Women Criminals : An Encyclopedia of People and Issues [2 volumes] 0313337136, 9780313337130

Citation preview

Women Criminals

This page intentionally left blank

WOMEN CRIMINALS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PEOPLE AND ISSUES Volume 1 Issues Related to Women and Crime

Vickie Jensen, Editor

Copyright 2012 by Vickie Jensen, Editor All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Women criminals : an encyclopedia of people and issues / Vickie Jensen, editor. v. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-313-33713-0 (hardcopy : alk. paper) · ISBN 978-0-313-06826-3 (ebook) 1. Female offenders·Encyclopedias. 2. Female offenders· Biography·Encyclopedias. I. Jensen, Vickie, 1967ă HV6046.W654 2011 364.3'740922·dc22 2011009906 ISBN: 978-0-313-33713-0 EISBN: 978-0-313-06826-3 15

14

13

12

11

1

2

3

4

5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Preface

xi

Acknowledgments

xv

VOLUME ONE ISSUES RELATED TO WOMEN AND CRIME Introduction: Women Criminals and the Crimes They Commit

3

Vickie Jensen and Kristyan M. Kouri Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

25

Jennifer Schwartz and Arina Gertseva Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

53

Vickie Jensen, Lizette Barrientos, and Annie Neimand Women and Sexual Offending

81

Rebecca Trammell and Sharon S. Oselin Age and WomenÊs Offending

99

Carolyn Rebecca Block and Nicole T. Carr Diversity and WomenÊs Criminal Offending

121

Vickie Jensen, Yasmin Serrato, Nayla Huq, and Crystal Kelly Victimization and WomenÊs Offending

139

Vickie Jensen and Venessa Garcia Political Women and Criminalization

163

Karren Baird-Olson and Carlos Moran V

VI

|

Contents

Issues in WomenÊs Crime around the World

177

Rosemary Barberet Women and Policing

187

Jennifer C. Gibbs Women, Law, and the Legal System

209

Celesta A. Albonetti Criminal Justice System and Women: Corrections and Correctional Issues

241

Barbara A. Koons-Witt and Gillian M. Pinchevsky

VOLUME TWO WOMEN AND CRIME: BIOGRAPHICAL PROFILES, A–Z A Ah Toy Allen, Wanda Jean Allitt, Beverly Anthony, Casey Aquash, Anna Atkins, Susan

277 279 282 284 289 291

B Baker, Josephine Barfield, Velma Barker, Ma Barrows, Sydney Bàthory, Elizabeth Beets, Betty Bell, Mary Bevan, Catherine Bishop, Amy Bobbitt, Lorena Bombeek, Cecile Bonny, Anne Borden, Lizzie Borgia, Lucrezia Boyd, Belle

297 299 302 303 306 308 310 312 314 318 321 323 325 328 330

Brinvilliers, Marquise de Broderick, Betty Brown, Debra Brown, Joyce Ann Buck, Marilyn

333 335 337 341 343

C Cheng Chui Ping Cheng I Sao Clark, Judith Cleghorn, Mildred Cook, Ann Cora, Belle Corday, Charlotte Cotton, Mary

347 349 352 355 357 360 362 364

D dÊAquino, Iva (Tokyo Rose) Dann, Laurie Davis, Angela Devi, Phoolan Devlin, Bernadette Dhanu Doss, Nannie

367 370 372 374 377 379 382

Contents

Drexler, Melissa Dumont, Eleanor Dyer, Amelia

384 387 389

E Ebadi, Shirin Edmonds, Sarah Ellis, Ruth Everleigh, Ada Everleigh, Minna

393 395 398 400 403

407 408 410 412 415 416 419 422

G Garcia, Guin Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk (Axis Sally) Gindorf, Debbie Goldman, Emma González Valenzuela, Delfina; María de Jesús González; and Eva González Good, Sandra Gottfried, Gessina Greenhow, Rose Gunness, Belle

Jegado, Hélène Jones, Genene

485 487

K Kasabian, Linda Kelly, Gladys Cannon Khaled, Leila Krenwinkel, Patricia

491 494 498 501

L 427 429 431 434

437 439 441 443 446

H Harris, Clara Harris, Jean Hayashi, Masumi

457 460 462 464 468 470 473 476 479 482

J

F Fair, Laura Falling, Christine Fallmer, Clara Fisher, Amy Fleiss, Heidi Fonda, Jane Frank, Antoinette Fugate, Caril

Hearst, Patty Helmsley, Leona Hindley, Myra Hollander, Xaviera Homolka, Karla Howard, Katherine Huckaby, Melissa Huerta, Dolores Hughes, Francine Hutchinson, Anne

|

449 451 453

La Voisin, Catherine Lafave, Debra Lebron, Lolita Letourneau, Mary Kay Lewis, Teresa Little, Joan

507 508 511 513 515 521

M Mandela, Winnie Mandelbaum, Mother Mapp, Dollree Marie Antoinette McKnight, Regina Metyard, Sarah; and Sarah Morgan Metyard Montespan, Marquise de

525 528 530 534 536 540 542

VII

VIII

|

Contents

N Newton, Frances

545

O Osborn, Sarah

549

553 554 557

561 563 566 568

S Sanger, Margaret Scholl, Sophie Shakur, Assata Shigenobu, Fusako Smith, Susan Snyder, Ruth Soliah, Kathleen Spooner, Bathsheba Steinem, Gloria Stewart, Martha

Taketa, Gwen Tinning, Marybeth Tubman, Harriet Tucker, Karla Faye

573 576 578 581 584 586 589 591 593 596

611 613 615 618

V Van Houten, Leslie Van Lew, Elizabeth

R Rachals, Terri Riefenstahl, Leni Riggs, Christina Rosenberg, Ethel

599 602 605

T

P Pagan, Dylcia Parker, Bonnie Parks, Rosa

Stone, Lucy Surratt, Mary Suu Kyi, Aung San

623 627

W Wall, Rachel Wanrow, Yvonne West, Rosemary Whitney, Charlotte Anita Wuornos, Aileen

631 633 635 637 641

Y Yaklich, Donna Yates, Andrea Young, Lila

645 646 649

Z Zwanziger, Anna

653

Contents

APPENDICES: STATISTICS AND REPORTS ON WOMEN AND CRIME A. Arrests

656

B. Offenders According to Victimization Data

677

C. Gender, Prisoners, and the Death Penalty

680

D. Death Penalty for Female Offenders, by Victor Streib

690

Selected Bibliography

713

Index

719

About the Editor and Contributors

741

|

IX

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

The study of women criminals has grown tremendously in the last 40 or more years from the first few scholars who began a gender dialogue in criminology in the late 1960s and early 1970s. What was initially a critique of the assumptions of a genderblind and male-centered criminology has grown in the last four decades into a very active and vibrant specialty in criminology. Women and crime scholars have challenged criminology and society to examine the ways in which our gender system impacts women and womenÊs lives and how crime can be created and shaped by the gendered experiences of women. The field has grown so much that it is no longer containable within designated chapters in introductory criminology books, and classes that address women and crime have been established in many if not most criminology programs. This encyclopedia was written to help bring key issues in this scholarship together in a way that is accessible to students, beginning researchers, and the professional lay public. Key areas in the area of womenÊs criminality are presented as an introduction to some of the current issues that are being addressed by women and crime scholars. These entries are followed by biographies of women criminals of all sorts that illustrate many of the issues raised. Combined, the two types of entries provide a fuller understanding and appreciation for womenÊs criminality and the women themselves who commit crime. This encyclopedia is divided into two volumes: issues and biographies. The volume of issues includes 12 key criminology and criminal justice areas in which women and crime scholars are engaging in research. Important themes in this research are presented in each of the 12 distinctive chapters. The second volume is comprised of 135 biographies of women criminals. These biographies cover both the known backgrounds of these women as well as the crime or crimes themselves that led to the label of „woman criminal.‰ In some cases, the women included are clearcut criminals who committed such crimes as murder, robbery, and prostitution. In other cases, the women have committed acts of defiance, in one way or another, that threatened powerful interests and led to a defining of the woman as a criminal XI

XII

|

Preface

even though her actions may not have been clearly criminal to others. Some, in fact, are or have been key agents in creating social change. In many cases, the two merge into a complex story of the impact of gender and power on womenÊs choices and their treatment by the criminal justice system. Supplemental material is also included that provides key overview statistics and other pertinent descriptions of the larger scope of womenÊs crimes. A bibliography provides selected historical and contemporary sources for additional reading and research. The reader is invited to use the encyclopedia in several different ways. One way is to begin with the case of a particular woman criminal and then consult the chapters of issues to learn more about different influences on her life and criminal experience. The reader can begin with a specific issues chapter and find examples of particular women who illustrate these issues. The issues chapters also provide a point of departure for one who wishes to become familiar with key research areas in the area of womenÊs criminality. This work is clearly the result of a rather large group of around 70 contributors who wrote both chapters on key issues as well as biographies. It has truly been a feminist project that has been the outcome of many cooperating individuals who have done their part to create what could not be done by one person. Contributors in this encyclopedia vary widely in their discipline, level of training, and academic status. Contributions by undergraduate students and top-level scholars in the field of women and crime are included, side by side. Contributors also include several scholars in disciplines other than criminology as well as journalists. This work truly embodies the value and tradition of feminist scholarship in the quest to provide a larger picture of the complexity of the lives and experiences of women criminals. A work such as this will no doubt create debate about what was included and what was excluded. We do not pretend to offer exhaustive material on every issue in womenÊs offending or biographies of every woman who has offended. Indeed, the vast majority of women offenders do not rise to any level of public recognition due to factors such as low severity of the crime, lack of threat posed by the crime, and the large numbers of women who commit particular types of crime. Property crimes are particularly underrepresented because there simply is not a lot of attention given to women who commit the average property crime. Those who do get attention get that attention due to unusually large sums of money stolen, their very public status, and/or the commission of high-level white-collar crime which is more often committed by men. A large number of women violent offenders are included largely because their crimes receive more media coverage and, in some cases, academic interest as well. This is because violent crime deviates more from what is expected of women. Even so, we have not been exhaustive in covering even violent women offenders, and many women were left out. We attempted to present the best representation of womenÊs offending available with examples of a wide variety of womenÊs issues addressed within the biographies offered. Some individuals were

Preface

|

selected because of particular historical importance. The biographies are meant to be examples of the kinds of circumstances and factors affecting women criminals and not a complete list of all criminal women, past or present. Deciding upon the geographic and time coverage also led to decisions about whom to include and whom not to include. The biographies in this volume cover the time period of early settlement of what would become the United States to present. Key historical examples have been included, but the largest number of biographies come from the last 200 years. International representation was actively pursued, and many contributors suggested notable women criminals from outside the United States who were included. Biographies of criminals from Mexico, Iran, France, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries are represented. While international examples of women criminals are included, the United States is most heavily represented in the biographies. Availability of material on women criminals was a key factor that determined the inclusion of biographies, and the most available material was from more recent times in the United States.

XIII

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

From beginning to end, this project was a long journey that was sometimes very difficult. I could not have made this journey and reached its end if it were not for several invaluable people who provided guidance, support, assistance, and understanding. A huge debt is owed to Karren Baird-Olson who provided invaluable assistance to the project in many ways. In the earliest stages of developing the biography list, she did a great deal of research to provide cases of women who are both interesting and historically important but who may have been overlooked. This research was instrumental in developing the volume of biographies that is rich with a variety of women who have been defined as criminal. Karren also significantly helped to shape the list of topical chapters, making sure that many forms of diversity were included. She then provided essential expertise to write the chapter on political crimes by women, bringing both her academic and personal experience with the topic to enhance exposure and understanding of women who have been political criminals. For all this and for continued support and the best in collegiality, I thank Karren for all she has contributed to make this encyclopedia happen. Members from the Division on Women and Crime within the American Society of Criminology provided extensive and crucial help for this project as well. Many members made scholarly contributions, some writing many entries. Other members provided assistance in creating a list of women criminals who would be worthy subjects of biographies. Still others provided support in other ways ranging from suggestions for the bibliography to encouragement and moral support. I thank all of our contributors for their hard work, expertise, and patience with this long project. I am thankful that your efforts are finally represented in print as this project has finally come to fruition. I have also been appreciative of colleagues at California State University, Northridge, who also have been supportive and, in some cases, have made their own contributions. Dave, Kay, Ellis, Kris, Loretta, and Nathan immediately come to mind, but there were many others along the way with supportive words and encouragement. I need to express an additional measure of thanks to Bobby Keo, Athanasia XV

XVI

|

Acknowledgments

Medenas, and David Arnett, who provided invaluable assistance in last-minute research necessary to pull everything together. The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at California State University provided funding to help complete this project, and the department generously helped me arrange a schedule to optimize my work. My editor at ABC-CLIO (formerly Greenwood), Anne Thompson, took on a struggling and wandering project and, with patient guidance and encouragement, was instrumental in seeing it to its end. This encyclopedia could not have been done without her, and I am eternally grateful. I must also thank my family who have supported me through the nearly six years that it has taken to publish this work. My husband and daughter have provided me the space and forgiveness to do the necessary work to complete this project. My husband also contributed his expert writing skills to writing one of the biographies. To my daughter Elena, who was born after this project was contracted, I can finally say, „Yes, Mommy is done with the book now.‰ I cannot express my thanks and love more profoundly for their love and support. Vickie Jensen

Issues Related to Women and Crime

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION: WOMEN CRIMINALS AND THE CRIMES THEY COMMIT Vickie Jensen and Kristyan M. Kouri

WOMEN AND CRIME An Introduction The study of women who commit crime has a long history, stretching back to the 1800s with the work of Cesare Lombroso and other biologists who sought to explain crime from a biological point of view, often borrowing heavily from Darwinian evolutionary perspectives to explain the supposed lack of evolutionary development shown by criminals and all women, especially criminal women. Freud and essentialist psychological theorists continued to argue there are inherent qualities of women that either make them criminals in the first place or which direct their crimes in ways strongly influenced by the biology of potential and actual childbearing. While these perspectives all addressed womenÊs offending, none of them placed women with the cultural and structural social context in which women live in society. It wasnÊt until the 1960s that scholars began to ask the questions about what the impact of living in our societal gender system means and what, in particular, that means for how we define crime, how think about women criminals, and how we understand crimes committed by women. Currently, there is a healthy amount of social scientific scholarship with regard to women and crime in general, though some areas such as understanding how class, race, and other kinds of diversity impact the patterns and experiences of womenÊs crime still need more research. The Context of Gender Systems One of the strongest contributions of that social scientific work in women and crime that began in the 1960s and continues today is the examination of how womenÊs and girlsÊ place in society impacts the way crimes are defined, the way we perceive motivations or reasons behind crime, and societyÊs responses to womenÊs crimes and other activities that may be defined as deviant. The gender-centered scholarship on women and crime consistently points to both structure and culture associated with gender systems. Gender systems are the 3

4

|

Women Criminals

social ways of organizing how gender is defined, what is expected of each gender, and what opportunities are available and not available by gender. The structural aspects of the gender system pertain to the availability of opportunities with respect to the institutions of work and the labor force, the law, government, and education. The research into these institutions has consistently found that historically, and even currently, women face significant disadvantages with respect to equality in power and resources within the structures of society. While it is true that gender is not the only dimension of power in society, and not all men have equal power, with respect to gender, men have been given more power, resources, and opportunities than have women. Society has systematically provided more power to one group (men) and less power to another group (women). As society changes, we also see changes in the way that the gender system is constructed and the degree to which inequality exists. However, for most of history and for most women, the world they inhabit is one in which they have less power than men. The workforce is a significant area to examine with respect to womenÊs opportunities. It is through work and economic activity that one gains the financial resources required to pay for necessities and other life requirements. WomenÊs status in the workforce has been slowly improving, but it is still the case that a disproportionately small number of women hold managerial or other powerful positions in companies. For example, at the end of 2009, there were only 15 women at the head of Fortune 500 companies (Wolfe, 2010). Women make up a disproportionately large number of workers in low-paying positions such as food service, child care, and housecleaning/maid service. On average, womenÊs pay still is not equal to that of men with womenÊs wages still around only 77 percent of menÊs wages with more than half of the difference not accounted for by differences in hours, education, and the like (Censky, 2010). Why is this important for understanding women and crime? For those crimes that have either the root of economic necessity or those that are the result of not having resources to escape bad situations, access to the workforce and its rewards makes a difference. For example, when womenÊs homicide offending against intimate partners is examined, the rate of womenÊs labor force participation significantly decreases the rate at which women kill partners. In other words, opportunities in the labor force help to improve those situations that can lead to the killing of partners, particularly abusive ones (see, for example, Jensen, 2001). The law has made a difference with respect to womenÊs crime. Inequalities and lack of consideration of womenÊs needs with respect to the law itself and/or enforcement of the law can have an impact on some kinds of womenÊs offending. For example, the essay „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending‰ in this volume addresses the failures in legal protections of battered women that can impact their killing of abusive partners. A system that has a pattern of minimizing and inadequately dealing with abuse directed toward girls in the home may leave no alternative for these girls but to run away, a crime for those under 18. In similar fashion, a government that is

