌‌low‌‌rates‌‌of‌‌rearrest‌‌for‌‌this‌‌category‌‌of‌‌
crime‌‌(Nellis‌‌&‌‌Bishop,‌‌2021;‌‌Daftary-Kapur‌‌&‌‌Zottoli,‌‌2020).‌‌A‌‌meta-analysis‌‌of‌‌studies‌
examining‌‌predictors‌‌of‌‌violent‌‌and‌‌non-violent‌‌recidivism‌‌found‌‌that‌‌even‌‌women‌‌with‌‌criminal‌‌
histories‌‌that‌‌contain‌‌more‌‌crimes‌‌labeled‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌be‌‌arrested‌‌in‌‌the‌‌future‌‌for‌‌crimes‌‌
labeled‌‌non-violent‌‌rather‌‌than‌‌those‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌(Collins,‌‌2010).‌‌ ‌
Middle-aged‌‌and‌‌older‌‌women‌‌are‌‌especially‌‌unlikely‌‌to‌‌be‌‌arrested‌‌after‌‌getting‌‌out‌‌of‌‌prison.‌‌
Analysis‌‌of‌‌the‌‌U.S.‌‌Bureau‌‌of‌‌Justice‌‌Statistics‌‌recidivism‌‌data‌‌found‌‌that‌‌of‌‌women‌‌who‌‌were‌‌
45‌‌years‌‌or‌‌older‌‌at‌‌the‌‌time‌‌of‌‌their‌‌release‌‌from‌‌prison,‌‌only‌‌4%‌‌were‌‌rearrested‌‌within‌‌three‌‌
years‌‌of‌‌release,‌‌and‌‌those‌‌serving‌‌sentences‌‌for‌‌violent‌‌offenses‌‌had‌‌lower‌‌rearrest‌‌rates‌‌than‌‌
those‌‌serving‌‌sentences‌‌for‌‌property‌‌or‌‌drug‌‌offenses‌‌(Deschenes,‌‌Owen,‌‌&‌‌Crow,‌‌2007).‌‌This‌‌
low‌‌recidivism‌‌rate‌‌is‌‌similar‌‌to‌‌the‌‌3%‌‌rate‌‌for‌‌a‌‌cohort‌‌of‌‌nearly‌‌200‌‌elderly‌‌women‌‌serving‌‌life‌‌
sentences‌‌in‌‌Maryland‌‌who‌‌were‌‌released‌‌en‌‌masse‌‌in‌‌the‌‌wake‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Unger‌‌v.‌‌Maryland‌‌‌ruling‌‌
that‌‌their‌‌sentences‌‌were‌‌unconstitutional‌‌(Justice‌‌Policy‌‌Institute,‌‌2018).‌‌These‌‌findings‌‌are‌‌

7

A
‌ ‌‌pseudonym.‌‌The‌‌details‌‌are‌‌gleaned‌‌from‌‌Court‌‌records‌‌and‌‌newspaper‌‌reports.‌‌ ‌
‌

especially‌‌significant‌‌in‌‌light‌‌of‌‌the‌‌mostly‌‌older‌‌demographic‌‌of‌‌women‌‌serving‌‌life‌‌sentences‌‌
in‌‌Massachusetts.‌ ‌
As‌‌in‌‌Betti’s‌‌case,‌‌even‌‌among‌‌women‌‌who‌‌are‌‌reincarcerated,‌‌the‌‌instigating‌‌factor‌‌is‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌
be‌‌violation‌‌of‌‌terms‌‌of‌‌parole—such‌‌as‌‌failing‌‌a‌‌drug‌‌test‌‌or‌‌failing‌‌to‌‌comply‌‌with‌‌curfews‌‌or‌‌
requirements‌‌to‌‌attend‌‌Alcoholics‌‌Anonymous‌‌(AA)‌‌meetings—rather‌‌than‌‌a‌‌new‌‌criminal‌‌
charge.‌‌Sered‌‌and‌‌Norton-Hawk‌‌(2014)‌‌found‌‌that‌‌Massachusetts‌‌women‌‌often‌‌experience‌‌the‌‌
conditions‌‌of‌‌parole‌‌as‌‌setting‌‌them‌‌up‌‌for‌‌a‌‌return‌‌to‌‌prison‌‌(for‌‌example,‌‌a‌‌woman‌‌with‌‌little‌‌
income‌‌may‌‌not‌‌be‌‌able‌‌to‌‌pay‌‌a‌‌babysitter‌‌to‌‌look‌‌after‌‌her‌‌children‌‌while‌‌she‌‌attends‌‌AA‌‌
meetings).‌ ‌
While‌‌states‌‌may‌‌hope‌‌or‌‌claim‌‌that‌‌prison‌‌serves‌‌a‌‌rehabilitative‌‌function,‌‌data‌‌show‌‌that‌‌
women‌‌who‌‌serve‌l‌onger‌‌‌sentences‌‌are‌‌at‌i‌ncreased‌‌‌risk‌‌for‌‌committing‌‌violence‌‌in‌‌the‌‌future,‌‌
even‌‌when‌‌controlling‌‌for‌‌criminal‌‌history‌‌(Collins,‌‌2010;‌‌see‌‌also‌‌U.S.‌‌Sentencing‌‌Commission,‌‌
2019,‌‌p.‌‌25).‌‌Women‌‌who‌‌are‌‌incarcerated‌‌for‌‌long‌‌periods‌‌lose‌‌important‌‌social‌‌ties‌‌to‌‌their‌‌
