Criminal Injustice for 18th Century Women

The Impact of Sin and Crime on Women in the 18th Century

The distinction between sin and crime in the 18th century was crucial, and it had an especially negative impact on women. Immorality, mainly associated with sexual sin, received the same severity of punishment as other crimes. Sir John Fielding argued in favor of the criminal code's reinstatement, which classified adultery as a felony. (White n.p). Adultery was punishable by imprisonment or a fee. He made sure that the puritanism and sex-hatred that had been suppressed were entrenched. The support sparked a significant movement in favor of sin and crime being combined. In 1771, there was a bill that was passed before the Lords that prohibited adulterers from marrying over a specified period of time but was not passed. In 1779 and 1800, there was also an attempt to pass The Adultery Bill, but it was not successful. The Bill was aimed to convey sexual morality with criminal law. The social analysts in the 18th Century were aware of the role played by prostitution in causing uncontrolled sexual immorality. This was because men who came from a low class found it hard to get married because of financial reasons. They sorted to prostitution to combat their sexual urges.

Mistreatment and Abuse of Women in the 18th Century

Women were victims of law in many ways in the 18th Century. Mistreatment of women from their husbands was on the rise. Husbands were beating their wives because of petty issues such as disliking the foods that she served. This was not seen as a wrongdoing, but when it led to the death of the women, it was considered to be a crime. Sexual jealousy was another form of mistreatment of women. It would lead to the murder of the women if a man felt that his woman was involved with other men or if he felt that her love was threatened. The offenders, on the other hand, were imprisoned for a short period or fined (Batterson 248). Women who committed crimes were punished brutally, for instance, Mary Edmondson was executed in 1759 for murdering her aunt even though there was no evidence to link the murder. Sex was not the only thing that made women vulnerable. Cases of psychosis rendered women as evil incarnates. The class and status of the assaulted women were given more priority compared to the actual offense against them.

The Lack of Protection for Women in the 18th Century

Another way that the law punished women is by not protecting them against their seducers. The privileged women were only those who came from a high social status. When women tried to get revenge for being abused, the law reacted ferociously against them. Executing women for murder was a form of passing a terrible warning to women who acted out of the ordinary for their sex (Wipprecht 5). Violating the set of rules that were put in place for women incurred the rage of judges. Deborah Churchill was executed for being an accomplice to murder in 1708. She tried to fake a pregnancy to avoid the penalty, but six months later she was hanged when the jury found out that she was not pregnant.

The Disbelief of Women's Testimonies in Court

The law also discriminated women by not believing their testimonies in the courts. There was a generalized feeling that women were not good enough to serve as witnesses in the courts. The men were regarded more reliable than the women (McLynn 104). It went to a point where some judges were vicious enough to retaliate a witness who happened to be a woman by sentencing her to death. This was because they viewed her evidence to be "impertinent" just because she tried to find courage through drinking alcohol. This was a brutality caused to the women for trying to provide evidence to the court. The court decided to sentence the defendant to death even after providing proof. The fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol was probably why the court made this judgment. The attitude of the society towards women can be seen when there are cases of rape. The woman is blamed for what happens to her than blaming the men. On the other hand, the law does not also support women when these cases are brought to them. In the 18th Century, most rape cases were unreported since the women feared they would be embarrassed to the society instead of getting justice. It was also difficult to prove they were raped in the courts.

Women's Defense in Court and Cultural Biases

Peter King claimed that women had the power to present their perception of justice just by how they presented themselves. He said that women were not proficient in ascertaining that these possibilities came to pass. Even though it is not clear what connection there is between evidence and judgment, observing a testimony from a defendant provided clues on how women represented themselves and how their word testimonies were to be perceived. The defense of a woman was essential, and women were to learn on how to present their final pleas before the court. However, it was difficult to make women realize the power they possessed since they lacked defense councils. Courts relied heavily on prosecution and witness testimony and thus defense was the ultimate thing that the jury heard before making their judgment. It was the only hope that the defendants had, and it provided an opportunity to show the character that they were to judge. This meant that the attitude and situations that women presented in the court would concur with the jury and thus be acquitted.

Cultural Definition of Rape and Women as Property

The cultural definition of rape was different as women were held responsible. Coercing young women into intercourse was not regarded as rape. Accepting evidence from young women seemed unreal and theological since they were termed as being below the reasoning age. The only time that a case was brought to the court was when the young women contracted a venereal disease. This was the only time the courts inquired about the rape case. Another factor related to culture was that most cases were between a maid and her master. It was difficult for the maid to present her case to the court as it was clear that the jurymen would not take her side but her master's. To pick her side meant that she would not be allowed to work in the near locality. The jury taking the plaintiff's side meant that there was a risk set towards nexus of authority, deference, and compliance.

Women's Property Rights and Dependence on Men

The court did not intervene when women were treated as property. However, this received a different treatment from those women who were rich. Kidnapping royalties were seen as a crime, and those involved were punished by the authorities. Even after the person abducted confessed to the consent of abduction, the punishment was not light. It led to the abductor being hanged albeit proposals were made to repeal this action. The abduction was treated as a worse crime than murder. The proponents said that it is because the woman had to live her whole life with a man that she detested. This only happened to the elite families since they regarded property more important than morality.

