Women, Pleas and Property Crime: Understanding the Fortunes of Female Petitioners in London, 1819–1840

D. Orr
{"title":"Women, Pleas and Property Crime: Understanding the Fortunes of Female Petitioners in London, 1819–1840","authors":"D. Orr","doi":"10.30958/AJHIS.6-2-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From a random sample of five-hundred petitions submitted (1819–1840) by felons convicted at the Old Bailey, only thirty-nine were female petitioners. This approximates the female-male felony ratio of convictions for felonious property crimes in London during this period.1 The thirty-nine female petitioners are the focus of this article. In particular, the article examines evidence and arguments suggesting that ideas of morality and social constructions of femininity and masculinity rather than legality most influenced the outcome of their appeals. Second, the article will examine the extent to which elite decision-makers used their ideals of motherhood, marriage status, and chastity to determine both the credibility of appeals and the moral integrity of the petitioners. Third, the article will examine how constructions of respectability were also applied to those who petitioned on behalf of female convicts and whether these ideas influenced the perception of the petitioner as credible. Ultimately, the article will conclude by assessing the degree to which subjective perceptions of petitioners and prisoners as moral or respectable determined who was deemed \"fit subject of mercy.\" \n \n1. Peter King, Crime and Law in England 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 172–175.","PeriodicalId":120643,"journal":{"name":"ATHENS JOURNAL OF HISTORY","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATHENS JOURNAL OF HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30958/AJHIS.6-2-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From a random sample of five-hundred petitions submitted (1819–1840) by felons convicted at the Old Bailey, only thirty-nine were female petitioners. This approximates the female-male felony ratio of convictions for felonious property crimes in London during this period.1 The thirty-nine female petitioners are the focus of this article. In particular, the article examines evidence and arguments suggesting that ideas of morality and social constructions of femininity and masculinity rather than legality most influenced the outcome of their appeals. Second, the article will examine the extent to which elite decision-makers used their ideals of motherhood, marriage status, and chastity to determine both the credibility of appeals and the moral integrity of the petitioners. Third, the article will examine how constructions of respectability were also applied to those who petitioned on behalf of female convicts and whether these ideas influenced the perception of the petitioner as credible. Ultimately, the article will conclude by assessing the degree to which subjective perceptions of petitioners and prisoners as moral or respectable determined who was deemed "fit subject of mercy." 1. Peter King, Crime and Law in England 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 172–175.
妇女、请求与财产犯罪:了解1819-1840年伦敦女性请愿者的命运
从1819年至1840年在老贝利被定罪的重罪犯提交的500份请愿书的随机样本中,只有39名是女性请愿者。这近似于同一时期伦敦财产重罪的男女比例39名女性上访者是本文关注的焦点。特别是,本文考察了一些证据和论点,这些证据和论点表明,道德观念和女性气质和男性气质的社会建构,而不是合法性,对她们的上诉结果影响最大。其次,本文将考察精英决策者在多大程度上利用他们对母性、婚姻状况和贞洁的理想来决定上诉的可信度和上访者的道德操守。第三,本文将研究如何将体面的结构也应用于代表女犯人请愿的人,以及这些想法是否影响了对请愿人可信的看法。最后,本文将评估上访者和囚犯的道德或受人尊敬的主观看法在多大程度上决定了谁被视为“合适的仁慈对象”。1. 彼得·金:《英国1750-1840年的犯罪与法律》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2006),第172-175页。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信