The two cases I chose to focus on were of Ann Mabe in 1718, accused of killing her newborn child and of Martha Barrett in 1829 accused of murdering her newborn child as well. First, I would like to look at each case individually before considering the social and cultural implications of each. In Mabe's case, she denied having had a child despite physical evidence of what she later claimed was an 'abortion.' However, the body of the child was found in what the recorder calls the 'Vaults' but no damage, other than a cheek indentation was seen. The final verdict was not guilty due to, "It was the Opinion of the Midwise and Court, That a Child that is new born, if alive, came into the World with its Hands expanded; but, if dead, with its Hands clench'd." In Martha's case, she also denied recently having had a child despite the physical evidence of 'after-birth.' Then upon the discovery of remains in the flower pots, she owned up to cutting off the head of said child and then burning and burying the remains. She was charged as guilty, but her charge was for concealing pregnancy rather than the actual murder itself and was imprisoned rather than executed.
Now, when considering these two cases, although more than 100 years apart, the cultural shift is not as drastic as one would think. Originally, Mabe was acquitted due to a superstition about children's birth and Barrett was given a lesser offense. Throughout the duration of this time, neither woman is actually convicted with a murder sentence despite the undisputable evidence of child remains. It seems then, that the desperation of women such as these, were treated lighter than even a theft case, such as we see in Moll Flanders. It seems the court was more lenient, especially for women of little means or without male support.
Contrasting this with our current system, the two major political parties are polarized decades after Roe v Wade. On the left, we have pro-choice and pro-contraceptive and keeping the government out of controlling a woman’s choice to decide when and if and how large she wants her family to be. On the right, we have pro-life who are urging for bills to define personhood at the moment of conception in order to make abortion be seen as murder. This is drastically different than 18th and 19th century England who, although knowing the mother ended a born child’s life, refused to sentence them to guilty of murder and the death sentence. Our current political climate seems to be in reverse and less progressive than ever on such an issue and all of the roadblocks preventing women from making their own health decisions despite the cause of said decision.
This backwards slide leaves me gob smacked in that for a society that would hang people for petty theft and was seen as greatly and strictly religious and moral, would allow murder of already born children compared to the secular society that we have today, who wants to define the termination of even a 4 week old pregnancy as murder. I think this, more than anything, shows the shift in our morals from the commandments, such as Thou Shalt Not Steal, to a focus on 'human' morals of battery, assault, homicide, genocide, abortion etc. Although, on the surface, while seeming to move away from religious conviction and influence, our modern society instead seems to move even further into religious belief as the basis for political issues and laws. In would seem then, that although we consider our system of justice to be better, we are on a precarious ledge into reverting to 18th century law, and in fact becoming even more severe if abortion were to be made illegal.
Mostly, your post makes me want to rant about the current state of politics and women's reproductive rights, but I'll refrain and just say that I'm alarmed.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty clear, though, that the 18th-century judicial system--at least in these two cases--was more open to mitigating circumstances than we are now. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing, but at least it's more nuanced than arguing unilaterally that it's always best to see a pregnancy through.
I agree with the you about wanting to rant about politics and women's rights in the current political climate, but will also refrain from doing so.
ReplyDeleteIn considering these cases, the divide that I saw was between extenuating circumstance (for 18th century law) and moral circumstance (for modern 20 and 21st century law). I truly think that in some ways the 18th century way of considering motive and circumstance which would bring a woman to terminate a pregnancy or kill a newborn, is in some ways good. By considering motive, the judicial system is better able to determine the necessity of the crime and lessen the punishment of the criminal if the crime was the only was to escape the status and class system. We do not see this often anymore, and especially this is not the case anymore for poor African American women (as I mentioned from reading we were doing in Dr. Barak's class). However, this is a slippery slope and guilt of a crime can often be overlooked in this case.
In considering our modern conception of crime, our focus is on the damages to the individual(s) affected by the perpetrator's crime. This seems to reflect a higher value of human morality which overall seems to be a good thing. However, the lines are often blurred between religious values/secular values which can make our judicial and legislative systems a slippery slope as well as the contribution of political debates surrounding issues such as abortion.
Overall, both systems have some very beneficial advantages while still retaining some ugly consequences. Each has its merits but I don't think we can say either system is more effective than the other. It seems that perhaps a blending of each system's ideals would result into a new hybrid system that would affect the greatest and most effective judicial and legislative change yet.