communities,‌‌ties‌‌that‌‌can‌‌help‌‌them‌‌avoid‌‌involvement‌‌with‌‌the‌‌police‌‌and‌‌courts‌‌(Copeland,‌‌
1997).‌‌For‌‌the‌‌majority‌‌of‌‌women‌‌in‌‌the‌‌prison‌‌system‌‌who‌‌are‌‌mothers,‌‌loss‌‌of‌‌parental‌‌ties‌‌
takes‌‌a‌‌heavy‌‌toll.‌‌Thus,‌‌rather‌‌than‌‌rehabilitating‌‌or‌‌reforming‌‌women,‌‌long‌‌periods‌‌of‌‌
incarceration‌‌may‌‌counterproductively‌‌further‌‌lock‌‌women‌‌into‌‌cycles‌‌of‌‌incarceration.‌‌ ‌

Conclusion‌ ‌
In‌‌this‌‌paper‌‌we‌‌have‌‌reviewed‌‌studies‌‌showing‌‌that‌‌convictions‌‌for‌‌crimes‌‌labeled‌‌violent‌‌
versus‌‌those‌‌labeled‌‌non-violent‌‌are‌‌inconsistently‌‌defined,‌‌racially‌‌driven,‌‌discretionary,‌‌and‌‌are‌‌
poor‌‌reflections‌‌of‌‌actual‌‌events.‌‌Assessment‌‌of‌‌trends‌‌in‌‌so-called‌‌“violent”‌‌crime‌‌must,‌‌
therefore,‌‌take‌‌into‌‌account‌‌local‌‌variability,‌‌reporting‌‌mechanisms,‌‌judicial‌‌interpretation,‌‌
prosecutorial‌‌inclination,‌‌plea‌‌bargaining‌‌and‌‌a‌‌host‌‌of‌‌dynamic‌‌statutory,‌‌cultural‌‌and‌‌
idiosyncratic‌‌factors.‌‌ ‌
When‌‌gender‌‌is‌‌taken‌‌into‌‌consideration,‌‌the‌‌issues‌‌are‌‌even‌‌more‌‌complex.‌‌By‌‌singling‌‌out‌‌
certain‌‌women‌‌as‌‌“violent‌‌perpetrators”‌‌in‌‌contrast‌‌to‌‌“innocent‌‌victims,”‌‌we‌‌elide‌‌the‌‌reality‌‌
that‌‌all‌‌women‌‌are‌‌at‌‌risk‌‌of‌‌assault‌‌and‌‌abuse‌‌in‌‌a‌‌society‌‌permeated‌‌with‌‌gendered‌‌and‌‌sexual‌‌
violence,‌‌and‌‌that‌‌most‌‌any‌‌woman‌‌will‌‌do‌‌what‌‌she‌‌can‌‌to‌‌protect‌‌herself‌‌and‌‌her‌‌
children—even‌‌if‌‌these‌‌acts‌‌may‌‌sometimes‌‌seem‌‌inappropriate‌‌to‌‌those‌‌who‌‌have‌‌not‌‌walked‌‌in‌‌
her‌‌shoes.‌‌ ‌
Unfortunately,‌‌public‌‌and‌‌political‌‌understanding‌‌of‌‌these‌‌complexities‌‌remains‌‌limited.‌‌Across‌‌
the‌‌country,‌‌a‌‌major‌‌hurdle‌‌for‌‌meaningful‌‌change‌‌in‌‌the‌‌criminal‌‌legal‌‌system‌‌is‌‌that‌‌
decarceration‌‌efforts‌‌often‌‌target‌‌only‌‌certain‌‌groups‌‌of‌‌incarcerated‌‌persons,‌‌in‌‌particular,‌‌those‌‌
sentenced‌‌for‌‌so-called‌‌“non-violent”‌‌drug‌‌offenses‌‌(Jones,‌‌2020;‌‌Sundt‌‌et‌‌al.,‌‌2015;‌‌Thielo‌‌et‌‌
al.,‌‌2016).‌‌Public‌‌support‌‌for‌‌releasing‌‌people‌‌with‌‌convictions‌‌for‌‌crimes‌‌labeled‌‌violent,‌‌even‌‌
elderly‌‌people,‌‌has‌‌tended‌‌to‌‌be‌‌very‌‌low,‌‌despite‌‌data‌‌showing‌‌very‌‌low‌‌rates‌‌of‌‌additional‌‌
charges‌‌for‌‌violent‌‌crimes‌‌post-release‌‌(Ivanov,‌‌Novisky‌‌&‌‌Vogel,‌‌2021;‌‌Gottschalk,‌‌2016).‌‌ ‌

Although‌‌the‌‌label‌‌“violent‌‌crime”‌‌does‌‌not‌‌correlate‌‌with‌‌actual‌‌violence‌‌or‌‌with‌‌commonsense‌‌
understandings‌‌of‌‌what‌‌an‌‌act‌‌of‌‌violence‌‌might‌‌entail,‌‌use‌‌of‌‌the‌‌label‌‌reinforces‌‌the‌‌idea‌‌that‌‌
many‌‌incarcerated‌‌women‌‌have‌‌been‌‌violent‌‌and‌‌could‌‌be‌‌violent‌‌again‌‌if‌‌not‌‌held‌‌in‌‌a‌‌very‌‌
secure‌‌prison‌‌setting.‌‌Prison‌‌construction,‌‌then,‌‌may‌‌seem‌‌essential‌‌for‌‌public‌‌safety.‌‌ ‌