Introduction

disproportionately comprised of men is less likely to make law, allocate resources, and enact policy that will benefit women. In 2010, at the federal level, women only constituted 17 of the 100 U.S. senators and 76 of the 435 representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives (Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 2010). It is important to note that this is not necessarily the result of individual menÊs actions but of a system that is characterized by insufficient numbers of womenÊs voices to help bring those experiences to the proverbial table. For example, funding for public assistance programs is determined by both state- and federal-level congressional action. The recipients of public assistance are primarily women with children. A government that does not include equal representation by gender may not see these programs as a priority and may restrict or even deny funding that improves womenÊs lives, despite the fact that such programs are a supportive lifeline for women. The ripple effect from these restrictions of public assistance funding includes an increase in financial necessity and hardship. This is especially compounded by an economic system that places many women at a relative disadvantage with respect to access to and reward from the labor force. Necessity is one important motivation for property crime, despite the gender, and when more women are in financial hardship and having to support children and families, inequalities in the gender system increase the number of women who may see crime as the only alternative. Lack of adequate governmental assistance can also keep battered women in abusive situations which also may increase the chances for violence in self-defense. For example, one study found that womenÊs rates of homicide against intimate partners significantly decreased as availability of womenÊs shelters increased (Browne and Williams, 1989). Shelters usually receive some of their funding directly or indirectly through government contracts and grants. The culture associated with the gender system provides the system of meanings, values, and expectations that support its institutions. In a system in which there is inequality in gender, these cultural supports help to provide the ideology required to maintain that inequality. These inequality-supporting cultural ideologies rely heavily on assumptions about gender that are essentialist·that is, assuming that gender differences are due to inherent, unchangeable, and usually biologically based traits that are simply „natural‰ for males and females. For example, the belief that women are „naturally‰ nurturing and passive and that men are „naturally‰ aggressive and unemotional are essentialist beliefs. What is at the core of the culture of gender is how „masculinity‰ and „femininity‰ are defined and enforced. Hegemonic masculinity is a concept that is often used to describe how it is that „real‰ men are defined. Hegemonic masculinity refers to the ruling form of masculinity, the one that is idealized and most valued. In every society characterized by gender inequality favoring men, a hegemonic masculinity exists. It becomes the standard to which men are compared. If a man (or boy) appears compliant with the values of hegemonic masculinity, he enjoys the privileges that go with

|

5

6

|

Women Criminals

being a „real man‰ in a society that provides unequal power and privilege to men. The stakes are high to adhere·or at the very least to appear to adhere·to these values. Four foci are commonly associated with hegemonic masculinity. These are (1) dominance over women, children, and lesser masculinities; (2) work in the paid labor force, (3) heterosexism, and (4) uncontrolled, driven sexuality. Those who are known or become known to violate one of these parts of the ideal of hegemonic masculinity are relegated to lesser masculinities and subject to the same treatment and regard as women. The idealized cultural form of hegemonic masculinity provides not only a definition of the most desirable masculinity but also provides the situational expectations that men are supposed to meet. Men who have their masculinity challenged may need to restore themselves as men by demonstrating that they are, indeed, real men. The core values of dominance, money, devaluing of anything not heterosexual, and being sexually driven provide the guidelines for demonstrating masculinity (often referred to as „doing‰ masculinity·see the essay „Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives.‰ Crime is one way in which some men can demonstrate masculinity, and we can see some of the root for crimes of violence (particularly against women, children, and nonheterosexuals), theft and robbery, and other crimes that emphasize power and control in these hegemonic masculine foci (Messerschmidt, 1995, 1993, 1986). It is important to understand that hegemonic masculinity is an idealized cultural form, that is, something that exists above and beyond individuals. Individual men must navigate through the situational expectations generated by this privileged form of masculinity, regardless of whether they believe in them or not. Although hegemonic masculinity exists as a standard set for demonstrating „real manhood,‰ the ways in which it plays out differ by class and particular context. For example, men who have access to high-paying jobs and power in the economic system have their positions to help feed the need to demonstrate real manhood, although this does not mean that criminality is not an option for such men as well. White-collar crime in the quest for profit as a definition of manhood is one way in which masculinity can be connected to crime at a level of societal resource and privilege. Not all contexts involve equally rigid gender norms associated to hegemonic masculinity, but on some level men are expected to measure up to these standards in order to be seen as socially competent and deserving men (Messerschmidt, 1993). In an unequal gender system that is biased toward men, the definition of women and of men who are not „real men‰ lies in polar opposition to that of hegemonic masculine males. Emphasized femininity represents the idealized cultural form for women that is most valued and, at the same time, defined by a man-centered system. These emphases include domestic, unpaid labor; passivity and submissiveness; heterosexuality; and a controlled, man-centered sexuality. To be a „good

Introduction

woman‰ means to not challenge the existing system of gender dominance (Messerschmidt, 1995, 1986). It is important to note that hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity are identifiable throughout our society, but the strength of the expectations can vary by context, culture, and geographic area. It is also true that each society has their own forms of hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity that are applied and which frame gender relations in unique ways. It is important to remember that simply because these idealized cultural forms of the gender system of inequality exist does not mean that all individuals believe in them or live them equally. The ideals are experienced as much from other individuals and their definitions as they are from self-definition. Hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity, whether one accepts them or not, are held as standards that individuals may need to prove that they meet in some situations perhaps more than others. The power represented by a gender ideology creates those gender norms that have impacts on all behavior, including crime. Traditional gender expectations of women derive from emphasized femininity and can be seen in the ways in which crimes are defined as well as the patterns and circumstances of crime. Individual exceptions from these patterns do exist, but they exist as a form of „double deviance.‰ That is, the deviant act of crime is compounded by a deviation from what is a more gender-acceptable form of womenÊs crime.

DEFINING WOMEN’S CRIME There are several ways in which womenÊs criminality has been defined historically. The notion of a so-called natural or biological essence of women has played heavily into defining womenÊs deviant acts throughout the history of the United States. What we recognize in social science as a culturally constructed ideal of passivity, submissiveness, nurturance, and the like in women was attributed to the biological makeup of women that simultaneously rendered women incapable of serious crime but that also helped devalue and disempower them. Women who did commit crimes were closely examined. The hope was to find some sort of sickness or temporary loss of capacity that would explain why women would violate their so-called natural selves in such a way. If such a sickness or frailty could be found, women historically may have been released to husbands or fathers or, if the illness was seen as more severe, sent for medical treatment. The women who were not deemed to be somehow „sick‰ were, instead, vilified and portrayed as evildoers who needed to be exorcised from society. This led to several forms of banishment, the most severe being sentences of death, and incarceration under horrible conditions with the public generally uncaring about how terrible the conditions

|

7

8

|

Women Criminals

were. Women were also frequently declared insane or evil if they defied gender expectations (Morton, 2004). In the present, we still see this tension between „evil‰ and „sick‰ when we consider women offenders. This is particularly true when we look at crimes such as infanticide and filicide (the killing of babies and children) committed by mothers against their own children. Societal response is usually strong toward these cases, and we see a strong desire to try to find some sort of psychological problem that has caused the terrible act of women killing her kids. It violates core essentialist and emphasized feminine assumptions about what women are and what they do. As such, we engage in a collective effort to find some kind of mental illness as an explanation that is not unlike the quest of a hundred years ago or more to determine what kind of sickness or frailty made a woman temporarily lose her senses and go against her nature. Once we find a „suitable‰ illness-based explanation (such as postpartum psychosis in the Andrea Yates case), we ignore anything that is not tied to the individual. The impact of familial and other social contexts are ignored at that point, because we have found the problem as one that is individual to that case (see, for example, Wilczynski, 1991). When we cannot find a reason connected to mental illness, a woman who kills is vilified, described as some kind of evil person who must be kept from society at all costs. Wilczynski (1991) describes this process with the images of women who kill infants who cannot be made into „mad‰ women. This was also the case with Aileen Wuornos. Despite the fact that she was heavily abused during her childhood and had suffered long-term psychological harm from that, Wuornos was demonized after she was identified as the „first woman serial killer.‰ (This label was, in fact, incorrect; she was not the first.) She was defined as predatory and aggressive, and it was made known that she was in a lesbian relationship. Wuornos clearly stepped far outside the realm of expectations for women on several fronts: killing men, engaging in a lesbian relationship, and fighting back in deadly ways against some of the johns who victimized her. Psychiatric illness was not successfully applied to her either in court or in popular opinion, and she was executed for her crimes. References to her as „monster‰ were rampant, and in fact, the 2003 movie based on her life was entitled Monster. Our society still finds itself engaging what has been called the „chivalry‰ versus the „brutalization‰ or „evil woman‰ debate about criminality. The commonality in this debate about whether women get so-called better or chivalrous treatment by the system or worse treatment by the system is that the system is seen to gauge its response to women criminals based upon whether those women fit within emphasized femininity standards or whether they violate them (Belknap, 2006). Being criminal within these standards does not create conflict, and as such, passive and more „womanly‰ crimes are dealt with much less severely than those that are not. If a woman does violate these standards, an explanation must

Introduction

be found either in temporary mental incapacity (in contemporary terms, mental illness) or in terms of evil.

PATTERNS OF WOMEN’S OFFENDING One of the most striking and consistent findings in the gender and crime research is the gap in offending and arrests between men and women. For example, in the FBIÊs Uniform Crime Reports statistics (see Appendix A), we see that men are disproportionately represented in arrests for virtually all crimes except embezzlement, prostitution, and runaway. For 2009, embezzlement arrests hover close to gender parity (50.9% of arrests in 2009 were women). Prostitution and runaway arrests are disproportionately female, 69.6 percent and 55.2 percent respectively. On the other hand, women and girls constituted less than 20 percent of violent crime arrests overall, and well under 15 percent of arrests for homicide (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter), forcible rape, and robbery. In general, the pattern is that the more serious the crime, the greater the proportion of males arrested for it. Less serious, less threatening property crimes and other crimes more in keeping with womenÊs traditional expectations include greater proportions of women. Over 35 percent of those arrested for property crimes amongst the FBIÊs eight index crimes were women and girls. Fraud and embezzlement, part of the FBIÊs list of other offenses, are comprised of 40 percent or more girls and women. When we look at the crimes women and girls are most likely to be arrested for when they are arrested, we see a similar pattern. Larceny-theft arrests of women comprise 17.1 percent of the overall arrests of females in 2009. We see the impact of enforcement of drug laws in womenÊs arrests too as slightly less than 9 percent of girlsÊ and womenÊs arrests were for drug abuse violations. These data do not distinguish between possession and sales, but as we know from Maher (2004), womenÊs entry into drug dealing is nearly exclusively at the lowest levels. What is also striking about the 2009 arrest data is that the status offense of runaway, illegal only if a girl is under the age of 18, comprises 1.5 percent of all girlsÊ and womenÊs arrests. The distinctive nature of womenÊs offending is that women, much unlike fearful predictions during the womenÊs movements of the 1970s, are disproportionately underrepresented in all but the most passive and traditionally expected kinds of crimes while men predominate in the most serious and injurious crimes. This distinctive pattern reflects the different worlds that men and women live in. Traditional expectations connected to hegemonic masculinity involve power, control, and aggression in general as well as accepting it as „masculine‰ in the criminal realm. Violence is more tolerated and acceptable for men than for women. On the other hand, women are more represented in property crimes, particularly those crimes like larceny and theft. While not all women steal for the same reasons, the passive nature of theft

|

9

10

|

Women Criminals

as opposed to robbery falls more squarely in what would be expected for women. Additionally, while there is diversity in motive for property crime amongst women, rationales for property crime often involve traditional concerns of women including, for example, caring for and supporting children and household. TYPES OF WOMEN’S OFFENDING The pattern of womenÊs offending includes a tendency away from violent crime and toward property and „victimless‰ crimes: women do commit a wide range of offenses, they do commit less crime than men overall, and these crimes tend to be less dangerous than those of men. This is the gender typical pattern. Crimes that do not violate traditional norms for women are those that are less violent and less serious in terms of damage. Emphasized femininity as an ideal, for example, holds that women should not be dominant but, instead, submissive. Thus, we see the impact of this on the more often seen forms of womenÊs offending (Silvestri and Crowther-Dowey, 2008). The pattern of the majority of womenÊs offending does follow a gender pattern and, in fact, demonstrates a stratification with regard to illegitimate opportunities. This means that the access to particular kinds of criminal opportunities is also shaped by gender, and women are most found in the least financially rewarding and least powerful positions in the world of crime with only a relative few exceptions (see for example Abbot and Wallace, 1990; Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004; Maher, 2004; Miller, 2004). It is, however, important to recognize that women do commit crimes of all sorts, and, in fact, some of the most well-known women criminals have committed crimes such as murder and sexual crimes. The fact that they are so well-known is due, in large part, to the gender atypical nature of these crimes, however. When women do commit crimes, there are often factors and qualities to their crimes that may differ from their male counterparts. Some of the literature tends to reduce womenÊs criminality into a discussion of either victimization or resistance·both related to the experience of our unequal gender system. Where possible, as Miller (2001) cautions, women criminals should be seen in both ways as appropriate and as exhibiting diversity amongst themselves. The ways in which crime is defined also plays an important role in both the types of womenÊs offenses and the characteristics they display. Violent Crime Women are a disproportionately small number of violent offenders. Amongst the four most serious violent offenses represented in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (see Table A.5 in Appendix A), women comprised only 18.8 percent of all violent arrests. That is, for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and

Introduction

|

aggravated assault, women represented less than one in five arrests. When the crime of simple or other assaults is examined, we see that women were only slightly more than one in four of those arrests. Women were even more infrequently arrested for weapons charges·8 percent versus 92 percent for men. Criminology has been interested in understanding why the gender difference exists for less than 50 years. One important clue is in the cultural expectations of gender and how these play out in interpersonal relationships. Campbell (1993) identified two different patterns between men and women with respect to aggression. For men, by and large, aggression of all kinds was seen as instrumental, that is as a tool that serves a purpose. This purpose was seen as control of a situation. Aggression was highly associated with a felt need and right to regain control in situational conflict. As such, the men in her study did not feel remorse or regret for using whatever form of aggression they used but, instead, saw it as justified and as being right. She connected it to the socialization of men to gender ideals that emphasize menÊs power and control. It is noted that not all men respond to conflict this way, but aggression is offered by society as an acceptable tool to achieve a manÊs goals. The research concerning women and aggression and violence finds a different pattern, overall. Campbell (1993) finds that, in contrast to men, women are socialized to hold back their aggression, to try to make peace and be calm. When stress, anger, or upset get past the point of containment, the aggression that ensues feels like an out of control explosion, scary, and a last resort. As such, aggression is more likely to be experienced by women as an emotional vent and one that feels uncomfortable, like the woman has failed. It feels scary as well, and there is usually a great deal of regret or remorse. Again, not all women experience aggression this way, but the overall pattern is that women do. There is additional research that supports this gender-patterned application of restraint and constraint on women. One issue is womenÊs acceptance of violence. There is little evidence to show that women accept violence as much as men do. Cao, Adams, and Jensen (1997) find quite the opposite: women were significantly less likely to see violence as acceptable in either provoking or self-defensive situations. Simpson (1991) also finds that women are more likely than men to delegitimize violence, though this may be most true for white women. With respect to homicide specifically, though applicable to other forms of violence, there is a strong argument that the stresses from the structural, cultural, and social conditions of women in society create a state in which women are likely to take their anger and focus it inward as an indirect way of coping. This becomes guilt. This is characteristic of the high degree of control women can place upon themselves with respect to directly expressing anger. Similar to CampbellÊs findings, when coping mechanisms break down, anger can explode in uncontrolled violence that does not have the benefit of menÊs regulative rules of anger expression. In other words, when women are no longer able to cope with anger and frustration within a tight

