"Some mysterious agency": Women, Violent Crime, and the Insanity Acquittal in the Victorian Courtroom

Abstract

Although historians have thoroughly examined the evolution of the insanity acquittal as a legal concept, scholars know relatively little about the insanity acquittal in practice. This article attempts to fill that significant gap. How often did defendants plead insanity, how many succeeded, and what factors determined whether or not an insanity plea would succeed? An analysis of thousands of trials for violent crimes in England and Wales between I832-1901 reveals that, while the insanity plea figured in relatively few trials, far more men than women received an insanity acquittal. In proportional terms women were twice as likely to be acquitted on ground of insanity, even when women and men were charged with similar crimes. Why was the legal system more willing to grant insanity acquittals to female defendants? Were these women benefiting from the paternalism of male jurors reluctant to execute women, as many members of the public assumed? Examination of the cases reveals that although juries were supposed to assess insanity pleas according to the M'Naghten Rules, juries often ignored the rules when dealing with female defendants, and based their verdicts on the conclusion that only an insane woman could have committed the crime with which she was charged. This article argues that the conflation of female violence and insanity may have saved many women from the gallows, but it denied women's agency in violent criminal acts and reinforced the negative stereotype of women as mentally and emotionally weak.