Introduction

This book examines how the types of homicides women were accused of and the responses these women encountered in the courts and the press reflected and challenged prevailing gender norms. The primary sources are the Old Bailey Sessions Papers which include the trials heard at the Central Criminal Court in London between 1674 and 1913. The introduction discusses the strengths and limitations of the Old Bailey Sessions Papers as well as other primary sources such as the Ordinary Accounts, broadsheets, pamphlets, and newspapers. It offers an overview of changing norms and stereotypes for women during the period as well as a summary of changes in criminal procedures.

1754–1833: Passion and the Frailty of Human Nature

Attitudes towards violent women changed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. The police gradually replaced informers and the attitude towards the underclasses and the Irish hardened. The legal status of neonaticide changed to reflect the reality of juries’ attitudes towards the crime. Women were still largely held fully accountable for their crimes—in fact the percentage of death sentences that were carried out increased—but homicidal women were much more likely to be seen as having succumbed to passion rather than having made a wicked decision. The growth of newspapers meant greatly enhanced coverage of homicide trials which became fashionable sites for entertainment.

1674–1753: Strumpets and Wenches

Women in Restoration London were actively involved in public life and often blamed for manipulating men to violence. Other than neonaticide which was punished severely under a draconian Statute of 1624, women were most likely to be accused of killing an unrelated adult male in a public brawl. Women convicted of murdering their husbands were burned at the stake for petty treason, though juries often showed sympathy for women who had lashed out during a violent struggle. Women were also charged with the deaths of servants and, in the early period, bailiffs. Women were very rarely accused of killing their own children other than illegitimate newborns. Cases where the accused had clearly been insane were rarely prosecuted. Women tried for homicide were assumed to have made a rational decision to behave in a wicked manner. Though juries were becoming less likely to convict in neonaticide cases by mid-century, most women were held fully accountable for their actions without regard to gender or circumstances.

1874–1913: Incapable of Forming a Sound Judgement

By the late nineteenth century, women were often assumed to be biologically incapable of making a rational, independent decision to kill. The women who were executed had all killed children other than their own. Children were the only victims considered more vulnerable than women themselves. Neonaticide was less common, but the courts were prosecuting abortions more often and several abortionists were prosecuted for murder when clients died from complications. Women who killed men who had jilted them or women whom they viewed as romantic rivals were viewed sympathetically as they were assumed to be the victims of manipulation by men. Women’s crimes were often attributed to mental weaknesses associated with the onset of menses, pregnancy, lactation, and menopause. The change in perceptions of women’s autonomy and rationality, however condescending, meant that women accused of homicide were treated more leniently than ever before.

Conclusion

The outcomes for women tried for homicide as well as the types of homicides they were accused of changed dramatically over the centuries. Overall women grew less likely to be convicted of murder, and those convicted of murder, far less likely to be executed. Women were also more often found insane. But analysis of different categories reveals that changes in the treatment of neonaticides as well as an enormous increase in the rate at which women were prosecuted for killing their own children accounted for the most dramatic changes in verdicts. By the early twentieth century, prosecutions in both categories were beginning to decline as the amount of support increased and unwed mothers were viewed more sympathetically. But increased concern for the survival of children had led to more prosecutions and harsher sentences for caregivers accused in the deaths of their charges. The number of women prosecuted for killing non-related adults fell. Women accused of non-domestic homicides were usually seen as having been unduly influenced by men. The few women who committed murder on their own were viewed as monsters. Spousal homicide was the category in which the prosecution rate showed the least fluctuation. The outcomes for women convicted of killing their husbands changed dramatically but this category seems particularly resistant to outside influence. It seems likely that prosecution rates fluctuated more than actual homicide rates and some of the stereotypes regarding women and lethal violence seem to reflect real differences between men and women as opposed to gender constructs.

1834–1873: Becoming Women and Ogresses

In the Victorian period, the urge to match women accused of homicide to stereotypes grew stronger. This was a challenge, since at the same time the number of women tried for killing their own children was skyrocketing. Motherhood was the essential aspect of womanhood, yet the expectations seemed to be driving women to madness. The New Poor Law meant that deaths of children from neglect were being punished more severely while the injustice of the bastardy clause led to greater sympathy for unwed mothers who appeared in court. There was a huge increase in insanity verdicts. Women who killed someone other than their own child were often viewed through a prism created by fictional models as the press attempted to force the woman into an existing model.