A recent meta-analysis conducted by Franca Cortoni, a professor emeritus at the University of Montreal, reveals that the recidivism rate for female sex offenders remains remarkably low at just 3%. In contrast, the recidivism rate for male sex offenders stands at approximately 13%. This analysis, which encompasses data from 4,208 women over the past 25 years (from 1998 to 2023), updates findings from a previous meta-analysis conducted in 2010.
Cortoni, who has extensive experience as a clinical psychologist working with incarcerated sex offenders, emphasizes the need to move away from a male-centric approach within the criminal justice system. Her research underscores a broader trend observed across various time periods and cultures: women generally commit fewer crimes than men. Cortoni attributes this trend to evolutionary factors, stating, “Historically, men were responsible for protecting the clan and hunting, while women looked after children and the well-being of the group.” She explains that these historical roles have led to enduring behavioral differences.
The factors contributing to criminal behavior differ significantly between genders. Many incarcerated women have a history of substantial physical and/or sexual violence before engaging in criminal activity. This victimization is prevalent across all crime categories. Cortoni notes that while both men and women may commit violent acts, men often externalize their trauma through aggression, whereas women tend to internalize it. This internalization can lead to issues such as substance abuse and self-destructive behavior.
Cortoni highlights the prevalence of self-harm among incarcerated women, linking it to their internalized suffering. She points out that the trajectory toward crime often varies between men and women; for women, substance abuse typically precedes criminal behavior, while for men, it often accompanies a delinquent lifestyle.
In the field of criminology, there has been a longstanding reliance on data from male subjects, which has created significant blind spots. Cortoni asserts, “We’ve seen this, for example, with heart attacks and with sexuality. However, research conducted solely on men has left some serious blind spots.” She stresses that recognizing the differences between men and women in terms of criminal behavior, recidivism rates, and reintegration needs is not merely stereotyping, but a matter of scientific rigor.
Cortoni comments, “Crime is not gender-neutral. 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 were simply adaptations of those designed for men, failing to address the unique needs of women.
Since the 1990s, significant reforms have aimed to make correctional services more responsive to women’s realities. These changes have focused less on security and more on psychological support, previous trauma, and the responsibilities of parenthood. Cortoni clarifies, “It’s not about saying that women are better or worse than men; it’s about recognizing that men and women function differently.”
The findings of this comprehensive analysis not only contribute to the understanding of female offenders but also highlight the necessity for a more nuanced approach in the criminal justice system. By acknowledging and addressing the distinct pathways and needs of male and female offenders, the system can better support rehabilitation and reduce recidivism rates.
For further details, refer to the study by 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.