11

12 |

Women Criminals

control on expression of that anger, when the anger does come out, it is explosive and unfamiliar to the women who try to keep their anger under control. Men, on the other hand, have developed rules for expression of anger (Ogle, Maier-Katkin, and Bernard, 1995). It is also notable that there is a significant amount of womenÊs violence that is also self-defensive, particularly in the case of intimate partner battering. The essay titled „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending‰ provides a deeper discussion of the connections between victimization and womenÊs violence. It is in a society that encourages violence against women that some women find themselves in situations in which physically fighting back, even to the point of lethality, is necessary for survival. There are also the external expectations of women associated with emphasized feminine ideals that constrain the expression of anger and violence in women overall which may translate into the observation that women are less violent than men. Nonviolence, nonaggressiveness, and nurturing are the focus for women (Messerschmidt, 1995, 1986). Participation in violent criminal subcultures is also often restricted and gender-stereotyped (Abbot and Wallace, 1990). Homicide Homicide is comprised of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter·the killing of another that is nonaccidental. Women have consistently comprised around 10 percent of offenders, a pattern that has held steady for more than 30 years. Not only is there such a large gender gap in offending, when it comes to homicide there are different patterns when it comes to victim-offender relationships. When men kill, their victims are predominantly strangers and acquaintances. When women kill, their victims are predominantly family (including children) and intimate partners· somewhere around 60 percent (Belknap, 2006; Jensen, 2001). These very different patterns imply very different contexts for these homicides. Homicides of family and intimate partners by girls and women clearly show a strong influence of the domestic context and motives that are much less oriented around financial or status gain, as we see more with men. In fact, less than 10 percent of womenÊs homicide victims include strangers·the homicide most likely to be associated with other crimes including robbery and drug distribution/sales (Jensen, 2001). When we directly examine womenÊs motives for homicide, the most frequent reason is related to „conflict‰ as it is recorded in law enforcement data. Much of what is categorized as conflict is actually domestic abuse, and most of it is self-defensive against batterers (see for example the case of Gladys Cannon Kelly and Myra Hindley). Homicides against children are most often against the youngest of children and are often related to stresses and problems connected to caring for children or womenÊs status as mothers (see the case of Susan Smith for one example.) Others

Introduction

|

are killed as neonates and are related to the kinds of fear and denial connected to motherhood status (see, for example, the case of Melissa Drexler) (Jensen, 2001). There are women who have killed for reasons of revenge, money, or other nonconflict reasons, but they are not the most represented amongst women homicide offenders overall. From a statistical point of view, they comprise a minority of women offenders compared to those who act in self-defense or during another kind of conflict. However, these are the cases that are most well-known and documented because this kind of homicide is not only contrary to traditional expectations of womenÊs passivity and nonviolence but also includes aspects of what is typed more as „masculine‰ killing. These aspects include the killing of strangers, killing for money, killing for pleasure or thrills, killing multiple victims, and/or killing in a particularly brutal way. When men commit these offenses, it doesnÊt seem as shocking as when we hear about women who have done it. These women become amongst the most documented and known women criminals. One kind of homicide that is rare for women is serial killing, mass killing, and other killing that involves more than one victim. These cases we know the most about, though there is even a lack of recognition of these cases. Amongst all serial killers in the two centuries, 16 percent have been female. Many of these women are not even known to the public as their murders tend to be overlooked for long periods of time as small clues are dismissed. Because homicide is such a gender deviant crime, women may not be suspected of it as quickly as men. When they are discovered, the portrayal of them involves either some form of extreme psychopathology, although a very small number of serial killers are definable as „insane.‰ Women serial killers are sometimes referred to as „quiet‰ killers because, even though they are just as lethal as their male counterparts, they are not as obvious. Weapons, violence, and sexual assault are much more commonplace with men who are serial killers than they are with women. Women who are serial killers are most likely to kill the powerless: elderly, sick, and children (Hickey, 2009). In this way, although women who kill multiple victims are clearly deviant by both law-abiding and gender standards, their crimes are still reminiscent of the lives and expectations of traditional women in a patriarchal society. There are several well-known and notable examples of this kind of multi-victim homicidal woman who stand out as aberrant when it comes to womenÊs crimes, although many of them also fall into patterns more typical for women criminals. There are those women who have killed in conjunction with men, either while under their control or in an attempt to please them. Linda Kasabian, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, and Leslie Van Houten are notorious for their roles in the 1960s mass murders under Charles MansonÊs plan of „helter skelter,‰ which left several victims, including actress Sharon Tate. Their cases have been highly publicized because of the viciousness of the crime and the alleged control that Manson had over his followers. Debra Brown and Caril Fugate were involved in spree

13

14

|

Women Criminals

killings with boyfriends. The degree of influence of these men over these women is questionable, although many argue Brown was incapable of fighting against the manipulative influence of her boyfriend. Then there are others who were involved in multiple killing in the course of their work in the medical/health care field as nurses or other health care personnel. While killing patients is far from traditional womenÊs behavior, it is notable that there is a relatively large number of serial killers who committed their crimes in this very woman-typed job setting. So-called angels of death have had different kinds of motives ranging from feelings of mercy to the controversial psychological disorder of Munchausen by proxy syndrome, which indicates a pathological need for attention that often results in death of a young victim. Beverly Allitt, Cecile Bombeek, and Genene Jones fit this pattern. Other of these rare types of women homicide offenders killed in the exploitation of others for money. Such individuals as Amelia Dyer ran „baby farms‰ where many women with illegitimate babies would leave those babies in the care of an individual, usually in exchange for money and some clothes. In DyerÊs case, she took the money and killed the young children. Others such as Velma Barfield have killed in conjunction with stealing from family and others. In BarfieldÊs case, she was stealing from usually elderly individuals that she cared for and killing them either prior to their discovering her theft or shortly thereafter. The term „black widow‰ has been used for some women who have killed husbands and male partners, particularly for insurance money. Some of these have killed multiple times including such women as Mary Cotton and Betty Beets. Hickey (2009) points out that many of the cases of women serial killers (and by extension women who have killed multiple victims) do not initially garner attention because of our typing of serial killers as being physically violent, aggressive, and predatory. Most of these women use poisons or kill very young victims and do not appear like men who engage in serial killing. Hickey points out only one recorded case of a woman who fit a more „masculine‰ profile: Aileen Wuornos. In this case, he argued, that because Wuornos did kill in brutal ways, engaged in predatory behaviors, and killed primarily men that she was erroneously branded the „first woman serial killer.‰ The fact that Wuornos was also a lesbian and hated men added to the public intrigue and her added deviance as a woman killer. Mass murders, killing multiple victims in one setting, are also dominated by men. Women are not ordinarily found amongst this kind of killer, and the rare cases that exist become the focus of media scrutiny and coverage. Amy Bishop, a professor from Alabama, came into a faculty meeting and shot multiple colleagues, killing several, after she was denied tenure. The crime was premeditated and done without much emotion, according to witnesses. This rare womanÊs homicide has sparked hundreds of pages of media coverage in the year or so after the crime was committed, as of press time. It must be noted that, at the time of writing, that she

Introduction

| 15

had not been convicted of these crimes and was still facing a trial with a great deal of evidence against her. Other rare woman homicide offenders that capture public attention include the small few who have engaged in political assassinations and other acts of fighting back against the system in some way. Dhanu, acting as a member of the Tamil Tigers, assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in a suicide bombing as he sought reelection in India. Charlotte Corday assassinated Jean Paul Marat during the French Revolution. Mary Surratt was convicted and hanged for her role in assisting John Wilkes Booth after he assassinated President Abraham Lincoln. Joan Little killed a prison guard who had raped her. Nannie Doss poisoned her husband as revenge for raping her, according to her account. Finally, there are women whose homicide arrests and charges are the result of the battle over control of womenÊs bodies and the attempt to preserve life, as political actors have sought to define it. Regina McKnight, for example, served several years of a prison term for murder after her baby was born stillborn. Because the fetus had traces of cocaine in its system, McKnight was arrested on charges of killing her unborn child with cocaine. She was convicted and served several years of her term, only recently having that conviction overturned. In many states, political efforts have been made, and some have succeeded, in criminalizing potentially fetus-harming actions committed by pregnant women. However, those same places are the least likely to provide adequate and confidential drug-abuse counseling for pregnant women, particularly those who are minority group members. The arena of criminally defining a variety of actions women may take while pregnant is one of the most contested and active at this time with the potential to define many more women as homicide offenders because of death to fetuses. Rape/Sexual Offenses WomenÊs representation in sexual offenses is the lowest of any crime that is represented in the Uniform Crime ReportÊs index crimes. According to 2009 figures (see Table A.5 in Appendix A), 98.7 percent of all arrests for forcible rape were male. Women accounted for 208 of the nearly 16,500 who were arrested for forcible rape that year. Kelly (1996) states that only about 5ă7 percent of sexual abusers are female. Current feminist modes of thinking about womenÊs offending have focused much less on women who sexually abuse than on women who were sexually abused. Even with this, Kelly argues that the 5ă7 percent figure is not necessarily a serious undercount. In the case of sexual assault, the connections between power, masculinity, and sexuality are strong. Women who offend do so against both the law and against traditional gender expectations that require nurturing and caring attention from mothers, caregivers, and other women. Sexuality for women, traditionally, is connected

16 |

Women Criminals

to romantic interests in men and, as such, is not particularly powerful for women in this way of thinking. We see this represented by the larger than expected numbers of young children and infants represented amongst women sexual abusersÊ victims. The women that are sexual offenders have been largely understudied as they are problematic for both feminists and for general criminology. For feminist criminologists, women sexual offenders are deviations from the focus many have had on victimization. For criminology in general, because they are so small in number and because the crime strays so far from traditional expectations of nurturing and caretaking, women sexual offenders are overlooked (Kelly, 1996). The cases of women sexual offenders who are most publicly known usually involve a teacher or other adult woman caretaker who, then, has not only violated the laws around statutory rape but also the expectation of being nurturing and caregiving. Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave are two such examples. Their names stayed in the public eye for a long time because of the rarity of the event and because of their statuses as women teachers. Cases of women forcibly raping or sexually assaulting another are extremely rare. One of the most important reasons that Melissa Huckaby came to the height of media attention was the extremely rare combination of abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a young girl. When this kind of act is committed by men, it gets media attention, but the coverage hardly ever goes into trying to find psychological aberrations for the killings as was with HuckabyÊs case. Robbery Robbery is another crime that is committed by women occasionally but not nearly to the frequency or degree as men. In 2009 (see Table A.5 in Appendix A), women comprised only 11.8 percent of robbery arrests in the United States. This figure reflects the kind of rarity that we see in homicide offending. When it comes to forcibly taking money or other goods of value, men are much more likely to engage in this act than women are. The contrast between the emphasis on power and control in hegemonic masculinity and on nurturing and passivity in emphasized femininity helps to explain the much lower representation of women in this economic crime that requires force, threats of violence, and the use of violence. Robbery is a crime of violence highly associated with men. Women who commit robbery, by and large, have the same motives for robbery as men do·the acquisition of money in order to buy things that are wanted or needed. For many men and women who rob, this need often involves a drug addiction. However, even with this similarity, the impact of gender can still be seen. Criminal networks are also gender stratified as are noncriminal opportunity structures. For men who rob, physical violence is an important part of accomplishing masculinity and contributes to his status in the hierarchy of the streets. Robberies men commit are most often committed

Introduction

|

against other men, using physical contact and direct violence. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to rob other women or to use sex as a means to rob men. When men are robbed, it usually follows actions by the woman to get him into a comfortable situation and make it appear that the woman is sexually interested in him before she robs him. Robberies also occur in concert with other men with the woman often used to help set up the robbery which men ultimately commit (Miller, 2004). When women commit robbery, they inhabit a less powerful and less privileged status in the world of the streets. They are often seen as less capable and weaker by their criminal men counterparts and, thus, less trustable. Thus, even in this more gender atypical crime, we still see an impact of gender with women who rob engaging in less violence and using more traditional womenÊs ways through sexuality in doing it. There are some women who stand out, to some degree, in atypical fashion. One of the most famous is Ma Barker, the alleged ringleader of the Barker-Karpis gang. According to the FBI, she was the mastermind of the gangÊs kidnappings and bank robberies as she was the only one seen as smart enough to do it, although Karpis from the gang argues that she was really a supporter from afar and was not the head of the gang. She ultimately died in a shoot-out with a machine gun close to her. Another well-known woman robbery offender was Bonnie Parker. Though her crime spree with Clyde Barrow of robberies, kidnappings, and homicides are portrayed as an alternative image for women and a challenge to the traditional passivity expected of women, closer inspection finds that a good deal of the case is also rooted in typical womenÊs patterns for this atypical crime. While Parker posed with guns and, according to accounts, eagerly engaged in the spree as part of her romance with Barrow, it was Barrow who had initially had the criminal history and it was with him that Parker became known as a robber. It is unknown how large a role she played, and law enforcement minimized their recognition of her involvement by charging her with much lesser crimes despite knowledge that she was involved in robbery. However, the acceptance of violence and the frequency and severity of the violence the duo used makes Parker a memorable woman robber. Another category of robber is the pirate. Piracy was, and still is, highly dominated by men. However, there have been women who have made a name historically as pirates engaged in robbery and homicide. Anne Bonny, a woman in menÊs clothing, engaged in an active piracy career under the flag of Captain Calico Jack, becoming known as one of the fiercest and most bloodthirsty pirates along with her shipmate Mary Read. Even Bonny, though, could not escape a gender frame to her image as it became well-known that she had a sexual relationship with Calico Jack and, at the time of her conviction for piracy, was pregnant. For some women pirates, like Cheng I Sao of China, there is a blurred line between piracy and business. She played the role of both pirate and business woman. These cases are, however, exceptions, not the rule. The exceptions, however, are what come to the publicÊs attention because of how deviant they appear from traditional expectations for women.