The‌‌data,‌‌however,‌‌makes‌‌it‌‌clear‌‌that‌‌women’s‌‌“violent‌‌crimes”‌‌are‌‌rare,‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌be‌‌situational‌
in‌‌the‌‌wake‌‌of‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence,‌‌and‌‌are‌‌nearly‌‌always‌‌a‌‌one-time‌‌event.‌‌Women‌‌serving‌‌
time‌‌for‌‌conviction‌‌of‌‌a‌‌violent‌‌crime‌‌should‌‌not‌‌all‌‌be‌‌treated‌‌as‌‌inherently‌‌violent,‌‌dangerous,‌‌
or‌‌needing‌‌to‌‌be‌‌kept‌‌in‌‌a‌‌high-security‌‌environment.‌ ‌
In‌‌sum,‌‌the‌‌research‌‌literature‌‌supports‌‌the‌‌argument‌‌that‌‌the‌‌population‌‌of‌‌women‌‌convicted‌‌of‌‌
crimes‌‌classified‌‌as‌‌violent‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Massachusetts‌‌DOC‌‌should‌‌not‌‌be‌‌used‌‌as‌‌justification‌‌for‌‌
spending‌‌millions‌‌of‌‌taxpayer‌‌dollars‌‌on‌‌constructing‌‌a‌‌new‌‌women’s‌‌prison.‌‌Not‌‌only‌‌is‌‌prison‌‌
construction‌‌unlikely‌‌to‌‌contribute‌‌to‌‌public‌‌safety,‌‌it‌‌draws‌‌funds‌‌that‌‌would‌‌be‌‌more‌‌effectively‌‌
spent‌‌implementing‌‌educational‌‌and‌‌social‌‌programs‌‌shown‌‌to‌‌reduce‌‌violence‌‌against‌‌women‌‌
and‌‌girls;‌‌safe‌‌and‌‌sustainable‌‌housing‌‌for‌‌women‌‌and‌‌girls‌‌facing‌‌abuse‌‌from‌‌family‌‌members‌‌
and‌‌intimate‌‌partners;‌‌and‌‌programs‌‌and‌‌practices‌‌that‌‌support‌‌healthy‌‌communities‌‌and‌‌help‌‌
people‌‌resolve‌‌problems‌‌in‌‌non-adversarial‌‌and‌‌non-violent‌‌ways.‌‌ ‌

References‌ ‌
Alexander,‌‌M.‌‌(2010).‌T
‌ he‌‌new‌‌Jim‌‌Crow:‌‌Mass‌‌incarceration‌‌in‌‌the‌‌age‌‌of‌‌colorblindness.‌N
‌ ew‌‌
Press.‌ ‌
Bierria,‌‌A.,‌‌&‌‌Lenz,‌‌C.‌‌(2019).‌‌Battering‌‌court‌‌syndrome.‌‌In‌‌J.‌‌K.‌‌Stoever‌‌(Ed.),‌T
‌ he‌‌
politicization‌‌of‌‌safety‌‌‌(pp.‌‌91–118).‌‌New‌‌York‌‌University‌‌Press.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479805648.001.0001‌ ‌
Building‌‌Up‌‌People‌‌Not‌‌Prisons.‌‌(n.d.).‌‌Building‌‌up‌‌people‌‌not‌‌prisons:‌‌Reimagining‌‌
communities‌.‌‌https://www.peoplenotprisons.org‌ ‌
Campbell,‌‌L.‌‌A.,‌‌&‌‌Jensen,‌‌V.‌‌(2019).‌‌Women‌‌who‌‌kill.‌‌In‌T
‌ he‌‌encyclopedia‌‌of‌‌women‌‌and‌‌
crime‌‌‌(pp.‌‌1–5).‌‌American‌‌Cancer‌‌Society.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118929803.ewac0541‌ ‌
Cannata,‌‌N.‌‌C.,‌‌McDonald,‌‌S.,‌‌Desrochers,‌‌B.,‌‌Rong,‌‌J.,‌‌Matthews,‌‌H.,‌‌&‌‌Wang,‌‌L.‌‌(2020).‌‌
Massachusetts‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correction‌‌prison‌‌population‌‌trends‌‌2019‌.‌‌Massachusetts‌‌
Department‌‌of‌‌Correction,‌‌Research‌‌and‌‌Planning‌‌Division.‌‌
https://www.mass.gov/doc/prison-population-trends-2019/download‌ ‌
Cannata,‌‌N.‌‌C.,‌‌McDonald,‌‌S.,‌‌Desrochers,‌‌B.,‌‌Rong,‌‌J.,‌‌Wang,‌‌L.,‌‌Matthews,‌‌H.,‌‌&‌‌Sahtouris,‌‌
A.‌‌(2021).‌M
‌ assachusetts‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correction‌‌prison‌‌population‌‌trends‌‌2020‌.‌‌
Massachusetts‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correction,‌‌Research‌‌and‌‌Planning‌‌Division.‌‌
