A recent meta-analysis has revealed that female sex offenders exhibit a notably low recidivism rate of just 3%, significantly lower than the 13% rate observed among male offenders. The study, conducted by Franca Cortoni, a professor emeritus in the School of Criminology at the University of Montreal, analyzed data spanning 25 years, from 1998 to 2023. This research updates a previous meta-analysis from 2010 and underscores the importance of addressing gender differences in criminal behavior and rehabilitation.
Cortoni’s analysis, which included data from 4,208 women, indicates that women commit far fewer sexual offenses than men, and their risk of reoffending is significantly lower. She emphasizes that these findings reflect a broader trend across various cultures and time periods, suggesting that women are less likely to engage in criminal activities than their male counterparts. According to Cortoni, this disparity can be traced to historical roles shaped by evolutionary forces.
“Historically, men were responsible for protecting the clan and hunting, while women looked after children and the well-being of the group,” Cortoni explained. “These roles have shaped enduring behavioral differences.” While women can commit violent acts, they tend to express violence differently and take fewer physical risks.
The underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior also differ between genders. Many incarcerated women have faced significant physical and sexual violence prior to their criminal activities. Cortoni highlights that women are more likely to be victimized, which impacts their pathways to crime. For instance, men often externalize their trauma through aggression, while women tend to internalize it, leading to issues such as substance abuse and self-destructive behavior.
Cortoni pointed out that the prevalence of self-harm among women in prison reflects this internalized suffering. The pathways to crime further diverge; for women, substance abuse often precedes criminal behavior, while men typically engage in delinquent lifestyles that involve substance use.
The impact of male-centric research on criminology has created significant gaps in understanding. Cortoni stated, “We’ve seen this, for example, with heart attacks and with sexuality. Research conducted solely on men has left some serious blind spots.” She insists that recognizing differences in criminal behavior and recidivism rates is not merely a matter of stereotyping, but rather a necessity for scientific rigor.
“Crime is not gender-neutral,” Cortoni added. “As long as we continue to treat women the same as men in the justice system, we’ll overlook what led them there.” Historically, rehabilitation programs for female offenders have been adapted from those designed for men, often failing to meet their specific needs.
Since the 1990s, reforms have aimed to make correctional services more attuned to women’s realities. These changes include a shift away from strict security measures in favor of increased psychological support, consideration of past trauma, and a focus on motherhood. Cortoni emphasizes that this approach does not provide preferential treatment but acknowledges the distinct ways men and women experience crime and reintegration.
“It’s not about saying that women are better or worse than men; it’s about recognizing that men and women function differently,” she concluded. The implications of Cortoni’s research are significant for the future of criminal justice policies and the rehabilitation of female offenders.
For further details on this meta-analysis, refer to the work of R. Karl Hanson et al, titled “The Sexual Recidivism Rates of Women Are Still Low: An Updated Meta‐Analysis,” published in Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health in 2025.