17

18

|

Women Criminals

Nonviolent Crime When women commit crime, the majority of time it is a nonviolent crime. Property crimes, prostitution, and drug/alcohol offenses comprise the majority of womenÊs offending. These are not the offenders who make it into the public spotlight because these crimes do not tend rise to the level of large amounts of stolen money or positions of great power over prostitution rings or drug trafficking. Nonviolent crimes also do not stand out as deviant crimes for women. While a woman engaging in theft or prostitution is certainly deviant with regard to committing a crime, the nature of the offense does not violate what is acceptable for women to do. Property crimes, by and large, are not directly aggressive crimes and, as such, do not deviate from traditional expectations involving submissiveness and passivity. Prostitution, as it involves women selling sexual favors for men, lies squarely within what is acceptable for women sexually·to be focused on menÊs sexual pleasure. Property Crime Property crime constitutes a large number of arrests for women. These are also crimes for which women are better represented overall in arrests. According to 2009 Uniform Crime Reports (see Table A.5 in Appendix A), women account for a total of 37.4 percent of property crime arrests for the FBIÊs index property crimes. This stands sharply in contrast to the low percentage of arrests for violent crimes. Among these index offenses, though, we do see a hierarchy amongst the property crimes represented. Larceny-theft arrests were comprised of 43.7 percent women· a figure approaching parity. Felony larceny-theft is defined by theft of a range of values. When we look at the more serious and costly property crimes amongst the index crimes, we see a much smaller representation of women. Women comprised 17.8 percent of motor vehicle theft arrests, 14.9 burglary arrests, and 17 percent of arson arrests. These crimes are characterized by a larger amount of value or valued damage (in the case of arson) than larceny-theft. Additionally, to engage in burglary and motor vehicle theft, one more often than not needs some specialized skill that is only available through learning from another. Women, as we have seen, are less likely to have access to that kind of entry and acceptance into the criminal subculture that would provide the skill, allies, and comfort that would likely be needed to commit these more technical crimes. Lesser property offense arrests reported in Uniform Crime Reports show similar patterns. Arrests for forgery and counterfeiting were comprised of 37.7 percent women, and arrests for fraud were comprised of 42.8 percent women. Embezzlement arrests were comprised of 50.9 percent women·a crime for which there is apparent parity. These offenses also follow the pattern of being relatively low level in terms of aggressiveness, costliness, and seriousness. Contrast these with offenses related to possessing and selling stolen property·acts that require some skill and

Introduction

|

solid placement in the criminal subculture. Women comprise a total of 20.9 percent and are much less represented in this kind of crime as they are less likely to occupy that level of position in the stratification of criminal opportunity. The presence of arrests of women for all of these crimes indicates that women are capable of committing more serious offenses and do commit them, but their relative lack of representation in the more serious property offenses gives us an indication that there are factors inhibiting the full involvement and representation of many women. When women do participate in property crimes, the circumstances and modes of committing them can look very different than that of men. For example, both men and women commit embezzlement, and each represents an equal number of arrests. However, when we look at the kinds of embezzlement being perpetrated, we tend to see a greater amount of womenÊs embezzlement occurring in positions of relatively low power and status. Women are more likely to be in positions like bank tellers and cashiers, and this is the kind of workplace theft they are more likely to be arrested for. The amount taken is lower, on average, than that of men who are more likely to be in positions of higher authority and power to steal larger amounts of money and in more sophisticated ways. Motives for this kind of theft always involve the desire for money, but we are more likely to see women engaging in embezzlement as a result of a direct financial need, usually involving children. As women continue the slow climb into managerial ranks overall, we will see if the impetus for embezzlement can be found purely in terms of access and specific needs, or perhaps it can be attributed to something else. At this point, while arrest for embezzlement looks like it is the same, there are still some elements of gender that persist in the quality of the crime itself (Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004). Larceny-theft involves theft that is not the result of breaking into a home or place of business. Women are more strongly represented in the crime of larceny-theft than they are most other crimes. There are distinctive patterns of theft that are more associated with girls and women than with men. Shoplifting is a form of theft in which both males and females engage. Women are more likely than men to steal health and beauty kinds of items, including cosmetics and other items directly related to what is defined as beauty. Some have argued that this is a way in which the values of a patriarchal society trickle down into the actions of women criminals. In other words, when women steal cosmetics, they are adhering to expectations related to the ideals of a man-centered focus on beauty and sexuality. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to steal those items that can be resold in the criminal market economy. There are many men and women who deviate from the pattern, but the larger pattern indicates similar gender influences toward expectations of womenÊs passivity and orientation to men and menÊs needs (Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004; Messerschmidt, 1986). Fraud is another crime that is more concentrated, for women, at lower amounts stolen and lesser impact on society. White-collar crime, in particular, rarely includes

19

20 |

Women Criminals

women as offenders. When a woman is accused of white-collar crime, it is an occasion for public recognition and media coverage. Leona Helmsley, for example, was a rare woman who was very publicly convicted of federal tax evasion. In this case, being a member of the upper class created larger opportunities for fraud. Most women, even at that level, do not engage in such large scale acts of fraud and corporate theft. Martha Stewart is an example of a woman who was accused and convicted of white-collar crimes related to unfair stock market practices. Her case is interesting because, while she is a prominent and upper-class woman who engaged in unfair trading, her crimes are modest in comparison to some other whitecollar crimes perpetrated by men. Controversy exists as to whether Stewart received harsher treatment because she was a woman. On the other hand, her short jail sentence and ability to move back into her position of celebrity and power have raised critique of the penalties involved in white-collar crime in general, whether it has been committed by men or women. Prostitution and Commercialized Vice The crime of prostitution involves several aspects of the act of selling sex. First, there is the seller, who, more often than not, is a woman. Then, there are purchasers and those who control prostitutes (pimps), who are predominantly men. The fact that all of these levels of engagement in prostitution are crimes, and many of these crimes are committed by men, makes the disproportionate arrest of women (around 70%) interesting from a gender standpoint. One argument is that prostitutes are more vulnerable to policing efforts that target them than are pimps or „johns.‰ Prostitutes are visible in the street or advertised in several ways, recently through the Internet. Those who control the women either through pimping or running the house of prostitution are in a better position to insulate themselves from law enforcement. Beliefs about menÊs need and desire for sex versus attitudes about the need to control womenÊs sexuality may play into policing decisions. The majority of prostitution is occurring at the level of prostitutes working in the streets, out of hotel rooms, in massage parlors, and in bars. A number of these women are enticed, coerced, and/or forced into prostitution by men who sometimes initially act as a protector or caretaker to young women. Some women decide to prostitute themselves because of a need or desire for money. In an economy in which many women cannot get high-paying jobs, prostitution may be seen as the best way to meet those desires and needs for money, particularly for women who do not have the education or class status to gain entry at a higher place in the labor market. Inequalities in womenÊs access to good-paying jobs only compound the issue. (Messerschmidt, 1986). Escort services and house prostitution represent a higher class of prostitution, though they are still filled with risks. There is greater insulation from law

Introduction

|

enforcement, and a greater ability to screen clients. Women from upper middle class backgrounds have engaged in high levels of prostitution because they discovered there was a great deal of money that could be made. Women such as Heidi Fleiss, Xaviera Hollander, Ah Toy, and Sydney Barrows stand out as rarities in the field of prostitution: women in powerful positions and who receive high financial rewards from their involvement in prostitution. These names became known, however, because of the fact that they are so uncommon among prostitutes, who are much more likely to be controlled and exploited. However deviant these women were with regard to power and prestige within the world of prostitution, they worked well within the confines of traditional expectations of women in their capitalizing on feeding the sexual desires of the men that sought their services. Alcohol and Drug Offenses Addictions play an important role not only in their link to the crimes of possessing and distributing drugs but also in their role in other crimes. This is one area of relative commonality for men and women, though again, many of the contexts are still shaped by gender. Robbery, for example, is a crime often fueled by addictions and the need to buy drugs for the habit. Both men and women commit a large number of robberies directly connected to addictions (see for example Miller, 2004). Enforcement of drug laws and arrests for drug-related offenses, beginning with the War on Drugs declared in the 1980s, has fallen particularly hard on women who have seen increases in arrests for drug-related offenses that have outpaced those of men (Belknap, 2006). From 1982 to 1991, there was an increase of 89 percent in the arrests of women for all drug-related crimes. By 1991, a third of women in prison were there for drug crimes, and 35.9 percent of them were in for possession charges alone (Pollock, 1998). Women, overall, are still a minority of drug and alcohol offenders if we examine arrest rates. In 2009 (see Table A.5 in Appendix A), girls and women comprised 18.6 percent of arrests for drug-related crimes, 16.6 percent of arrests for drunkenness, and 22.6 percent of arrests for driving under the influence. While womenÊs proportion of arrests for drug and alcohol crimes is less than a quarter of all arrests, drugs and alcohol play a significant role in the lives and crimes of many women. According to Pollock (1998), a majority of women who are arrested test positive for at least one illegal drug. Drugs may play a greater role for women than for men in their connection to property crime with one in four women stating they committed their crimes to get money for drugs as compared to one in six men. While womenÊs criminal behavior may precede drug use, there is strong evidence to show that the frequency and extent of their criminal offending increases after the beginning of drug use and that this frequency and extent of offending lessens if not vanishes

21

22

|

Women Criminals

after successful treatment. There seems to be a pattern in which women are more likely to have been under the influence of drugs when they are arrested than men while men are more likely to have been under the influence of alcohol than women when they are arrested. One more recent trend with respect to the enforcement of drug laws and women is with regard to pregnant addicts. According to Paltrow (2004), one aspect of drug law enforcement is directly related to attempts to control women, particularly those who are reproducing. Operating on a „myth of choice,‰ law enforcement, courts, and fetal rights activists have painted drug-using pregnant women as having a choice about using drugs when, instead, addictions experts point to the intense difficulties in getting an addict off drugs. With increased scrutiny of drug abuse and pregnancy, pregnant women are less likely than they were before to seek necessary treatment for addictions, when that treatment exists. Instead, they may face charges of civil child neglect, delivering drugs to a minor, and in the case of Regina McKnight, homicide as she was convicted of murder of a stillborn fetus allegedly with her use of cocaine. According to Paltrow, more than 200 women had been arrested prior to 2004 on the basis of drug using while pregnant. The role women play in the selling and distribution of drugs is characterized, like so many other crimes, by a criminal opportunity system that is heavily gender stratified. In the drug market, women tend to fit into positions that carry less authority and control as well as less financial reward. While there has been an increase in womenÊs participation in drug dealing, this increase in participation rarely reaches the managerial level. In other words, they do not tend to „own‰ the enterprise. Part of this is due to a belief in the criminal subculture that women cannot manage the men who must be managed in the drug trade and that they are untrustworthy, unreliable, and unable to effectively use violence when it is needed. WomenÊs positions in the drug market tend to be more likely to be connected through male intimate partners than not. WomenÊs positions in the drug trade also tend to gain less financial reward, have more difficult hours, be riskier with respect to both police and victimization, and be more difficult to obtain (Maher, 2004). The largest amount of participation in the drug market for women is through more informal activities such as „steerers,‰ who recommend particular drug sources in exchange for financial rewards. Upper-level managers and owners in the drug enterprise prefer to use women in more visible positions because they are less likely to be noticed or suspected by police. Participation in such arenas as „shooting galleries,‰ where addicts pay for someone to inject them with drugs is more rare for women as working in or managing these places relies upon physical strength and violence that it is believed only men have. Instead, women are more likely to play supportive roles including soliciting business, purchasing drugs for others, and in other roles peripheral to the center of drug activity. There are a relatively few „successful‰ women in the drug trade, and most of those operate under the control of

Introduction

| 23

men or a group of men (Maher, 2004). There are exceptions, such as Gwen Taketa, but they are rare. CONCLUSION The crimes that well-known women commit are usually not representative of the average kinds of crime that women generally commit. If one were to paint a picture of a „typical‰ women criminal, she would be engaged in a low-level property crime either related to financial need or to drug addiction. Her crimes would net much less, comparatively, than her male counterparts, and would be much less likely to be related to a position of power, supervision, and/or authority. These women are the truly „invisible‰ offenders who blend into the framework of our gendered society. They are neither threatening nor seek to threaten the system that values womenÊs passivity and male-centeredness and, as such, largely go unnoticed. When women are noticed is when they are, at least in part, gender deviant: engaged in crimes of high responsibility, financial gain, and/or violence. These women are usually given more attention than their male counterparts because they are not only criminally deviant but also not abiding by gender expectations. As such, the publicÊs view of womenÊs criminality is limited because of this differential. One important goal of research in women and crime is to discuss how gender impacts not just the more colorful criminals but how womenÊs lives and womenÊs crime are crucially connected. References Baskin, Deborah, and Ira Sommers. 1998. Casualties of Community Disorder: WomenÊs Careers in Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview. Belknap, Joanne. 2006. The Invisible Woman. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing. Browne, Angela, and Kirk Williams. 1989. „Exploring the Effect of Resource Availability and the Likelihood of Female Perpetrated Homicides.‰ Law and Society Review 23: 75ă94. Campbell, Anne. 1984. Girls in the Gang. New York: Basil Blackwell. Campbell, Anne. 1993. Men, Women, and Aggression. New York: Basic Books. Cao, Liqun, Anthony Adams, and Vickie Jensen. 1997. „A Test of the Black Subculture of Violence Thesis: A Research Note.‰ Criminology 35: 367ă379. Censky, Annalyn. 2010. „Women in Top-Paying Jobs Still Make Less than Men.‰ http://www. money.cnn.com/2010/04/20/news/economy/highest_paying_jobs_for_women/index.htm. Accessed September, 23, 2010. Chesney-Lind, M., and L. Pasko. 2004. The Female Offender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hickey, Eric. 2009. Serial Murderers and Their Victims. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing. Jensen, Vickie. 2001. Why Women Kill: Gender Equality and Homicide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Kelly, Liz. 1996. „When Does the Speaking Profit Us: Reflections on the Challenges of Developing Feminist Perspectives on Abuse and Violence by Women.‰ In Marianne Hester, Liz Kelly, and Jill Radford (eds.), Women, Violence, and Male Power, 34ă49. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

24 |

Women Criminals

Maher, Lisa. 2004. „A Reserve Army: Women and the Drug Market.‰ In Barbara Price and Natalie Sokoloff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Prisoners, Victims, and Workers, 127ă146. New York: McGraw-Hill. Messerschmidt, James. 1986. Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime: Toward a Socialist-Feminist Criminology. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Messerschmidt, James. 1993. Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Messerschmidt, James. 1995. „From Patriarchy to Gender: Feminist Theory, Criminology, and the Challenge of Diversity.‰ In Nicole Hahn Rafter and Frances Heidensohn (eds.), International Feminist Perspectives in Criminology: Engendering a Discipline, 167ă188. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Miller, Jody. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Gender. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, Jody. 2004. „Feminist Theories of WomenÊs Crime: Robbery as a Case Study.‰ In Barbara Price and Natalie Sokoloff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Prisoners, Victims, and Workers, 51ă68. New York: McGraw-Hill. Morton, Joann Brown. 2004. Working with Women Offenders in Correctional Institutions. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Mullins, C., and R. Right. 2003. „Gender, Social Networks, and Residential Burglary.‰ Criminology 41: 813ă839. Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. 2010. http://www.womenincongress.house. gov/historical-data. Accessed September 23, 2010. Ogle, Robbin, Daniel Maier-Katkin, and Thomas J. Bernard. 1995. „A Theory of Homicidal Behavior Among Women.‰ Criminology 33: 173ă93. Paltrow, Lynn. 2004. „The War on Drugs and the War on Abortion.‰ In Barbara Price and Natalie Sokoloff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Prisoners, Victims, and Workers, 165-184, New York: McGraw-Hill. Pollock, Joycelyn. 1998. Counseling Women in Prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Silvestri, Marisa, and Chris Crowther-Dowey. 2008. Gender and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Simpson, Sally. 1991. „Caste, Class, and Violent Crime: Explaining Difference in Female Offending.‰ Criminology 29: 115ă35. Wilczynski, Ania. 1991. „Images of Women Who Kill Their Infants: The Mad and the Bad.‰ Women and Criminal Justice 2: 71ă88. Wolfe, Lahle. 2010. „A Decade of Women CEOÊs at Fortune 500 Companies.‰ http://www.wom eninbusiness.about.com/od/womeninbusinessnew1/a/decade_women_ceos.htm. Accessed September 23, 2010.

WOMEN AND CRIMINAL OFFENDING: SOCIETALLEVEL PERSPECTIVES Jennifer Schwartz and Arina Gertseva

INTRODUCTION Men outnumber women as offenders for almost all types of offending, for nearly all groups of people, almost everywhere, and they have just about always done so. Yet, the amount of female involvement in crime varies by offense, demographic group, place, and time. Often, when and where male crime is high, female crime is also relatively high, but there is also variability in the size of the gender gap (Schwartz and Steffensmeier, 2007). Macro-level, or societal-level, theories of womenÊs offending attempt to explain the dimensions of the gender-crime relationship. They address the following sorts of broad questions: Why are menÊs offending rates systematically higher than female offending rates? Why do some groups of women offend at higher rates than others? What factors influence changes in womenÊs offending patterns? Do these same social factors explain patterns and trends in male offending too? Macro-level criminology aims to identify and understand these large-scale patterns between and within the sexes. Macro-level criminology is directed toward identifying the social forces outside the individual that influence opportunities and motivation for crime and shape group differences in offending levels. The sociological macro-criminology perspective stresses that crime cannot be understood without understanding the social context in which it occurs because people are social beings who are profoundly shaped by their environment. Crime is rooted in the social and physical characteristics of communities and society, networks of relationships in which people interact, and structured social inequalities, such as gender and race-ethnicity. As such, certain social arrangements, or changes in these arrangements, may promote or discourage offending. Patterned gender differences in socialization, social interaction, and stratification also affect opportunities and motivations for crime. This structural perspective is based on the premise that crime is not an idiosyncratic event but distributed in a patterned way based on social-structural conditions. Although identifying individual risk factors related to offending is important,

25

26

|

Women Criminals

individualistic explanations have a major shortcoming. Theories of crime that focus solely on individuals cannot explain: (a) why crime rates differ across place and time and (b) why crime rates differ according to key dimensions of social inequality, such as by gender or race-ethnicity. It is the task of the macro-criminologist to identify group or societal differences in crime and explain these patterns as resulting from general and/or group-specific causes of crime. Exploring the nature and causes of femalesÊ lower offending rates is central to criminological inquiry. The universality of the gender gap, though taken for granted, is really quite extraordinary. Gender is the single best predictor of offending, and the gender gap is typically more sizeable than other group differences in offending rates (e.g., race-ethnicity, rural-urban) (Sutherland and Cressey, 1974). Understanding why this is the case can help illuminate the ways in which crime can be better controlled. Valuable knowledge is also gained by exploring why some groups of women offend at higher rates than other groups of women. Identifying „universal‰ as well as „gender-specific‰ criminogenic factors strengthens theory and enhances crime reduction efforts. As aptly stated by Gelsthorpe and Morris (1988): „Theories are weak if they do not apply to half of the potential criminal population . . . Whether or not a particular theory helps us understand womenÊs crime better is of fundamental, not marginal, importance for criminology‰ (103). First, we review key similarities and differences in female and male offending patterns. This review serves to contextualize what macro-theories of female offending are trying to explain. We rely mainly on statistical data, though we briefly highlight more subtle gender differences that quantitative analyses have difficulty detecting. Then, we contrast gender-neutral versus gender-specific macro-level theories and assess their ability to explain female offending. Finally, we describe emerging gendered theoretical approaches to understanding female versus male offending patterns and characterize the body of empirical support.