https://www.mass.gov/doc/prison-population-trends-2020/download‌ ‌
Carlyle,‌‌K.‌‌E.,‌‌Scarduzio,‌‌J.‌‌A.,‌‌&‌‌Slater,‌‌M.‌‌D.‌‌(2014).‌‌Media‌‌portrayals‌‌of‌‌female‌‌perpetrators‌‌
of‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence.‌J‌ ournal‌‌of‌‌Interpersonal‌‌Violence‌,‌‌29‌(13),‌‌2394–2417.‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513520231‌ ‌

Cernkovich,‌‌S.‌‌A.,‌‌Lanctôt,‌‌N.,‌‌&‌‌Giordano,‌‌P.‌‌C.‌‌(2008).‌‌Predicting‌‌adolescent‌‌and‌‌adult‌‌
antisocial‌‌behavior‌‌among‌‌adjudicated‌‌delinquent‌‌females.‌C
‌ rime‌‌&‌‌Delinquency‌,‌‌54‌(1),‌‌
3–33.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706294395‌ ‌
Chesney-Lind,‌‌M.‌‌(2002).‌‌Criminalizing‌‌victimization:‌‌The‌‌unintended‌‌consequences‌‌of‌‌
pro-arrest‌‌policies‌‌for‌‌girls‌‌and‌‌women.‌C
‌ riminology‌‌&‌‌Public‌‌Policy‌,‌‌2‌(1),‌‌81–90.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00108.x‌ ‌
Collins,‌‌R.‌‌E.‌‌(2010).‌‌The‌‌effect‌‌of‌‌gender‌‌on‌‌violent‌‌and‌‌nonviolent‌‌recidivism:‌‌A‌‌
meta-analysis.‌‌Journal‌‌of‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice‌,‌‌38‌(4),‌‌675–684.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.041‌ ‌
Cook,‌‌K.‌‌(2016).‌‌Has‌‌criminology‌‌awakened‌‌from‌‌its‌‌“androcentric‌‌slumber”?‌F
‌ eminist‌‌
Criminology‌,‌‌11‌(4),‌‌334–353.‌ ‌
Copeland,‌‌J.‌‌(1997).‌‌A‌‌qualitative‌‌study‌‌of‌‌barriers‌‌to‌‌formal‌‌treatment‌‌among‌‌women‌‌who‌‌
self-managed‌‌change‌‌in‌‌addictive‌‌behaviours.‌J‌ ournal‌‌of‌‌Substance‌‌Abuse‌‌Treatment‌,‌‌
14‌(2),‌‌183–190.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(96)00108-0‌ ‌
Daftary-Kapur,‌‌T.,‌‌&‌‌Zottoli,‌‌T.‌‌(2020).‌‌Resentencing‌‌of‌‌juvenile‌‌lifers:‌‌The‌‌Philadelphia‌‌
experience.‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Justice‌‌Studies‌‌Faculty‌‌Scholarship‌‌and‌‌Creative‌‌Works‌.‌‌
https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/justice-studies-facpubs/84‌ ‌
Deschenes,‌‌E.‌‌P.,‌‌Owen,‌‌B.,‌‌&‌‌Crow,‌‌J.‌‌(2007).‌R
‌ ecidivism‌‌among‌‌female‌‌prisoners:‌‌Secondary‌‌
analysis‌‌of‌‌the‌‌1994‌‌BJS‌‌recidivism‌‌data‌‌set‌.‌‌National‌‌Institute‌‌of‌‌Justice.‌‌
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216950.pdf‌ ‌
Ellis,‌‌D.,‌‌Stuckless,‌‌N.,‌‌&‌‌Smith,‌‌C.‌‌(2015).‌M
‌ arital‌‌separation‌‌and‌‌lethal‌‌domestic‌‌violence‌.‌‌
Routledge.‌‌https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721484‌ ‌
Farnworth,‌‌M.,‌‌&‌‌Raymond‌‌H.‌‌C.‌‌Teske,‌‌Jr.‌‌(1995).‌‌Gender‌‌differences‌‌in‌‌felony‌‌court‌‌
processing.‌W
‌ omen‌‌&‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice‌,‌‌6‌(2),‌‌23–44.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v06n02_02‌ ‌
Federal‌‌Bureau‌‌of‌‌Investigation.‌‌(2018).‌‌Uniform‌‌Crime‌‌Reporting‌‌(UCR)‌‌Program‌.‌‌
FBI—Violent‌‌Crime.‌ ‌
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/violent-crime‌ ‌
