Abstract
This article contributes to the debates on gender and punishment by providing an analysis of women who were sentenced to death during the first half of the 20th century after having killed their abusive partners, and who were subsequently reprieved. The article argues that the frame of references within existing `leniency versus harshness' debates are inadequate and cannot provide a complete explanation of the issues surrounding gender and punishment. Instead, in order to gain a full understanding of the complexities of these trial outcomes it is necessary to examine the social construction of both femininity and masculinity and the discourses through which these constructions operated in the courtroom. The article thus demonstrates the way in which discourses around femininity and masculinity both played crucial roles in the final outcomes of the trials. In particular, the article emphasizes the processes through which men as well as women were expected to conform to dominant ideologies around gender. As such, failure to adhere to acceptable standards of masculine behaviour could detract from the man's status as victim while blurring the lines between victim and perpetrator with respect to the woman who eventually retaliated against her violent partner. The article concludes that the narrow focus of `leniency versus harshness' debates masks wider issues of the role of punishment in maintaining the dominant gendered, social order.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.