MACRO-LEVEL PATTERNS OF FEMALE AND MALE OFFENDING: GENDER SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES There are both similarities and differences in female and male offending patterns. These quantitative patterns are discerned using several data sources that identify the sex of the offender (see Schwartz and Steffensmeier, 2007, for greater detail). These sources include: official FBI arrest data provided by nearly all police agencies in the United States; reports by victims of personal crimes of sex of the offender collected in the National Crime Victimization Report by Census Bureau personnel; and selfreports by female and male adolescents of their own behavior from nationally representative longitudinal surveys. We also draw on qualitative evidence, such as that

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 27

provided by in-depth interviews, ethnographies, and content analyses of official records, to help contextualize gendered offending patterns. (For more in-depth review, see Schwartz and Steffensmeier, 2007; Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996.) Both females and males are more heavily involved in minor property and substance abuse offenses than in serious crimes like robbery or murder. All sources indicate that offending rates tend to be higher for less serious offenses. Female arrest rates typically are highest for minor property crimes like larceny and fraud, for substance abuse (driving under the influence, or DUI; drugs; and liquor law violations), and, more recently, for simple assault (Schwartz et al., 2009a; Zhong and Schwartz, 2010). The simple assault category includes mostly minor, even trivial, incidents of threat or physical attack against another person such as scratching, biting, throwing objects, shoving, hitting, or kicking. However, men offend at higher rates·sometimes much higher·than women for nearly all crime types. The most important gender difference is the proportionately greater female involvement in minor property crimes and the relatively greater involvement of males in the more serious crimes against person or property. The female share of arrests for most categories is 20 percent or less. Female representation in arrests is the largest for prostitution (including disorderly conduct and vagrancy statutes that are used in arresting females for prostitution) and for minor property crimes (larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement). Females are heavily underrepresented in serious crimes against person and property, such as homicide, rape, robbery, and burglary·only about 10 percent of arrestees for these offenses are female. The wider gender gap for serious property and violent crime and narrower gap for less serious offenses is apparent for all race-ethnicity groups, all age groups, across places, and over time. In-depth qualitative studies of female (and male) offending substantiate and further illuminate these basic quantitative patterns·womenÊs lesser involvement in more serious and more lucrative offending. Moreover, these types of studies suggest that the gestalt of female and male offending tends to be more similar for less serious offenses, but gender differences are accentuated for more serious offenses. Research aiming to discern gender differences has therefore focused on involvement in more serious and more lucrative forms of offending. Collectively, this research indicates that males often offend with a partner or in groups, which offer more lucrative crime opportunities compared to solo offending; female offenders, in contrast, are more likely to work alone (Steffensmeier and Terry, 1986). When women co-offend, it is often with a romantic partner, and female roles in the offense tend to be peripheral, such as decoy or lookout, whereas males in the group primarily plan and execute the crime (Daly, 1989; Steffensmeier, 1983). Other female crime roles involve the use of womenÊs sexuality, like baiting a potential victim with the promise of sex in order to rob him (Miller, 1998). This suggests that female opportunities for serious or lucrative crime are somewhat circumscribed, in part based

28

|

Women Criminals

on gender stereotypes held by males of what women are capable of or willing to do (Steffensmeier and Terry, 1986). Female crime is far more likely than male crime to be motivated by relational concerns whereas male offending is more often spurred by status concerns. Examples of female relational concerns include violence against a female rival to protect a threatened relationship, prostitution to support a partnerÊs (and oneÊs own) drug habit, fraud or embezzlement in order to provide for childrenÊs needs, and selfdefensive or aggressive violence against an abusive male partner (Browne, 1987; Daly, 1994; Miller, 1986; Miller and Mullins, 2006; Steffensmeier and Terry, 1986). Studies also suggest that women require a higher level of provocation before turning to crime as a solution. Another noteworthy difference is in the context of womenÊs and menÊs offending. Particularly in terms of violence, womenÊs offending often takes place in her or the victimÊs home or another private setting whereas menÊs violence is often perpetrated in public settings, such as in bars, parks, the street, or other places of leisure. WomenÊs victims of personal crimes are disproportionately (former) intimates, children, and other family members whereas menÊs victims are most frequently peers or strangers (Schwartz, 2007). It bears repeating, however, that more serious violence reveals more profound gender differences in motives, opportunities, and contexts of offending. Despite some marked gender differences, there are also noteworthy similarities in female and male serious offending patterns. The backgrounds of female and male offenders are similar·they tend to be from disadvantaged families and communities, have low educational attainment, are marginally employed or unemployed, and possess limited resources for change. Communities with high male rates of crime also typically have high female rates of crime. In addition, female and male crime rates tend to change in tandem with one another. For example, when menÊs crime rates increased in the early 1990s, female rates also increased. This suggests that female and male offending trends are responsive to some of the same social forces. However, since the 1960s, there have been two notable shifts in female offending patterns that have narrowed the gender gap. First, females became more heavily involved in minor property crimes like larceny, fraud, and forgery than they had been in the past, particularly over the 1970s (Steffensmeier, 1978). For example, in 1965, about 20 percent of those arrested for fraud were female. By 1980, 40 percent of arrestees for fraud were female; this percentage has not changed much since then (Schwartz and Steffensmeier, 2007). Second, an increasing share of women has been arrested for assault and substance abuse, especially over the 1990s. Through the 1980s, the female percent of simple assault arrests hovered around 10 percent. More recently, 20 percent of simple assault arrestees were women (Steffensmeier et al., 2005). Whereas male rates of arrest for simple assault doubled from 1980 to

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 29

2000, female arrest rates quadrupled. Researchers have convincingly demonstrated, however, that much of the recent trend in female arrests for minor violence is due to shifting social control mechanisms rather than real changes in womenÊs offending patterns (Chesney-Lind, 2004; Feld, 2009; Schwartz et al., 2009a; Schwartz et al., 2009b; Steffensmeier et al., 2005). Central to macro-criminology is identifying and locating the causes of these types of shifts in female offending. The media, both in 1970 and today, often depict rising female arrest rates as a „dark side‰ of female liberation. Are such changes the result of social forces uniquely affecting (some) women, such as changing gender roles? Or are women, as a group, more exposed or vulnerable than men to genderneutral criminogenic factors, such as economic deprivation? Or is it that police behavior and the social control of womenÊs criminality have shifted, independent of actual changes in female offending? These questions relate to within-sex differences in offending. In other words, what factors explain why some women offend at higher rates than other women who live in different contexts or time periods? Macro-level theories of female offending also ought to explain variation in the gender gap in offending. By gender gap, we mean the low level of female offending relative to male offending. That is, why are female rates of serious crime so much lower than male rates? Why does the gender gap vary across places and over time? To sum, macro-level theories should be able to account for gender differences in offending (e.g., females have much lower rates of serious violence and lucrative property crime; crimes committed by women disproportionately target intimates and family, and are dominated by relational concerns) as well as gender similarities in offending (e.g., men and women criminals have similar rates of less serious offending and substance abuse, background characteristics, and temporal and spatial variation).

GENDER-NEUTRAL MACRO-LEVEL THEORIES OF FEMALE OFFENDING Most theories of crime initially were developed by male criminologists to explain male crime. Given these origins, some feminist criminologists have argued that gender-neutral, traditional theories are actually male-specific theories not well suited to explain female crime. Recent tests of these theoriesÊ abilities to predict female as well as male offending, however, suggest such claims are somewhat overstated. We describe two mainstream macro-level theories of offending as they have been applied to understanding the gender gap and within-sex differences in offending·social disorganization theory and anomie/strain. After delineating empirical support for gender-neutral theories, we describe some of the shortcomings of these theories before evaluating gender-specific explanations of female offending.

30

|

Women Criminals

Social Disorganization Theory Social disorganization theory focuses on the relationship between community structure and crime. This approach aims to identify factors that make some communities more prone to higher crime rates and explain how these factors, individually and in combination, operate to produce persistent differences in crime rates between aggregates of people. With regard to female offending, then, this theory is well suited to explain within-sex differences in offending rates: Why do females in some contexts have higher crime rates than females in other contexts? Between-sex differences are better understood by comparing the strength of ecological effects on male and female crime to detect whether one sex is more responsive to social forces. Social disorganization theory was first advanced by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942), who observed that the same socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of Chicago continued to experience high male juvenile delinquency rates over a span of several decades no matter which immigrant group lived there and despite changes in the racial and ethnic composition of those areas. These findings encouraged researchers to focus on community processes that create a atmosphere conducive to crime. The social disorganization approach arising out of Shaw and McKayÊs work suggests a need to focus on the kinds of places susceptible to crime rather than on the composition of people in the places. Numerous studies have since focused on ecological features that make some areas more vulnerable than others to social disorganization, such as poverty, residential mobility, population density, and racial heterogeneity. More recently, family structure has been recognized as one of the most important community characteristics associated with crime rates (Sampson, 1987; Shihadeh and Steffensmeier, 1994). According to the theory, these structural conditions weaken social networks and trust and decrease a neighborhoodÊs capacity and motivation to control the behavior of its residents, increasing the likelihood of crime.1 Indeed, communities characterized by high poverty, disrupted families, and mobility evidenced diminished social organization including a higher presence of unsupervised teenage peer groups; fewer informal local friendship networks; and lesser local participation in formal and voluntary organizations (Rountree and Warner, 1999; Sampson and Groves, 1989). In contrast, neighborhoods high in „collective efficacy‰ (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997) are those where „residents will work together on common, neighborhood-wide issues, will get along somewhat with one another, and will take steps to supervise activities of youth or teen taking place in the immediate locale‰ (Taylor, 2001: 128). Theorists have also emphasized how entrenched poverty and social disorganization are likely to produce frustration; undermine the legitimacy of ineffective and unfair mainstream institutions like education, the criminal justice system, and the economy; and foster deviant

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 31

subcultures and norms within these contexts (Anderson, 1999; Blau and Blau, 1982; Shihadeh and Steffensmeier, 1994). The logic underlying this theory·that places with certain structural characteristics provide conditions more favorable to offending·suggests women may be as susceptible as men to the community conditions favoring crime. Many feminists, too, premise their work on the assumption that women and men are fundamentally more alike than different (for review, see Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a). Because womenÊs and menÊs lives are so intertwined and because women frequently offend with or against a male partner, it is hard to imagine that factors affecting menÊs criminality would not also affect the women in their lives, and vice versa. Both females and males living in persistently disadvantaged communities must adapt survival strategies, express their masculinity or femininity, and deal with pressures to consume. Early theoretical consideration of patterns in womenÊs criminality, however, understood women to be more insulated from the effects of community social problems (Durkheim, 1952; Thrasher, 1927) and problems of adjustment to lack of social status (Cohen, 1955). Insulated by kin and social relationships, women may be untouched by social forces whereas men more readily feel the effects of poor social conditions. Delinquent subcultures are subjectively and objectively more available to males as solutions to role problems whereas female coping mechanisms often involve self-harming behaviors (e.g., drug/alcohol abuse) (Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996). Sociological literature on gender segregation in schools, work, and family roles offer evidence that women and men live in somewhat different spheres, even though they live within the same families and communities. Thus, the social conditions eliciting a criminal response may be different for females and males. Given the massive disparities between men and women in offending, it is plausible that ecological research that fails to disaggregate by gender would mask potentially important variations in the effects of explanatory variables on male versus female crime rates. Despite extensive theorizing and empirical tests on male or total rates of crime, social disorganization has rarely been examined for its consequences on women. However, recent interest in both social disorganization and female offending has fueled empirical work testing how well structural factors rather than individuallevel factors explain variation in the levels of female offending. Scholars also address whether women are affected less than, more than, or differently than men by criminogenic pressures arising from condition of social disorganization (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a). These efforts demonstrate that there are more similarities than differences in the community correlates of female and male offending (Jacob, 2006; Schwartz, 2006a, 2008; Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a, 2000b). In other words, social disorganization partially explains within-sex variation in offending for women and men. To systematically summarize available empirical

32 |

Women Criminals

results of gender-disaggregated research on community characteristics and crime, we describe the findings for each of the exogenous community characteristics separately. Economic Disadvantage Social disorganization theory suggests that communities with low economic status lack adequate money, resources, and organizational bases to develop social networks or enhance formal and informal controls, resulting in higher male and female crime rates. Though measurement of disadvantage has varied a fair amount, the tenor of results supports the conclusion that poor economic conditions are associated with higher rates of both female and male crime. Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000a) found that all discrete structural variables (poverty, joblessness, family disruption, percent black, and income inequality) and a combined disadvantage index have significant effects on adult offending rates of both females and males across index crimes (homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny). Also, the strength of these effects is similar for male and female robbery and aggravated assault rates and stronger for male homicide, burglary, and larceny-theft rates. Reckdenwald and Parker (2008), in their study of large U.S. cities, also find economic marginalization to be a strong predictor of female offending, but they identify some nuanced effects across various crime types. Among women, the influence of economic marginalization is stronger for drug sales and robbery as compared to homicide. Testing social disorganization theory on juveniles in Canadian communities, Jacob (2006) concluded that economic advantages (e.g., percent employed in professional and managerial positions; percent with a high school degree) are similarly related to adolescent girls and boys reduced rates of overall, property, and violent crime. The results regarding gender differences in the effect of disadvantage variables on offending are somewhat mixed. Some scholars have identified stronger effects on males of economic disadvantage in cities among both adults and juveniles (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a, 2000b). Urban female homicide is less driven by economic disadvantage, and this gender difference is even more pronounced for juveniles. Juvenile female homicide is only weakly related to disadvantage in urban cities. Economic disadvantage also seems to be less detrimental to rural womenÊs homicide patterns whereas factors such as unemployment and poverty have significantly stronger, though modest, effects on male rural homicide (Lee and Stevenson, 2006). Socioeconomic contexts shape the lives of people. Rural contexts tend to establish quite different informal economies (e.g., selling vegetables, selling firewood, repairing small engines, fishing, hunting, and so forth) compared to urban areas (e.g., prostitution, drug markets, gambling, thievery and fencing, auto theft, and so forth) (Lee and Stevenson, 2006).