Federal‌‌Bureau‌‌of‌‌Investigation.‌‌(2019).‌‌Trend‌‌of‌‌violent‌‌crime‌‌from‌‌2009‌‌to‌‌2019‌.‌‌Crime‌‌Data‌‌
Explorer.‌h‌ ttps://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend‌ ‌
Fedock,‌‌G.‌‌(2018).‌‌Life‌‌before‌‌“I‌‌killed‌‌the‌‌man‌‌that‌‌raped‌‌me”:‌‌Pre-prison‌‌life‌‌experiences‌‌of‌‌
incarcerated‌‌women‌‌with‌‌life‌‌sentences‌‌and‌‌subsequent‌‌treatment‌‌needs.‌W
‌ omen‌‌&‌‌
Criminal‌‌Justice‌,‌2‌ 8‌(1),‌‌63–80.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1294131‌ ‌
Fridel,‌‌E.‌‌E.,‌‌&‌‌Fox,‌‌J.‌‌A.‌‌(2019).‌‌Gender‌‌differences‌‌in‌‌patterns‌‌and‌‌trends‌‌in‌‌U.S.‌‌homicide,‌‌
1976–2017.‌‌Violence‌‌and‌‌Gender‌,‌‌6‌(1),‌‌27–36.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2019.0005‌ ‌
Frye,‌‌V.,‌‌Haviland,‌‌M.,‌‌&‌‌Rajah,‌‌V.‌‌(2007).‌‌Dual‌‌arrest‌‌and‌‌other‌‌unintended‌‌consequences‌‌of‌‌
mandatory‌‌arrest‌‌in‌‌New‌‌York‌‌City:‌‌A‌‌brief‌‌report.‌‌Journal‌‌of‌‌Family‌‌Violence‌,‌‌22‌(6),‌‌
397–405.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9094-y‌ ‌
Gottschalk,‌‌M.‌‌(2016).‌‌Caught:‌‌The‌‌prison‌‌state‌‌and‌‌the‌‌lockdown‌‌of‌‌American‌‌politics‌.‌‌
Princeton‌‌University‌‌Press.‌‌
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691170831/caught‌ ‌
Hovmand,‌‌P.‌‌S.,‌‌Ford,‌‌D.‌‌N.,‌‌Flom,‌‌I.,‌‌&‌‌Kyriakakis,‌‌S.‌‌(2009).‌‌Victims‌‌arrested‌‌for‌‌domestic‌‌
violence:‌‌Unintended‌‌consequences‌‌of‌‌arrest‌‌policies.‌S‌ ystem‌‌Dynamics‌‌Review‌,‌‌25‌(3),‌‌
161–181.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.418‌ ‌

Ivanov,‌‌S.,‌‌Novisky,‌‌M.‌‌A.,‌‌&‌‌Vogel,‌‌M.‌‌(2021).‌‌Racial‌‌resentment,‌‌empathy,‌‌and‌‌support‌‌for‌‌
release‌‌during‌‌COVID-19:‌‌Results‌‌from‌‌a‌‌survey‌‌experiment.‌S‌ ocius‌,‌‌7‌,‌‌1–17.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211005222‌ ‌
Jones,‌‌A.‌‌(2020).‌‌Reforms‌‌without‌‌results:‌‌Why‌‌states‌‌should‌‌stop‌‌excluding‌‌violent‌‌offenses‌‌from‌‌
criminal‌‌justice‌‌reforms.‌‌‌Prison‌‌Policy‌‌Institute.‌‌
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html‌ ‌
Jones,‌‌S.‌‌(2011).‌‌Under‌‌pressure:‌‌Women‌‌who‌‌plead‌‌guilty‌‌to‌‌crimes‌‌they‌‌have‌‌not‌‌committed.‌‌
Criminology‌‌&‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice‌,‌‌11‌(1),‌‌77–90.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895810392193‌ ‌
Justice‌‌Policy‌‌Institute.‌‌(2018).‌T
‌ he‌‌Ungers,‌‌5‌‌years‌‌and‌‌counting:‌‌A‌‌case‌‌study‌‌in‌‌safely‌‌
reducing‌‌long‌‌prison‌‌terms‌‌and‌‌saving‌‌taxpayer‌‌dollars‌.‌‌Justice‌‌Policy‌‌Institute.‌‌
https://justicepolicy.org/research/reports-2018-the-ungers-5-years-and-counting-a-case-st‌
udy-in-safely-re‌ducing-long-prison-terms-and-saving-taxpayer-dollars/‌ ‌
Kanazawa,‌‌S.,‌‌&‌‌Still,‌‌M.‌‌C.‌‌(2000).‌‌Why‌‌men‌‌commit‌‌crimes‌‌(and‌‌why‌‌they‌‌desist).‌‌
Sociological‌‌Theory‌,‌‌18‌(3),‌‌434–447.‌‌‌https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00110‌
