ABSTRACT
There is much debate among historians on how the pre-modern English legal system treated women accused of homicide. Some argue that women received leniency due to squeamishness concerning execution and the female body, whereas others suggest a patriarchal structure which sought to disproportionately punish women. This chapter demonstrates that these two radically different conclusions have been reached due to the differing statistical methods employed – whether that involves assessing acquittal rates or examining the outcomes for the defendants who were not acquitted. Thus, the two approaches produce two different stories – one of leniency towards women, or one of harsh punishments for female convicts. While pre-modern men and women were sentenced to execution at similar rates, women were more likely to be found not guilty. Women were either deemed to be wholly culpable or to be wholly innocent. The outcome of a woman’s trial was usually limited to execution or acquittal. Men were more likely to be found guilty but then pardoned and released. The jury seemed willing to hear the mitigating circumstances of male killers, such as self-defence, but these narratives are absent for women).