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 33

Further, other scholars have found that structural disadvantage is associated with homicide rates of both males and females until family structure is included in the models, suggesting indirect as well as direct effects of economic disadvantage on female and male serious offending (Schwartz, 2006b). Economic disadvantage similarly affects variation in female crime rates, though for some offenses or for some measures of disadvantage, the effects are somewhat weaker on female crime. That male behavior is affected more profoundly by conditions of structural disadvantage explains some part of the gender gap in serious offending. Family Disruption Social disorganization theory suggests that family disruption contributes to community economic disadvantage and undermines community informal social control (Schwartz, 2008). According to the theory, neighborhoods with higher proportions of single-parent households are expected to have higher male and female crime rates. The majority of empirical studies find support for gender similarities in the direction of the effect of family disruption on crime rate (Jacob, 2006; Schwartz, 2006a, 2006b; Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a, 2000b). The effect of this important structural condition is greater for serious crimes like homicide and robbery than for less serious crimes like burglary and larceny-theft (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000b). Family structural conditions, along with structural disadvantage, are often the most potent predictors of variation in offending levels across communities. In terms of the strength of the effect, family disruption is more strongly associated with male homicide rates than with female homicide rates in urban areas among juveniles and adults (Schwartz, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a, 2000b). In addition, family disruption was found to be more strongly related to male rates for robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a). One study of rural contexts found family disruption (i.e., femaleheaded households) to be unrelated to rural womenÊs homicide patterns, and it had a modest effect on rural male homicide rates (Lee and Stevenson, 2006). Thus, family conditions are important for understanding variation in offending by both females and males, though stronger effects of family conditions on male crime rates account for some portion of the gender gap in offending. Residential Mobility Social disorganization theory predicts that neighborhoods with high levels of population turnover will more often fail to informally control male and female crime due to the weaker ties in these sorts of communities. The concept of mobility refers to three categories of migration: moving from one address to another within the

34

|

Women Criminals

same community; moving into the community from another; and moving out of the community. However, due to data limitations, most studies of social disorganization capture only the first two categories of migration. The results of sex-disaggregated research provide reasonable evidence that this variable affects both female and male crime rates. Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000a) found that the effect of residential instability on crime rates is similar in strength and magnitude for females and males; Jacob (2006: 48) concludes that residential instability exerts one of the strongest effects on both girls and boys rates of property crime, though consistent effects were not detected for other offenses (see also Schwartz, 2006a). No gender differences have been detected in the effect of this structural variable on crime rates. Ethnic Heterogeneity According to social disorganization theory, racial and ethnic heterogeneity interfere with effective communication between groups making it more difficult for a community to establish social control. Empirical studies have found support for the importance of this predictor for both females and males. Steffensmeier and HaynieÊs studies (2000a, 2000b) showed that index-offending rates of both females and males are associated with heterogeneity. The effect of this variable is greater for male offending rates than for female offending rates for crimes like homicide, robbery, burglary, and larceny. In rural areas, racial heterogeneity may have slightly stronger effects on female homicide (Lee and Stevenson, 2006). Urbanization (Population Density) Social disorganization theory suggests that urbanization affects social order by creating a more complex social structure that hinders the establishment of informal social controls and, thus, is associated with delinquency and crime. The results of empirical studies are mixed. In one study, population density is found to be consequential for both female and male offending, and its effect is similar both in strength and direction for both gender groups (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a). Other available sex-disaggregated studies, focusing solely on homicide, do not detect a consistent relationship between structural density and female or male homicide (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000b; Jacob, 2006). Sparse sex-disaggregated ecological studies offer evidence of the applicability of social disorganization theory to understanding variation in female and male crime rates. The review of empirical studies provides evidence that despite large discrepancies in mean rates of offending between females and males, female offending is also affected by macrosocial conditions that elevate male offending. There is some evidence that ecological conditions sometimes have a greater impact on male offending rates. Whether gender differences in social disorganization effects

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 35

are detected varies with the type of offense and the particular ecological measure being used. Generally, as social disorganization theorists and some feminists assume, women and men tend to respond similarly to the same social and cultural influences. Stronger ecological effects on males explain a small part of the gender gap in offending. Anomie/Strain Theory The main assumption of traditional anomie/strain theory is that crime results from an imbalance between culturally desired goals and legitimate means of obtaining these goals. Anomie results when there is a strong cultural emphasis on achieving success goals·such as prestige, wealth, and power·but prescribed means are unevenly distributed among social groups. Inequality paired with the rhetoric of equal opportunity erodes adherence to mainstream norms, including the use of prescribed means to achieve what is socially desirable, by generating frustration (Cohen, 1955), anomie (Merton, 1938, 1968), or strain (Agnew, 1992). Discrepancies in goals and means are fostered by gender, race, and class systems where the ideal of equal opportunity does not match the reality of unequal access to legitimate opportunities for those in low-status groups, such as women, racial minorities, and the poor. Ascriptive inequalities, unfair disadvantages based on social grouping, are particularly likely to generate frustration and weaken allegiance to mainstream norms and values (Blau and Blau, 1982). How these processes play out for women versus men has been the subject of some debate. Early perspectives on gender and crime suggested that women may be less subject to intensive economic pressures (e.g., Durkheim, 1952) because women are insulated from public crime-producing conditions by familial ties and other social support networks less prevalent among men. Similarly, others have suggested that socially imposed goals differ by gender. Goal orientations for women stress the ability to form lasting romantic relationships whereas male goals are more oriented towards financial measures of success (Beutel and Marini, 1995; Gilligan, 1982). Because marriage and family formation are more readily accessible to women than upward economic mobility is to men, womenÊs lesser involvement in crime might be a product of womenÊs „less stressful‰ lives (see Broidy and Agnew, 1997, for a cogent critique). By extension, the availability of „marriageable‰ men (i.e., employed, unmarried) ought to explain community or cross-national differences in female crime rates. Empirical tests of marriage pool effects on female offending are rare, and support is tentative. South and Messner (1987), using international data on crime and the sex ratio, report that nations with more abundant female opportunities for marriage also tend to have lower female theft rates. Likewise, Schwartz (2006b) reports higher average violence rates in U.S. counties that have a more constrained marriage pool. Interestingly, she finds that male violence rates are also suppressed

36

|

Women Criminals

by the availability of marriageable men, suggesting that other mechanisms besides relational strain may be relevant. Recent empirical research does not support the idea that economic conditions are irrelevant to understanding female crime. For example, Steffensmeier and HaynieÊs (2000a) cross-sectional study of womenÊs and menÊs crime in U.S. cities demonstrated that income inequality is associated with higher female (and male) crime rates for serious index offenses (e.g., homicide, burglary). Recent feminist theorizing has also pointed out that women might experience „double strain‰· gender-neutral (economic) strain that is similar to men plus „gender-specific‰ strain associated with their unequal access compared with men to elevated social, economic, and political positions (see also Leonard, 1982). That is, where and when gender inequality is perceived to be greater, it is expected that female crime will be higher and the gender gap narrower. Empirically driven tests of anomie/strain should examine whether changes over time or differences across place in the female crime rate are a function of the economic or social position of women vis-à-vis men. There is some support for this expectation based on the few empirical studies addressing this issue.2 Steffensmeier and Streifel (1992), using U.S. arrest data covering the 1960ă1985 period, found that increased female-to-male unemployment rates are related to a narrowing of the gender gap for larceny and prostitution. Greater inequality in female and male family structures, as measured by increases in female-headed families and illegitimacy rates, contributed to a narrower gender gap for larceny. However, despite identifying these relationships, Steffensmeier and Streifel conclude based on the entirety of their findings that formalization of policing exerts stronger effects on womenÊs arrest trends than does their relative economic position. Heimer, Wittrock, and Unal (2005) also explore the marginalization hypothesis·that a narrowing gender gap in crime can be explained by declines in economic well-being for women compared to men. This study employed arrest data from 1960 to 1997 on property and violent crimes in the 100 largest U.S. cities paired with measures of relative economic hardship, including female-to-male high school graduation rates, unemployment rates, and service-sector employment. Heimer et al. (2005) conclude that changes in the gender gap are consistent with the premise of anomie theory: the gender gap in crime is narrower where female-to-male inequality is higher. However, the effects of specific dimensions of inequality varied widely across crime type, with the most consistent results demonstrated for the relative rate of unemployment. Future research in this area should also focus on the implications for female crime of a decline in the availability of welfare as a safety net and the dual pattern of increases in female-headed families and the greater concentration of poverty within this family type for female crime (Heimer, 2000). Other macro-level sources of strain should also be taken into account, particularly those germane to women (e.g., child/elder care burdens; gender-based

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 37

discrimination; sexual victimization). As Naffine (1987) stated over 20 years ago, „At the head of the feminist agenda for strain theory is the investigation of the concerns and goals and the frustrations of criminal and conforming women‰ (23). Yet, in part because of measurement difficulties, few macrosociologists have taken on this task. In addition to identifying alternate sources of strain, other promising avenues of gender and crime research in the macro-anomie tradition explore noncriminal responses to strained circumstances. Women and girls are more likely to respond to strained social lives with self-blame and self-harming behaviors (e.g., drug/alcohol abuse; prostitution; suicide) because females tend to be oriented toward nurturing others and womenÊs opportunities to engage in crime are fairly circumscribed. It is the goal of general criminological theories to identify factors involved in all crime·that is, crime committed by males and females. Further, these factors ought to have the same effects (i.e., general effects) across various groups of people. Empirical research indicates factors related to social disorganization and strain influence both female and male rates of offending. Moreover, group differences in response to general environmental factors, such as economic deprivation and family structure, can partially account for sex differences in crime. Clearly, mainstream theories cannot be abandoned as they illuminate why some women offend at higher rates than others and why males offend at higher rates than women. Despite the utility of mainstream theories, they are incomplete in two key ways. First, they do not consider gender explicitly. Feminist researchers have questioned the logic of developing gender-neutral theories of behavior when the social order and the structure of crime can be highly gendered. Women and men may live in the same communities, but in some ways, they lead separate, but overlapping, lives. Daily patterns of social interaction differ by gender. Therefore, general causes of crime may not be applicable in the same way or to the same degree depending on gender. Stated differently, structural conditions associated with crime may operate via distinct processes in elevating female versus male crime or these conditions may be more salient to one sex (i.e., exert stronger effects).3 A second shortcoming is gender-neutral theories may overlook distinctively female causes of crime. Coinciding with the womenÊs movement, explicit theoretical attention was paid to womenÊs criminality in the early 1970s, and recent decades have seen a lively debate concerning whether female crime can only or best be explained by gender-specific theories.

GENDER-SPECIFIC MACRO-LEVELS THEORIES OF FEMALE OFFENDING Gender-specific theories of female offending are based on the assumption that female and male offending result from qualitatively different processes and therefore

38

|

Women Criminals

necessitate different models to explain female and male offending. As stated by Leonard (1982): „Theoretical criminology was constructed by men, about men. It is simply not up to the analytical task of explaining female patterns of crime . . . Existing [general] theories are frequently so inconsistent with female realities that specific explanation of female patterns of crime will probably have to precede the development of an all-inclusive theory‰ (1ă2). At the macro-level, the most wellknown gender-specific theory of female offending is called liberation theory, which was developed by Freda Adler. Adler (1975) proposed that increased social and economic opportunities for women contributed to higher female offending rates and a narrowing of the gender gap. Presumably male offending patterns were unaffected by shifting gender roles and attitudes brought about by the second generation womenÊs movement. In part, liberated women might have increased opportunities for offending: „women have demanded equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavours [and] a similar number of determined women have forced their way into the world of major crime such as white-collar crime‰ (Adler, 1975: 3).4 However, shifts in female offending were primarily attributed to rapidly changing gender-role expectations toward greater female freedoms and assertiveness. As women took on more „masculine‰ roles, their behaviors were expected to increasingly mimic those of males. Such changes are premised on the idea that gender differences are primarily socially determined. These shifts, Adler proposed, masculinized female behavior and brought out an „imitative male machismo competitiveness‰ (12). Changed expectations regarding female passivity emancipated women, making them as crime-prone as men. Adler anticipated increases in womenÊs rates of homicide, robbery, and other violent offenses (3). Rita Simon (1975) also proposed that womenÊs increased liberation, via paid employment and presumed career advancement, offered new opportunities for women to engage in white-collar and corporate crime. These perspectives were developed to understand apparent increases in female arrest rates, particularly for minor property crimes, over the 1960s and 1970s. Despite the intuitive appeal of the gender equality perspective, empirical support is sparse. Arrest and offending patterns since the 1960s are not consistent with the claims of the liberation perspective. Increases in womenÊs arrest rates predated the womenÊs movement and did not accelerate in subsequent years when female labor force participation and other dimensions of equality increased (Bianchi and Spain, 1986; Steffensmeier, 1978; Steffensmeier, 1980; Steffensmeier and Schwartz, 2004). Moreover, crime trends do not indicate age or cohort effects of labor force participation or other markers of liberation; the female share of arrest is stable among various age groups for at least the last 40 years (Steffensmeier and Schwartz, 2004; Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1991). Today, the „dark side of liberation‰ is still invoked by the news media and some criminologists, most recently to explain rising girlsÊ arrest rates for simple assault (Schwartz et al. 2009a, 2009b) and alcohol-related offenses such as DUI

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 39

and underage drinking (Schwartz and Rookey, 2008; Zhong and Schwartz, 2010). Recent research, however, convincingly demonstrates that social control practices have shifted more than female criminal behavior. For example, Schwartz et al. (2009a, 2009b) show that the relative female level of violence has not changed much over the past 20 years according to data sources independent of the criminal justice system (see also Feld, 2009). Arrest data, in contrast, show a rising share of women arrested for minor forms of violence but not for serious violence. Such is also the case with drunk driving: accompanying legal changes that defined drunk driving more broadly (e.g., 0.08% BAC [blood alcohol content] laws), female arrest rates increased but other measures of drunk driving showed no real increase (Schwartz and Rookey, 2008; Schwartz, 2008). Ironically, womenÊs liberation may have had greater effects on law enforcement practices than on womenÊs behaviors. An alternate explanation to intentional increased social control of women may be that the shift in penology toward targeting minor, less serious offenders has the unintended consequence of targeting womenÊs less serious offending patterns. Future macrolevel research on the social control of women is necessary to discern the real reason for the increase in arrests of women for less serious crimes. What is clear is that gender equality is unlikely to increase female crime. Chesney-Lind (1995) and others point out that female offenders typically bear little resemblance to the myth of the „liberated female crook.‰ Instead, these offenders typically are unemployed women or women working at low-paying jobs, or they are minority women with backgrounds of profound poverty (Chesney-Lind, 1995; Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996). Theorists also point to the peculiarity of considering „a hypothesis that assumed improving girlsÊ and womenÊs economic conditions would lead to an increase in female crime when almost all the existing criminological literature stresses the role played by discrimination and poverty (and unemployment or underemployment) in the creation of crime‰ (Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1992, 77). (See also Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly, 1989; Miller, 1986; Richie, 1996; Steffensmeier, 1980.) In addition to explaining changes in female offending patterns and the gender gap, the gender equality (i.e., liberation) hypothesis has also been tested with regard to spatial differences in offending. Where female roles and statuses differ less than those of men, such as in developed versus developing nations or urban versus rural settings, the gender gap ought to be narrower and female rates of crime higher if the liberation perspective is correct. Empirical tests examining indicators of economic marginalization and liberation are not supportive of gender-specific liberation perspectives. Box and Hale (1984) find that greater unemployment, rather than emancipation (lower fertility/marriage and greater female participation in higher education and the economy), was predictive of more female crime. Weisheit (1993) found that states with greater gender equality had lower female homicide rates. Across nations, too, the equalization of gender roles fails to predict changes in womenÊs crime or

40

|

Women Criminals

the gender gap. Steffensmeier, Allan, and Streifel (1989) explore relative measures of economic well-being, educational attainment, delayed marriage and childbearing, and employment in traditionally male jobs and changes in the crime gender gap for 69 countries over six years. They concluded that females who engage in crime typically are those who lack legitimate opportunities. WomenÊs crime does not reflect liberated role patterns but extensions of traditional role activities. The foundation of the emancipation perspective, that the structure underlying aggregate movements in female crime is different from that for males, is not empirically supported. Moreover, the criminal underworld remains highly gender stratified, and the opportunities available to females for more lucrative, serious, organized crime remain more circumscribed than the opportunities available to males (Steffensmeier, 1983; Steffensmeier and Terry, 1986; Steffensmeier and Ulmer, 2005; Zhang, Chin, and Miller, 2007). More sophisticated recent reformulations of liberation theory delineate intersecting and overlapping effects with strain, taking into account some of the past critiques of AdlerÊs hypothesis. More permissive gender roles and expanded female opportunities for crime coupled with growing strain stemming from the feminization of poverty and family structural changes might impinge upon womenÊs crime trends (Hunnicutt and Broidy, 2004; Steffensmeier et al., 2005; Schwartz and Rookey, 2008). Liberated gender ideologies coexist and sometimes clash with existing traditional gender norms to create a combination of old and new stresses (i.e., role strain). For example, balancing work and family has added new strains to womenÊs lives. So too has the rhetoric of gender equality and increased female freedoms versus the reality of persistent gender stratification. Gendered social norms appear to be more relaxed, but contradictions based on womenÊs actual experiences may create a heightened sense of injustice and frustration. Indirect evidence suggests girlsÊ and womenÊs are more resilient to significant changes in gender roles and ideologies, at least in terms of offending. For example, over the past 20 years, there has been little change in the relative frequency of girlÊs or womenÊs violence, even among minority girls who might experience intersecting disadvantages. However, the intricacies of the role strain perspective await further empirical testing. Compared to just 20 years ago, a vast body of knowledge has been amassed on gender and female offending. Gender is a complex concept to be understood within social, historical, and cultural contexts, and it clearly organizes and stratifies social life and social institutions. Moreover, menÊs dominant position in society continues to shape gender relations and definitions of masculinity and femininity (Daly and Chesney-Lind, 1988: 504). As such, it is critical to take into account feminist concerns and to accord female offending a central position in macro-level theory development. Richer and more accurate theories of criminality may be developed by taking into account subtle and profound gender differences in offending patterns.