Kraft-Stolar,‌‌T.,‌‌Brundige,‌‌E.,‌‌Kalantry,‌‌S,.,‌‌Kestenbaum,‌‌J.,‌‌&‌‌Getgen,‌‌J.‌‌(2011).‌‌From‌‌
protection‌‌to‌‌punishment:‌‌Post-conviction‌‌barriers‌‌to‌‌justice‌‌for‌‌domestic‌‌violence‌‌
survivor-defendants‌‌in‌‌New‌‌York‌‌state.‌‌‌Avon‌‌Global‌‌Center‌‌for‌‌Women‌‌and‌‌Justice‌‌and‌‌
Dorothea‌‌S.‌‌Clarke‌‌Program‌‌in‌‌Feminist‌‌Jurisprudence.‌‌
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/avon_clarke/2‌
Kruttschnitt,‌‌C.,‌‌&‌‌Gartner,‌‌R.‌‌(2008).‌‌Female‌‌violent‌‌offenders:‌‌Moral‌‌panics‌‌or‌‌more‌‌serious‌‌
offenders?‌A
‌ ustralian‌‌&‌‌New‌‌Zealand‌‌Journal‌‌of‌‌Criminology‌,‌‌41‌(1),‌‌9–35.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.41.1.9‌ ‌
Leigey,‌‌M.‌‌E.,‌‌&‌‌Reed,‌‌K.‌‌L.‌‌(2010).‌‌A‌‌woman’s‌‌life‌‌before‌‌serving‌‌life:‌‌Examining‌‌the‌‌negative‌‌
pre-incarceration‌‌life‌‌events‌‌of‌‌female‌‌life-sentenced‌‌inmates.‌‌Women‌‌&‌‌Criminal‌‌
Justice‌,‌‌20‌(4),‌‌302–322.‌h‌ ttps://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2010.512229‌ ‌
Loring,‌‌M.‌‌&‌‌Beaudoin,‌‌P.‌‌(2000).‌ ‌Battered‌‌women‌‌as‌‌coerced‌‌victim-perpetrators.‌‌Journal‌‌of‌‌
Emotional‌‌Abuse,‌‌3‌,‌‌13.‌ ‌
Marganski,‌‌A.‌‌J.‌‌(2019).‌‌Making‌‌a‌‌murderer:‌‌The‌‌importance‌‌of‌‌gender‌‌and‌‌violence‌‌against‌‌
women‌‌in‌‌mass‌‌murder‌‌events.‌S‌ ociology‌‌Compass,‌‌13‌(9).‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12730‌ ‌
Miller,‌‌S.‌‌L.‌‌(2001).‌‌The‌‌paradox‌‌of‌‌women‌‌arrested‌‌for‌‌domestic‌‌violence:‌‌Criminal‌‌justice‌‌
professionals‌‌and‌‌service‌‌providers‌‌respond.‌‌Violence‌‌Against‌‌Women‌,‌‌7‌(12),‌‌1339–1376.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122183900‌ ‌
Morash,‌‌M.,‌‌Kashy,‌‌D.‌‌A.,‌‌Cobbina,‌‌J.‌‌E.,‌‌&‌‌Smith,‌‌S.‌‌W.‌‌(2018).‌‌Characteristics‌‌and‌‌context‌‌of‌‌
women‌‌probationers‌‌and‌‌parolees‌‌who‌‌engage‌‌in‌‌violence.‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice‌‌and‌‌
Behavior‌,‌‌45‌(3),‌‌381–401.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817719103‌ ‌
Nellis,‌‌A.,‌‌&‌‌Bishop,‌‌B.‌‌(2021).‌‌A‌‌new‌‌lease‌‌on‌‌life.‌T
‌ he‌‌Sentencing‌‌Project‌.‌‌
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/a-new-lease-on-life/‌ ‌
New‌‌York‌‌State‌‌Division‌‌of‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice‌‌Services.‌‌(1996,‌‌June).‌‌Homicide‌‌by‌‌Women‌.‌ ‌
New‌‌York‌‌State‌‌Department‌‌of‌‌Correctional‌‌Services.‌‌(2007).‌F
‌ emale‌‌homicide‌‌commitments:‌‌
1986‌‌vs.‌‌2005.‌‌
https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/09/Female_Homicide_Commitments_‌
1986_vs_2005.pdf‌ ‌

O’Hear,‌‌M.‌‌(2019).‌‌Third-class‌‌citizenship:‌‌The‌‌escalating‌‌legal‌‌consequences‌‌of‌‌committing‌‌a‌‌
“violent”‌‌crime.‌‌Journal‌‌of‌‌Criminal‌‌Law‌‌&‌‌Criminology,‌‌109‌(2),‌‌165–235.‌‌
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/695‌ ‌
Pizarro,‌‌J.‌‌M.,‌‌DeJong,‌‌C.,‌‌&‌‌McGarrell,‌‌E.‌‌F.‌‌(2010).‌‌An‌‌examination‌‌of‌‌the‌‌covariates‌‌of‌‌
