I know many
people want to blame Lindsay Clancy nearly getting off on the women on the
jury. But historically men were less likely to find women guilty as well.
Women have
always been treated with less criminal responsibility than men, even in cases
involving killing their own children. Martin Van Creveld’s notes how this favouritism
before the law goes back to ancient times,
“Some
six centuries later, Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, rebelled against Rome. Defeated
and taken prisoner, she begged Emperor Aurelian for her life as “a mere woman.”
Instead of being executed in one of the many unpleasant ways reserved for
enemies of Rome, she was spared. Zenobia’s male adviser, the philosopher
Cassius Longinus, took the blame and suffered the consequences. She herself
ended as a grande dame in a villa near Rome. This good fortune was almost
certainly connected to the fact that she was said to possess a beautiful voice
and “incredible sex appeal.”[ 584] That is not necessarily to say that the
emperor, a tough soldier and capable statesman, fell for her charms. Like many
other rulers before and since, he must have realized that executing a woman,
especially a good-looking one, makes for bad publicity. Conversely, one reason
why early Christian propaganda abounds with stories, real or invented, of women
being tortured and put to death[ 585] is to put the pagans in the worst
possible light. From the point of view of the propagandist, whether or not the
stories were true was immaterial.
The
tradition of treating women better than men was continued under Salic law.
Originally issued by Frankish King Clovis between 507 and 511, it was later
developed byhis successors. For example, for merely touching “the hand or the
finger of a freewoman or any other woman” a man could be fined 15 solidi. The
more intimate the touch, the higher the penalty.[ 586] Cutting off the hair of
a boy “without the consent of his relatives” cost he who was found guilty of it
1,800 solidi. Doing the same to a girl cost 4,000. Though minors of both sexes
were under the control of their adult relatives, obviously a woman’s person was
considered more precious. The fine for blocking the road of a free woman or
striking her was also three times the sum due for the same offense committed
against a man. The penalty for killing a freeman was 600 solidi; for killing a
freewoman, 1,800. Another clause says that the penalty for killing a freewoman
was the same as the one for killing a male count. Other traditional societies
maintained similar distinctions. For example, in Yemen the blood money demanded
for the death of a woman was 11 times that demanded for a man. In the eyes of
one modern female writer, this rule was part of a “chauvinistic code of
chivalry.”[ 587]
To
oblige women, many medieval rulers were even prepared to forego the usual
penalty reserved for rebels, namely the confiscation of property.[ 588] In
1333-1347 Joan, countess of March, was able to keep her Irish estates even
though her husband, Robert Mortimer, had been executed for not only committing
treason against King Edward III, but also for being the queen’s lover. In
1399-1402, Elizabeth Fitzalan, widow of the duke of Norfolk, persuaded King
Henry IV to allow her to keep her property. Three years later, Constance
Holland, the widow of another duke of Norfolk who had ended his life on the
scaffold it was a time of civil war, unhealthy for dukes persuaded the same
Henry, who was her uncle, to allow her to retainher dower. Each of these cases
marked a conflict between the desire to uphold the law and enrich the treasury
and the political imperative to avoid treating women too harshly. In each of
these cases, it was politics that won out.
Conversely,
when a woman bit into the proverbial unripe fruit, it was the teeth of her
husband or other male relatives that broke. A good example of the way things
worked, this time at the bottom of the social ladder, is provided by the
English village of Alweras in Staffordshire.[ 589] In Alweras, and presumably
in many other villages as well, most of those active in illegal brewing were
women. But in Alweras, and presumably in other villages as well, most of those
fined for illegally selling ale were men. The explanation is simple: Those who
committed the offense were actually female. Most females, however, were either
the daughters of males or married to them, and consequently it was they who
were made to bear the consequences.
In
1634 another English court spelled out the reasoning behind this arrangement.
The case in question was that of one Thomas Hellyard. He and his wife Elizabeth
were brought before the dreaded Star Chamber to answer for having sold
saltpeter — an ingredient of gunpowder — without a license. The charges were serious
indeed, comparable in today’s terms to a crime like assisting terrorists.
Convicted, Hellyard was sentenced to pay the enormous sum of 1,000 pounds
sterling, and was subjected to pillory, whipping and imprisonment. Not so his
wife and partner, who had sold over 1,000 pounds of saltpeter. Though “the
courte was fully satisfyed with sufficient matter whereupon to ground a
sentence against the defendant... shee being a wyfe and subject to obey her husband
theyr Lord ships did forbeare to sentence her…
…
In both Britain and the United
States, people were prepared to see women as a priori less culpable. In both
countries, the prevailing view was that “women are more often the accomplices
of crime, its aiders and abettors.”[ 630] Whereas men were held “strictly
accountable,” women were assumed to be endowed with an “almost paralytic
passivity”[ 631] and were judged accordingly. To the extent that they
participated in crime at all, it was believed at the time, was not on their own
initiative, but because of the corrupting influence of vicious men. Whether by
making false promises of marriage or by other means, those men had somehow
succeeded in robbing women of their independent will. However flawed the logic,
the privileges to which it led were very real. In the words of one British
journalist, “very properly the law makes merciful allowance in dealing with the
female offender when it can be apparent that she has been impelled to commit
breaches of the law under masculine influence.” [1]
And regarding
killing children in particular he notes,
“Like
Medea, some women were literally able to get away with murder. In late
19th-century Britain, less than one-quarter of those tried for the crime were
women. On the other hand, then as now women made up almost all of those tried
for infanticide. British juries regarded these women as victims of “puerperal
mania.” The latter was a fashionable disease that was also believed to cause
“extraordinary obscenity in thought and language.” Very often, juries would
simply refuse to convict. Parliament responded by changing the law so as to
separate infanticide from murder and place it in a category of its own. Yet
even so prosecutors still found it all but impossible to obtain convictions.
Normally they could do so, if at all, only if they agreed that light sentences
should be imposed. Even so, rarely did infanticidal women serve out their
complete term. This was because, among all those declared to be criminally
insane, it was they who stood the greatest chance of being granted an early
release.”[2]
How much does
what van Creveld say here match with the Lindsay Clancy trial? The more things change,
the more they stay the same.
This is historically
why women were also not allowed certain roles of authority in society.
Authority must be matched with accountability. Those who cannot be held as accountable,
cannot by any reasonable society be given larger responsibilities over others. Our
society is slowly, and painfully, learning old lessons again.
This case,
with Clancy, has done more to tarnish the demonic ideologies of egalitarianism
and feminism than anything in modern history. Which is important.
But also it
needs to be noted that one man on the jury did something most men and women
have struggled to do in history: hold a woman accountable. Most people struggle
to do this.
It is a
fascinating social phenomenon when you think about it. A woman can do the worst
possible crime, turn on the waterworks, and manipulate most people. I have
observed this sort of action, in lesser circumstances of course, so many times
in my life, and it is recorded by historians as well, as I have demonstrated in
this piece. This man showed an ability many people, men and women, do not have:
under powerful social pressure he refused to let a woman not be held
accountable. Men like that are rare.
Praise God
one was on the jury. Good job brother, good job.
[1] van
Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 140-142, 151). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
[2] van
Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 151). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
[3]
From Not The Bee.
No comments:
Post a Comment