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 41

However, it would be folly to dismiss seemingly universal factors related to offending. Critical to theory development is comparative work that compares and contrasts the social processes associated with female and male offending. GENDERED THEORIES OF FEMALE OFFENDING To best understand macrolevel patterns in female offending, criminological theory should incorporate universal factors related to higher offending rates of both females and males as well as gender-related concerns that might help explain the persistent gender gap in offending. Empirical tests of crime theories must progress beyond „a mere Âadd women and stirÊ approach‰ (Chesney-Lind, 1986: 81) and, instead, take into account what is known about gender and crime. To advance sociological theory generally, Robert Merton (1957) advocates constructing and refining middle-range theories of specific social phenomenon. Middle-range theories aim to explain subgroup specific behaviors and are refined based on evaluation of empirically based knowledge. By building across middle-range explanations of group-specific behavioral patterns, more general theories of behavior evolve. Thus, developing a more nuanced understanding of female crime patterns contributes to understanding deviant behavior more generally. Perhaps the most well-cited middlerange theory of female offending is Steffensmeier and AllanÊs (1996) gendered paradigm of offending. Gendered Paradigm of Offending Steffensmeier and AllanÊs paradigm draws on traditional crime theories, feminist theories, and extant research to explain gender differences in the frequency and nature of crime·that is, the greater rates of offending by males, particularly for more serious violent crimes and lucrative property crimes. The paradigm also addresses contextual differences in female and male offending such as womenÊs greater victimization of intimates and family; their tendency to work alone or, if in organized crime groups, to play secondary or sexual roles; and female motivations and pathways that involve victimization by men, romantic involvements with men, and protection of children and relationships. The main premise of the gendered paradigm is that the effects on offending of broad social forces are mediated by the organization of gender. The organization of gender refers to identities, norms and role expectations, and institutions and social arrangements through which gender is constructed and the frequency and form of offending is shaped. Steffensmeier and Allan identify five key areas that increase the probability of prosocial responses by females and antisocial responses by males and condition gender differences in motives and opportunities for offending. They are, in no particular order: (a) physical strength and aggression;

42 |

Women Criminals

(b) gender norms, (c) moral development and affiliative concerns, (d) sexuality, and (e) social control. These factors impact the willingness (motives) and ability (opportunities) to commit various crimes. After briefly describing the five areas, we highlight their applicability to understanding macro-level patterns of female and male offending. Physical Strength and Aggression On average, men are bigger than women, have greater endurance, and more upper body strength. More controversial theories posit a difference between the sexes in aggression and the capacity for violence derived from hormonal or other physical features of men versus women. These physical differences may influence the frequency and nature of female and male offending because involvement in lucrative, violent, or organized crime often requires physical prowess for committing crimes, protection, enforcing contracts or agreements, and recruiting and managing criminal associates. Equally important as actual physical differences, however, are social and cultural perceptions of women as less powerful, lacking the potential for violence, and more vulnerable to victimization. These social and cultural interpretations of average sex differences may limit womenÊs willingness to engage in serious crime or hamper menÊs willingness to involve female partners in crime. Real or perceived physical differences may help to account for womenÊs solo or secondary roles in crime, their disproportionate involvement in minor property offenses, and their defensive use of violence against partners and aggressive use of violence against smaller children. Gender Norms Gender norms are unwritten, though commonly understood, guidelines defining appropriate behavior, beliefs, and attitudes for females and males. Gender norms are enforced socially and via internalized gender role socialization. Femininity norms are oriented around two powerful focal concerns: (a) nurturant role obligations and (b) female beauty and sexual virtue. Women are socially rewarded for establishing and maintaining relationships and accepting family obligations whereas males are rewarded for acting independently and being adventurous, competitive, and unemotional. Men, in contrast, are expected to be brave, strong, aggressive, rational, independent, adventurous, and dominating (Chafetz, 1974). Females are expected to care for others, particularly family members; be subservient or accommodative to key males in their lives; and subsume their personal interests in favor of family or group interests. Stereotypes of women as caring, submissive, and domestic are incompatible with criminal behavior whereas definitions of masculinity·being inventive aggressive, or risk-taking·are more consonant with what is criminal. Expectations that women should be more guarded of their sexuality and concerned

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 43

about physical appearances contrast with expectations that men should be sexually adventurous or even aggressive and concerned with displaying symbols of success or status. These differing gendered expectations regarding sexuality shape the availability and acceptability of deviant roles. WomenÊs criminal roles tend to capitalize on female sexuality (e.g., prostitution; decoy) whereas menÊs criminal roles are more varied. Moral Development and Affiliative Concerns Closely related to gender norms, there are gender differences in moral development that restrain women from violence and criminal behavior harmful to others. Women are socialized to an „ethic of care‰ that encourages women to be more responsive to the needs of others and to fear separation from loved ones. Men, however, are predisposed to an „ethic of independence,‰ conditioning men toward status-seeking, even if it is at the expense of others. Affiliative concerns not only inhibit women from undertaking harmful criminal activities but also shape motives of women, such as violence to protect a loved one or criminal activity to preserve a relationship. Examples include buying drugs for a partner going through withdrawal, a physical altercation with a rival love interest of her partner, or murder/assault to protect a child from abuse (see also Schwartz, 2007). In contrast, menÊs ethic of independence encourages competitiveness, aggression, and status seeking. Sexuality Females may utilize their sexuality for criminal gain such as in prostitution or as a tool to gain entry into criminal groups. Female offenders may also use gender stereotypes by playing up their sexuality to dupe males, such as by appearing sexually available in order to set up a male robbery victim (Miller, 1998). Traditional notions of femininity and sexuality offer criminal opportunities for some and place limitations on others. For example, females are typically supervised more closely (e.g., by parents, partners) to guard against sexual exploitation or victimization. Social Control FemalesÊ behaviors are often more closely monitored and informally sanctioned, restricting female freedoms and opportunities for deviance. Moreover, stricter supervision may also decrease womenÊs willingness to commit crime by reducing their appetite for risk (or channeling it toward sustaining valued relationships) and increasing attachment to family or other authority figures and prosocial peers. Males, however, are not as closely supervised and spend more unstructured time with peers, increasing their ability and willingness to engage in risky behaviors, particularly those oriented toward status or competitive advantage.

44 |

Women Criminals

The organization of gender, including the development of gendered identities at the individual level, is reproduced in gendered interactions at the mesolevel and constrained by gender stratification at the macro-level. In other words, gender is played out at multiple levels·as „gendered selves‰ (see Lorber, 1994, on identities); in „doing gender‰ (see West and Zimmerman, 1987, on gendered social interactions); and via the „gender system‰ (e.g., see Ridgeway and Correll, 2004, on gender stratification/inequality). These various facets of gender· the organization of gender·shape female and male motives, opportunities, and contexts of criminal behavior. Recall that macro-level perspectives understand crime patterns as rooted in networks of social relationships and structured by social inequality. We briefly review research that highlights how social arrangements related to gender and gendered inequalities shape macro-level patterns of offending. First, gendered social relations and dominant gender norms place females at a disadvantage in terms of recruitment into crime groups and upward mobility within crime groups into central positions (Steffensmeier, 1983). Within crime groups, women tend to function in one of two roles: sexual media roles that use or exploit female sexuality as a resource (e.g., prostitution, crime to gain entry into a crime group by aligning with a male) or cover roles in which women conceal criminal activity because women are viewed less suspiciously, as less threatening or dangerous, and can take advantage of males by playing on gender stereotypes (e.g., appearing sexually available to set up a robbery victim). This can be understood via the principle of homosocial reproduction in which the powerful tend to reproduce themselves, particularly in highly stratified settings (Steffensmeier, 1983). Males who control the underworld (as well as the upperworld) tend to choose other males with whom to work, associate, and do business. Existing gender norms and stereotypes further limit female opportunities for involvement in lucrative and more organized crime because male offenders typically view criminal work as too difficult or dangerous for women or as too degrading. Males are also reluctant to work with women because they are viewed as less skilled, more emotional and less trustworthy, and less capable of deploying violence (Steffensmeier, 1983; Steffensmeier and Terry, 1986). Existing gender stratification and gender norms often preclude women from developing skills and criminal social networks necessary for lucrative property crimes (Steffensmeier, 1986; Steffensmeier and Ulmer, 2005). Women are placed in stereotypical gender roles within crime groups which do not often lead to career advancement. Maher and DalyÊs (1996) research on womenÊs roles in the crack cocaine drug market provides an excellent illustration of how gender norms and cultural perceptions of physical strength and aggression limit and shape patterns of female offending. Based on ethnographic field work conducted over three years, they concluded that the drug

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 45

trade is highly gender stratified with women sometimes playing lesser roles such as in „advertising‰ of the drug (as with steerers and touts), copping for others, or selling drug accessories; infrequently acting as street-level drug dealers; and almost never occupying high-level owner/manager positions. Gender stereotypes of women as less threatening provided opportunities tangential to the drug trade for women as service providers to male patrons from outside the community. Less often, women were temporarily used as street-level dealers in high-risk situations in part because it was believed that women could operate under lesser suspicion from authorities. In this way, managers hoped to play on the „gendered blindspots‰ of law enforcement. In the past, a few women had sold drugs in their roles as wives/girlfriends of distributors. More often, males were selected into higher level positions by other males, sometimes one of their kin·a process of homosocial reproduction. Also, women were perceived to lack the toughness and capacity for violence required for success in the drug trade. Thus, females could not often develop criminal social networks or enhance their skills, maintaining the skewed sex ratio in the underworld. There is also evidence that female opportunities are somewhat more numerous in less organized, more amateur minor property crime operations (Steffensmeier and Terry, 1986). Opportunities arise for women, often in their roles as girlfriends or wives, to engage in supportive roles such as drivers, lookouts, and holding stolen property, drugs, or weapons. Women also have unique advantages in cashing stolen or forged checks, welfare fraud, shoplifting, and other offenses that take place in the course of female-typical activities such as shopping or banking. This accounts for the narrower gender gap for minor property crime. Generally, female affiliative concerns and nurturant gender roles suppress female offending, particularly for crimes that involves serious violence. However, in times or places with greater environmental sources of crime, gendered social arrangements and expectations mediate environmental effects on violence to shape the form and frequency of female offending. For example, Schwartz (2006b) finds that community economic well-being impedes family formation. Difficulty establishing and maintaining formalized relationships has intensified (especially womenÊs) collective caretaking responsibilities for children and the elderly; the intensified care burden is associated with elevated female homicide rates but not male homicide rates. Moreover, there is evidence that environmental stressors manifest more often in female violence directed against children and (ex)intimates. To better understand variation in the frequency and form of violence and crime, it is important to examine how female social roles, such as caretaking, shape the effects of broad social forces, such as economic and family disadvantages. Harris (1977) suggests that there are commonly understood gendered cultural scripts for the nature and extent of deviant involvement. Though these concepts are difficult to isolate and mea-

46

|

Women Criminals

sure, it is clear that gendered considerations have a place in future macro-level· and multi-level·research. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Female offending rates are, almost without exception, lower than male rates, particularly for serious violence and lucrative property offending. Other contextual features that distinguish female and male offending include (a) victims of females are more often (ex)intimates and family members; (b) women are more like to act alone or in roles that are temporary and/or oriented around sexuality; and (c) female criminals are often motivated by relational concerns, whereas male criminals are often motivated by status concerns. Yet, the backgrounds of female and male offenders tend to be similarly disadvantaged and environmental factors related to social disorganization and/or strain are associated with increased offending by both sexes. Macro-level theory-building efforts ought to take into account both universal factors related to offending as well as gender-related concerns. Gender is not only an individual-level attribute but an integral part of social interactions and placement within a stratification system. Therefore, gender fundamentally shapes motives and opportunities for crime. Gender norms, affiliative concerns and sexuality, and social control differences structure the effects and outcomes of broad social forces such as economic and familial deficits. Future empirical research should work to account for gendered processes of macrolevel relationships to better understand gender similarities and differences in the extent and nature of offending. Notes 1. Areas characterized by economic deprivation tend to have high rates of residential mobility (they are abandoned as soon as it is economically feasible). This mobility leads to rapid changes in ethnic composition of the neighborhoodÊs residents, and ethnic heterogeneity, in turn, does not allow residents to establish effective communication because differences in traditions, customs, and values, as well as a lack of shared experiences, may create mistrust among people and breed fear. As a result, disconnected residents of these disadvantaged neighborhoods have difficulties establishing common values, enacting informal control, and solving commonly experienced problems that can have consequences for criminal behavior. 2. More prevalent are studies that explore the link between gender inequality and womenÊs victimization (Bailey and Peterson, 1995; DeWees and Parker, 2003; Gartner, 1990; Smith and Brewer, 1992). 3. There is evidence of the latter provided by Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000a, and Schwartz, 2006a; they both find that structural conditions exert marginally stronger effects on male patterns of crime. 4. It is important to note that Simon (1975) emphasized more heavily changes in female opportunities for crime resulting from womenÊs movement into paid work. Steffensmeier (1978; 1980) points out that womenÊs minor property crimes may have risen in the 1970s given increased opportunities provided by low-level service jobs, but womenÊs serious property offending did not change much. This is more consistent with opportunity theory than with AdlerÊs conceptualization.

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 47

References Adler, F. 1975. Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill. Agnew, R. 1992. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30: 47ă87. Anderson, E. 1999. Code of the Streets: Decency, Violence and the Moral Life of Inner Cities. New York: W.W. Norton. Bailey, W. C., and R. D. Peterson. 1995. Gender inequality and violence against women: The case of murder. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality (174ă205). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Barkan, S. E. 2006. Criminology: A Sociological Understanding (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Beutel, A. M., and M. M. Marini. 1995. Gender and values. American Sociological Review 60: 436ă448. Bianchi, S. M., and D. Spain. 1986. American Women in Transition. New York: Russell Sage. Blau, J., and P. Blau. 1982. The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime. American Sociological Review 47(1): 114ă129. Box, S., and C. Hale. 1984. Liberation/emancipation, economic marginalization, or less chivalry: The relevance of three theoretical arguments to female crime patterns in England and Wales, 1951ă1980. Criminology 22: 473ă497. Broidy, L., and R. Agnew. 1997. Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34: 275ă306. Browne, A. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: Free Press. Bursik, R. J. 1988. Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology 26: 519ă551. Bursik, Robert J., and H. G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington. Byrne, J., and R. Sampson. (eds.) 1986. The Social Ecology of Crime. New York: Springer-Verlag. Chafetz, J. S. 1974. Masculine/feminine or Human? An Overview of the Sociology of Sex. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers. Chesney-Lind, M. 1986. Women and crime: The female offender. Signs 12: 78ă101. Chesney-Lind, M. 1989. GirlsÊ crime and womanÊs place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency 35: 5ă29. Chesney-Lind, M. 1995. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chesney-Lind, M. 2004. Girls and violence: Is the gender gap closing? VAWNET Applied Research Forum. http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_GirlsViolence.pdf Chesney-Lind, M., and R. G. Shelden. 1992. Girls, Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Cohen, A. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Daly, K. 1989. Gender and varieties of white-collar crime. Criminology 27: 769ă793. Daly, K. 1994. Gender, Crime, and Punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Daly, K. M., and M. Chesney-Lind. 1988. Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly 5: 497ă538. DeWees, Mari, and Karen F. Parker. 2003. Women, region, and types of homicide: Are there regional differences in the structural status of women and homicide offending? Homicide Studies 7(4): 368ă393.