female‌‌homicide‌‌victimization‌‌and‌‌offending.‌F
‌ eminist‌‌Criminology‌,‌‌5‌(1),‌‌51–72.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109354044‌ ‌
Reeves,‌‌E.,‌‌&‌‌Meyer,‌‌S.‌‌(2021,‌‌January‌‌22).‌M
‌ arginalized‌‌women,‌‌domestic‌‌and‌‌family‌‌violence‌‌
reforms‌‌and‌‌their‌‌unintended‌‌consequences‌.‌‌Oxford‌‌Research‌‌Encyclopedia‌‌of‌‌
Criminology‌‌and‌‌Criminal‌‌Justice.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.666‌ ‌
Renauer,‌‌B.,‌‌&‌‌Henning,‌‌K.‌‌(2005).‌‌Investigating‌‌intersections‌‌between‌‌gender‌‌and‌‌intimate‌‌
partner‌‌violence‌‌recidivism.‌J‌ ournal‌‌of‌‌Offender‌‌Rehabilitation‌‌‌41‌(4),‌‌99–124.‌‌ ‌
Richie,‌‌B.‌‌(1996).‌‌Compelled‌‌to‌‌crime:‌‌The‌‌gender‌‌entrapment‌‌of‌‌battered‌‌Black‌‌women.‌‌
Routledge.‌ ‌
Roberts,‌‌D.‌‌E.‌‌(1997).‌‌Unshackling‌‌black‌‌motherhood.‌M
‌ ichigan‌‌Law‌‌Review‌,‌‌95‌(4),‌‌938–964.‌ ‌
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1290050‌ ‌
Rodriguez,‌‌S.‌‌F.,‌‌Curry,‌‌T.‌‌R.,‌‌&‌‌Lee,‌‌G.‌‌(2006).‌‌Gender‌‌differences‌‌in‌‌criminal‌‌sentencing:‌‌Do‌‌
effects‌‌vary‌‌across‌‌violent,‌‌property,‌‌and‌‌drug‌‌offenses?.‌S‌ ocial‌‌Science‌‌Quarterly‌,‌‌87‌(2),‌‌
318–339.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00383.x‌ ‌
Romain,‌‌D.‌‌M.,‌‌&‌‌Freiburger,‌‌T.‌‌L.‌‌(2016).‌‌Chivalry‌‌revisited:‌‌Gender,‌‌race/ethnicity,‌‌and‌‌
offense‌‌type‌‌on‌‌domestic‌‌violence‌‌charge‌‌reduction.‌F
‌ eminist‌‌Criminology‌,‌‌11‌(2),‌‌
191–222.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115580389‌ ‌
Sankofa,‌‌J.‌‌(2018,‌‌September‌‌26).‌‌“You‌‌miss‌‌so‌‌much‌‌when‌‌you’re‌‌gone”:‌‌The‌‌lasting‌‌harm‌‌of‌‌
jailing‌‌mothers‌‌before‌‌trial‌‌in‌‌Oklahoma.‌H
‌ uman‌‌Rights‌‌Watch.‌‌
https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/26/you-miss-so-much-when-youre-gone/lasting-har‌
m-jailing-mothers-trial-oklahoma‌ ‌
Savitsky,‌‌D.‌‌(2012).‌‌Is‌‌plea‌‌bargaining‌‌a‌‌rational‌‌choice?‌‌Plea‌‌bargaining‌‌as‌‌an‌‌engine‌‌of‌‌racial‌‌
stratification‌‌and‌‌overcrowding‌‌in‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌prison‌‌system.‌R
‌ ationality‌‌and‌‌
Society‌,‌‌24‌(2),‌‌131–167.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463112441351‌ ‌
Sered,‌‌S.‌‌S.,‌‌&‌‌Norton-Hawk,‌‌M.‌‌(2014).‌‌Can’t‌‌catch‌‌a‌‌break:‌‌Gender,‌‌jail,‌‌drugs,‌‌and‌‌the‌‌limits‌‌
of‌‌personal‌‌responsibility‌.‌‌University‌‌of‌‌California‌‌Press.‌ ‌
Sherman,‌‌F.‌‌(2016).‌U
‌ nintended‌‌consequences:‌‌Addressing‌‌the‌‌impact‌‌of‌‌domestic‌‌violence‌‌
mandatory‌‌and‌‌pro-arrest‌‌policies‌‌and‌‌practices‌‌on‌‌girls‌‌and‌‌young‌‌women.‌‌‌The‌‌
National‌‌Crittenton‌‌Foundation.‌h‌ ttps://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp/1046‌ ‌
Sklansky,‌‌D.‌‌A.‌‌(2021).‌A
‌ ‌‌pattern‌‌of‌‌violence:‌‌How‌‌the‌‌law‌‌classifies‌‌crimes‌‌and‌‌what‌‌it‌‌means‌‌
for‌‌justice‌.‌‌Harvard‌‌University‌‌Press.‌ ‌