The Injustice of Infanticide Laws

Money was also another factor that led to the mistreatment of women based on the laws of infanticide. The women committed this crime because of the lack of money. In the 18th Century, infanticide was mainly due to poverty and the harsh criticism directed at the unmarried mothers. The married women were not charged with infanticide under the regular laws of homicide. The injustice that governed this law was blatant. If an unmarried woman gave birth to a child and later was found dead due to complications or illnesses, it was presumed that she had murdered the kid. The penalty for this was execution even if the unmarried woman had nothing to do with the death of the fetus. The only way to save herself was to produce witnesses who would confirm that the baby was indeed dead when born. The reason why infanticide was regarded as an act performed by unmarried women was that they were sorting to avoid social stigma. Female servants considered this motive important as they were seeking respect from their employers. They avoided their kids being called bastards. The custom of late marriage in the 18th century was a ceremony of financial constraints. This meant that leaving their place of work was not an option as those who hoped to be married in the future used to save for the function.

Women's Legal Status and Loss of Independence

In the 18th century, after marriage, a man and a woman were seen as one under the laws of coverture. The law declared a man and a woman as the entirety, and that person was the man. This meant that the woman's personal and property rights lay in the hands of her husband. Her legal existence was deferred during the marriage period and was combined with that of her husband (Phillips n.p). This meant that the women had to be dependent on the men as they did not have the right to sue or be sued without involving their husband as the defendant. The husband had the right to all the personal properties of the wife and was legally responsible for all the crimes she committed before and after marriage. This law turned women into being nonpersons because they did not have means of survival economically apart from marriage. However, the property was seen as an individual imperfection even though poor women were oppressed. Women were subjected to loss of independence once they lost their properties.

Women's Status and Marital Expectations in Court

The wifely expectations of a woman were also an essential matter for the court. Wives were regarded as people with high moral standards than the men. They appeared in courts in place of their husbands as female prosecutors. Whenever an unmarried woman presented a case in the courts, it was concluded that she was either a widower or a spinster. This is because the information was not available in the courts when defendants or witnesses testified. Marital status was considered an important topic whenever a case was presented in the courts. Sarah Harris was asked if she was married and responded with a funny response. She said she was not married; she sells fruits. The court was more attentive in finding out who was responsible for her since so many women were identified according to their marital status (Wipprecht 10). Sarah changed this and identified herself using her work rather than being termed an unmarried woman. The court did not ask her any other question as the jury had probably concluded basing their judgments on her answer to her religious beliefs. A Jewish woman was not answerable to many institutions recognized by the court.

The Status of Women as Slaves

The law also did not protect women against slavery in the 18th century. The law denied women separate legal existence. Female slaves were converted into part of the legal identity of men. This means that the men were accountable for their behaviors. Women were owned, exchanged with material things and forced to bear children. These events provided a good baseline for the history of law and women as well as the financial practice. Women who decided to leave because of being misused were imprisoned (Probert 131). This indicates that it was impossible for a woman to fight against the atrocities of slavery as she did not have any right according to the law.

Women's Response to the Judicial Process in Court

During court proceedings, women responded to the judicial process in several ways. Some were confident while others hesitant, fearful, and confused. An example is Collet Moore, who was a witness to identify stolen goods. She was incapable of answering the first question she was asked while in the court. The question she was asked was necessary, but she was in shock and unable to respond in front of these men. She was asked to calm herself down, and after taking an oath, she managed to answer other questions that were posed to her in details. In a different trial, Catherine Olding was asked to recognize the defendant as the person she had seen committing a crime. She was too fearful and ended up pointing at the constable. Frances Burell admitted that she identified a suspect that she had not seen. She asserted that she was terrified when she was asked if that was the man and ended up saying it was him. She told the court that she was not sure if the defendant was the suspect as she had seen other men with similar characteristics.

Women's Familiarity with Court Proceedings

Women were familiar with the processes that took place in the court. As much as most women were shocked to be present in the court, it was not the expected response. The verbal testimony of Chrissey Smith indicates that not all women were familiar with giving statements as it affected her majorly. In the middle of her questioning, she said that she had never taken an oath before and she was not ready to take one. This made her questioning end abruptly after she was asked about consumption wine. The court paid no attention to her pledge and carried on asking her simple questions. It is clear that the court continued with its proceedings at a faster pace but to Chrissey, this was a day she cherished and remembered. For this reason, the motive was not involved in the matters that concerned trials in the courts.

Works Cited

Batterson, Philip. God's Revenge Against Murder and Adultery. T.Axtell, at the Royal Exchange, 1779.

McLynn, Frank. Crime and Punishment in Eighteenth Century England. Routledge, 2013.

Phillips, Jim. "Female Criminality in 18th-Century Halifax." Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region 31.2 (2002).

Probert, Rebecca. Marriage Law and Practice in the Long Eighteenth Century: A Reassessment. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

White, Matthew. Crime and punishment in Georgian Britain. 14 October 2009. 30 November 2017 .

Wipprecht, Claudia. The Representation of Women in Early 18th Century England. GRIN Verlag, 2007.