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674248908‌ ‌
Smith,‌‌H.‌‌(2018).‌T
‌ he‌‌federal‌‌“crime‌‌of‌‌violence”‌‌definition:‌‌Overview‌‌and‌‌judicial‌‌
developments.‌‌Congressional‌‌Research‌‌Service.‌h‌ ttps://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45220.pdf‌ ‌
Sundt,‌‌J.,‌‌Cullen,‌‌F.‌‌T.,‌‌Thielo,‌‌A.‌‌J.,‌‌&‌‌Jonson,‌‌C.‌‌L.‌‌(2015).‌‌Public‌‌willingness‌‌to‌‌downsize‌‌
prisons:‌‌Implications‌‌from‌‌Oregon.‌V
‌ ictims‌‌&‌‌Offenders‌,‌‌10‌(4),‌‌365–378.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1078180‌ ‌
Swan,‌‌S.‌‌C.,‌‌Gambone,‌‌L.‌‌J.,‌‌Caldwell,‌‌J.‌‌E.,‌‌Sullivan,‌‌T.‌‌P.,‌‌&‌‌Snow,‌‌D.‌‌L.‌‌(2008).‌‌A‌‌review‌‌of‌‌
research‌‌on‌‌women’s‌‌use‌‌of‌‌violence‌‌with‌‌male‌‌intimate‌‌partners.‌V
‌ iolence‌‌and‌‌Victims‌,‌‌
23‌(3),‌‌301–314.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.301‌ ‌

The‌‌Sentencing‌‌Project.‌‌(2019).‌W
‌ omen‌‌and‌‌girls‌‌serving‌‌life‌‌sentences.‌‌
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/women-girls-serving-life-sentences/‌ ‌
Thielo,‌‌A.‌‌J.,‌‌Cullen,‌‌F.‌‌T.,‌‌Cohen,‌‌D.‌‌M.,‌‌&‌‌Chouhy,‌‌C.‌‌(2016).‌‌Rehabilitation‌‌in‌‌a‌‌red‌‌state.‌‌
Criminology‌‌&‌‌Public‌‌Policy‌,‌‌15‌(1),‌‌137–170.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12182‌ ‌
United‌‌States‌‌Sentencing‌‌Commission.‌‌(2019).‌‌Recidivism‌‌among‌‌federal‌‌violent‌‌offenders‌.‌‌
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-violent-offend‌
ers‌ ‌
van‌‌der‌‌Leun,‌‌J.‌‌(2020,‌‌December‌‌17).‌‌‘No‌‌choice‌‌but‌‌to‌‌do‌‌it.’‌‌The‌‌Appeal‌.‌‌
https://theappeal.org/criminalized-survivors-survey/‌ ‌
Weare,‌‌S.‌‌(2017).‌‌Bad,‌‌mad‌‌or‌‌sad?‌‌Legal‌‌language,‌‌narratives,‌‌and‌‌identity‌‌constructions‌‌of‌‌
women‌‌who‌‌kill‌‌their‌‌children‌‌in‌‌England‌‌and‌‌Wales.‌‌International‌‌Journal‌‌for‌‌the‌‌
Semiotics‌‌of‌‌Law,‌‌‌30‌,‌‌201–222.‌‌https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-016-9480-y‌ ‌
West,‌‌C.‌‌M.‌‌(2004).‌‌Black‌‌women‌‌and‌‌intimate‌‌partner‌‌violence:‌‌New‌‌directions‌‌for‌‌research.‌‌
Journal‌‌of‌‌Interpersonal‌‌Violence‌,‌‌19‌(12),‌‌1487–1493.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269700‌ ‌
Widom,‌‌C.‌‌S.,‌‌&‌‌Osborn,‌‌M.‌‌(2021).‌‌The‌‌cycle‌‌of‌‌violence:‌‌Abused‌‌and‌‌neglected‌‌girls‌‌to‌‌adult‌‌
female‌‌offenders.‌F
‌ eminist‌‌Criminology‌,‌‌16‌(3),‌‌266–285.‌‌
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120987628‌ ‌
Williams,‌‌M.‌‌(2020,‌‌February‌‌26).‌‌Mass.‌‌to‌‌close‌‌country’s‌‌oldest‌‌women’s‌‌prison.‌‌Corrections1‌.‌‌
https://www.corrections1.com/treatment/articles/mass-to-close-countrys-oldest-womens-‌
prison-aoDzJu3a2lNhbeqr/‌ ‌
Willison,‌‌J.‌‌S.‌‌(2016).‌‌Characteristics‌‌of‌‌violent‌‌crime‌‌committed‌‌by‌‌female‌‌prisoners.‌V
‌ iolence‌‌
and‌‌Victims‌,‌‌31‌(3),‌‌552–570.‌h‌ ttps://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00027‌ ‌
‌

‌