48 |

Women Criminals

Durkheim, E. 1952. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press. Esbensen, F. A., and D. Huizinga. 1990. Community structure and drug use from a social disorganization perspective. Justice Quarterly 7(4): 691ă709. Feld, B. 2009. Violent girls or relabeled offender? An alternative interpretation of the data. Crime and Delinquency 55(2): 241ă265. Gartner, R. 1990. The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review 55: 92ă106. Gelsthorpe, L., and A. Morris. 1988. The feminism and criminology in Britain. British Journal of Criminology 28(2): 93ă110. Gilligan, C. 1982. In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and WomenÊs Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hagan, J. 1994. Crime and Disrepute. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Hagan, J., A. R. Gillis, and J. Simpson. 1987. Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology 92: 788ă816. Harris, A. R. 1977. Sex and theories of deviance. American Sociological Review 42(1): 3ă16. Heimer, K., S. M. Wittrock, and H. Unal. 2005. Gender, crime and the economic marginalization of women. In Karen Heimer and Candace Kruttschitt (Eds.), Gender and Crime: Patterns of Victimization and Offending (115ă136). New York: New York University Press. Heimer, Karen. 2000. Changes in the gender gap in crime and womenÊs economic marginalization. http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02i.pdf. Huizinga, D. 2005. Effects of neighborhood and family structure on violent victimization and violent delinquency. A report of the Denver Youth Survey David Huizinga. http://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/216000.pdf. Hunnicutt, G., and L. M. Broidy. 2004. Liberation and economic marginalization: A reformation and test of (formerly?) competing models. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41: 130ă155. Jacob, J. C. 2006. Male and female youth crime in Canadian communities: Assessing the applicability of social disorganization theory. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48: 31ă60. Kornhauser, R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, M. R., and G. D. Stevenson. 2006. Gender-specific homicide offending in rural areas. Homicide Studies 10(1): 55ă73. Leonard, E. B. 1982. Women, Crime, and Society. A Critique of Theoretical Criminology. New York: Longman. Lorber, J. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Maher, L., and K. Daly. 1996. Women in the street-level drug economy: continuity or change? Criminology 34: 465ă491. McCarthy, B. R. 1991. Social structure, crime and social control: An examination of factors influencing rates and probabilities of arrest. Journal of Criminal Justice 19: 19ă30. Merton, R. K. 1938. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3: 672ă682. Merton, R. K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged edition. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Merton, R. K. 1968. Social structure and anomie. In Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged edition (185ă214). New York: The Free Press. Messerschmidt, J. W. 1993. Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 49

Messerschmidt, J. W. 1997. Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class and Crime in the Making. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Messerschmidt, J. W . 2000. Nine Lives: Adolescent Masculinities, the Body, and Violence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Miller, E. M. 1986. Street Woman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Miller, J., and C. W. Mullins. 2006. Stuck up, telling lies, and talking too much: The gendered context of young womenÊs violence. In Gender and Crime: Patterns of Victimization and Offending, edited by Karen Heimer and Candace Kruttschnitt, 41ă66. New York: New York University Press. Miller, Jody. 1998. Up it up: Gender and the accomplishment of street robbery. Criminology 36: 37ă66. Naffine, N. 1987. Female Crime: the Construction of Women in Criminology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Naffine, N., and F. Gale. 1989. Testing the nexus: Crime, gender, and unemployment. British Journal of Criminology 29(2): 144ă156. Reckdenwald, A., and K. F. Parker. 2008. The influence of gender inequality and marginalization and types of female offending. Homicide Studies 12: 208ă226. Reiss, Albert J. 1951. Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American Sociological Review 16: 196ă207. Richie, B. E. 1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New York: Routledge Press. Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley J. Correll. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs in social relations. Gender & Society 18(4): 510ă531. Rountree, P. W., and B. D. Warner. 1999. Social ties and crime: Is the relationship gendered? Criminology 37: 789ă814. Sampson, R. J. 1987. Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption. American Journal of Sociology 93: 348ă382. Sampson, R. J. 1997. Collective regulation of adolescent misbehavior: Validation results from eighty Chicago neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research 12: 227ă244. Sampson, R. J., and W. B. Groves. 1989. Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology 94: 774ă802. Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277 (5238): 918ă924. Schwartz, J. 2006a. Family structure as a source of female and male homicide in the United States. Homicide Studies 10(4): 253ă278. Schwartz, J. 2006b. Effects of diverse forms of family structure on womenÊs and menÊs homicide. Journal of Marriage and Family 68: 1292ă1313. Schwartz, J. 2007. Comparing women and men who kill: Gender differences in homicide offending. In Matthew DeLisi and Pete Conis (Eds.), Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Public Policy, and Practice (119ă140). Boston: Jones & Bartlett. Schwartz, J. 2008. Effects of two sources of male capital on female and male rates of violence: The institutions of family men and old heads. Sociological Perspectives 51(1): 91ă117. Schwartz, J., and Bryan Rookey. 2008. The narrowing gender gap in arrests: Assessing competing explanations using self-report, traffic fatality, and official data on drunk driving. Criminology 43(2): 355ă406. Schwartz, J., and D. J. Steffensmeier. 2007. The nature of female offending: Patterns and explanation. In R. Zaplin (Ed.), Female Offenders: Critical Perspective and Effective Interventions (43ă76). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

50 |

Women Criminals

Schwartz, J., D. Steffensmeier, and B. Feldmeyer. 2009a. Assessing trends in womenÊs violence via data triangulation: Arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and victim reports. Social Problems 56(3): 494ă525. Schwartz, J., D. Steffensmeier, H. Zhong, and J. Ackerman. 2009b. Trends in the gender gap in violence: Re-evaluating NCVS and other evidence. Criminology 47(2): 701ă724. Shaw, C. R., and H. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shihadeh, E. S., and D. J. Steffensmeier. 1994. Economic inequality, family disruption, and urban Black violence: Cities as units of stratification and social control. Social Forces 73: 571ă729. Simon, R. 1975. Women and Crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Smith, M. Dwayne, and Victoria E. Brewer. 1992. A sex-specific analysis of correlates of homicide victimization in United States cities. Violence and Victims 7: 279ă286. South, S. J., and S. F. Messner. 1986. Structural determinants of intergroup association: Interracial marriage and crime. American Journal of Sociology 91: 1409ă1430. Stark, R. 1987. Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology 25(4): 893ă909. Steffensmeier, D. J. 1978. Crime and the contemporary woman: An analysis of changing levels of female property crime; 1960ă75. Social Forces 57: 566ă584. Steffensmeier, D. J. 1980. Assessing the impact of the womenÊs movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime and Delinquency 26: 344ă357. Steffensmeier, D. J. 1983. Organization properties and sex-segregation in the underworld: Building a sociological theory of sex differences in crime. Social Forces 6: 1010ă1032. Steffensmeier, D. J. 1986. The Fence: In the Shadows of Two Worlds. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Steffensmeier, D. J., and E. Allan. 1996. Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 459ă487. Steffensmeier, D. J., E. Allan, and C. Streifel. 1989. Development and female crime: A cross-national test of alternative explanations. Social Forces 68: 262ă283. Steffensmeier, D. J., and D. L. Haynie. 2000a. Gender, structural disadvantage, and urban crime: Do macrosocial variables also explain female offending rates? Criminology 38: 403ă439. Steffensmeier, D. J., and D. L. Haynie. 2000b. The structural sources of urban female violence in the United States: A macrosocial gender-disaggregated analysis of adult and juvenile homicide offending rates. Homicide Studies 4: 107ă134. Steffensmeier, D. J., and C. Streifel. 1991. Age, gender, and crime across three historical periods: 1935, 1960, and 1985. Social Forces 69: 869ă894. Steffensmeier, D. J., and C. Streifel. 1992. Time-series analysis of female-to-male arrest for property crimes, 1960ă1985: A test of alternative explanations.‰ Justice Quarterly 9: 78ă103. Steffensmeier, D. J., and J. T. Ulmer. 2005. Confessions of a Dying Thief: Understanding Criminal Careers and Illegal Enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine/Transaction Publishers. Steffensmeier, D. J., and R. Terry. 1986. Institutional sexism in the underworld: A view from the inside. Sociological Inquiry 56: 304ă323. Steffensmeier, D. J., Schwartz, H. Zhong, and J. Ackerman. 2005. An assessment of recent trends in girlsÊ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology 43(2): 355ă405. Sutherland, E. H., and D. R. Cressey. 1974. Criminology. New York: J. B. Lippincott. Taylor, R. 2001. The ecology of crime, fear, and delinquency: Social disorganization versus social efficacy. In R. Paternoster and R. Bachman (Eds.), Explaining Criminals and Crime (124ă139). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives

| 51

Thrasher, F. 1927. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Warner, B. D., and P. W. Rountree. 1997. Local social ties in a community and crime model: Questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Social Problems 44(4): 520ă536. Weisheit, R. 1993. Structural correlates of female homicide patterns. In A. V. Wilson (Ed.), Homicide: The Victim/offender Connection (191ă206). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. West, C., and D. H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1: 125ă151. Zhang, S. X., Chin, K., and Miller, J. (2007). WomenÊs participation in Chinese transnational human smuggling: A gendered market perspective. Criminology 45(3): 699ă733. Zhong, H., and J. Schwartz. 2010. Exploring gender-specific trends in underage drinking across adolescent age groups and measures of drinking: Is girlsÊ drinking catching up with boysÊ? Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39(8): 911ă926.

This page intentionally left blank

WOMEN AND CRIMINAL OFFENDING: INDIVIDUALLEVEL PERSPECTIVES Vickie Jensen, Lizette Barrientos, and Annie Neimand

INTRODUCTION WomenÊs and girlsÊ criminality can be understood on two different levels. The first is macro-analytical explanations that involve looking at larger structures and cultures of society and how these are impacted by and impact upon women and criminality. The essay „Women and Criminal Offending: Societal-Level Perspectives‰ addresses the patterns and explanations of womenÊs criminality from this perspective. The second level at which we can understand womenÊs and girlsÊ criminality is the micro-analytical or individual level. This level seeks to examine and explain the criminal offending of individual women. These women, of course, live in a society, but when we look at their acts individually, we need a different level of approach. Individual-level explanations of crime have been dominant in public, governmental, and even some academic discourse. Collectively, we wonder about particular individuals who have committed crime, particularly the most atrocious. Are they insane? What happened in their families to „make‰ them this way? Is there some biological or medical reason to explain their actions? „Normal‰ people just donÊt act that way. Governmental programs have, most recently, focused on measures to either prevent individuals from committing crimes or to intervene in their criminal careers. The focus on mandatory sentencing is one such policy. It is supposed to make people think twice before committing crimes. Recent trends in criminological theory have focused on processes of choice, control (and self-control), labels, and other processes that hinder or help one to commit crime. In the field of women and crime, individual-level explanations of womenÊs criminality dominated criminology well into the 1960s and 1970s when feminists called for an examination of the systems of gender and gender inequality that impact womenÊs lives and their life opportunities. Social scientific, individual-level thinking in womenÊs crime drew from these examinations to better understand the experiences of individual women and how those translated into crime (see, for example, Heidensohn, 1968).

53

54

|

Women Criminals

Prior to this time, the understanding of womenÊs criminality was drawn heavily from assumptions about womenÊs „nature,‰ biology, and psychological makeup that emphasized narrowly defined gender roles and expectations grounded in womenÊs so-called „natural‰ inclinations toward nurturing children, passivity, and homemaking. From the early part of the history of this country until Cesare LombrosoÊs work in the late 1800s, the battle was between the „evil‰ woman and the „mad‰ one. Women either acted criminally because they were somehow evil and immoral, sinning against their „true‰ selves, or they were sick and incapacitated thus alienated from their „natural‰ selves. Acts that most often caught the attention of the legal system were those that stepped outside those rigid gender roles. What the courts needed to discover was whether the woman was acting out of some insanity that made her leave her senses temporarily. If this was the case, the woman was deemed reformable and sent for „treatment‰ and reeducation; many offenses were not punished with criminal penalties (Morton, 2004). Should a woman fail to be designated insane at the moment of the crime, she was branded as „evil‰ and beyond salvation. Such women were subjected to the ravages of brutal imprisonment or execution. The Salem Witch Trials are a famous example of such a search for evil in the form of accusing women of being witches who allegedly seduced men and made townspeople sick. In reality, the women who were put to death during this period of time in the 1600s were widows who had inherited property from husbands and who were less likely than other „proper‰ women to defer to menÊs authority. They were not trusted because they lacked the supervision of men. As such, they were most vulnerable to the witch hunt panics created by superstition (Morton, 2004). (See for example Sarah Osborn and Anne Hutchinson.) From the evil versus insane debate came a stubborn and persistent focus on womenÊs biological and psychological nature, traits, and competencies with respect to criminal behavior. Many argued that women were biologically and/or psychologically inferior with respect to committing the most serious of crimes, and when women did commit such crimes, they could not be „real‰ women. These historical perspectives were highly essentialist, depending heavily upon assumptions that gender differences are somehow inherent, natural, and unchanging. Elements of biological and psychological perspectives still exist, though the scope has generally been reduced and the connections made more crime-specific. From the emergence of academic feminism, the woman-centered social scientific discussion of women and crime has involved looking at the experiences of women and criminal womenÊs lives as well as the socialization of gender in our society. Some other non women-centered theories in criminology have either made arguments about girls and women or have been tested to see if their arguments hold up for women criminals.

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 55

Overall, individual-level approaches to women and crime cover a great deal of ground, and, historically, some have contributed heavily toward essentialist thinking about gender and crime. The most promising perspectives currently either specifically focus on one crime or set of crimes or include a clear understanding of how gender impacts the lives of criminal women. DIAGNOSING AND DEFINING WOMEN’S CRIMINALITY There is a historical link between mental illness and diagnosis and womenÊs criminality. WomenÊs criminal behavior, particularly violent behavior, has been subjected to evaluation as either „mad‰ or „bad.‰ Psychiatric evaluation focused on what kinds of mental aberrations would make women deviate from their „true nature.‰ When such an „aberration‰ was found, women were subjected to „treatment‰ that would restore their appreciation for the so-called true nature of womanhood. This diagnosis of mental illness and women was (an in some ways still is) dominated by patriarchal concerns and definitions of mental disorder that reflect the gender stereotypes that maintain gender inequalities. Chesler (1994) notes that women who were institutionalized in asylums from the mid-1800s to mid-1900s were subjected to conditions and interventions that were lacking in kindness or appropriate medical expertise. These women were abused by the system, treated in a punishing way, and required to adjust to their lives as powerless women in the patriarchy. When they did not, so-called treatments intensified including use of brutal shock therapy, straitjackets, lobotomies, and mandatory labor in the asylums. Some women who simply expressed their views and angered men in their lives were subjected to mental illness labeling and „treatment‰ with the goal of desistance of womenÊs original thinking. As Chesler states: „Adjustment to the ÂfeminineÊ role was the measure of female morality, mental health, and psychiatric progress‰ (1994: 20). Indeed, much of what was called mental illness for women was either created, in large part, from the effects of patriarchal injustice and/or were exacerbated and worsened by the dehumanization and degradation that accompanied institutionalization. Morton (2004) notes that from the 1770s to 1860s, the model for womenÊs reformatories was based upon the other kind of woman offender who was not deemed mentally ill: the fallen woman. These women were seen as having rejected the moral higher ground that women were supposed to occupy and, instead, were shunned from society as evil women who had sinned against their true nature and who deserved their incarceration in „reformatories,‰ which were characterized by little care for the conditions in which criminal women lived. These practices began to change in the 1870s when the domestic cottage model of womenÊs reformatories emerged, reflecting the desire to retrain women in the ways of „domestic life.‰

56

|

Women Criminals

Embedded in both psychiatric diagnosis and criminal definition were attempts to enforce traditional gender roles and gender values. Those women who did not comply were either „sick‰ or were simply „evil.‰ The use of institutionalization and imprisonment had strong parallels that centered on the enforcement of gender conformity and deviantizing that fell outside the lines. While the United States, thankfully, stopped burning alleged witches at the stake, the same process of traditional gender definition and attempts to redeem, retrain, or morally reject women who did not comply continued in new forms. Schur (1984) comments that women are still sometimes labeled as deviant in a way that continues to enforce gender conformity. The same behavior can be labeled in different ways, depending on the context and the interests of those who have the power to label. In many cases, the definitions of womenÊs deviance still rely heavily upon traditional expectations around sexuality, emotions, choices about childbirth and family, presentation of self, appearance, sexual orientation, and choices in the workforce. Women who violate these expectations risk the stigma that accompanies a deviant label and the potential impact on further behavior as self-fulfilling prophecy. This process intersects with the criminal justice system in ways that have a direct impact upon definitions of offending. The criminal justice system has been recognized as a formal means of social control and one which reflects and enforces many attitudes and values that are not directly part of the letter of the law. Visher (1983) has found that one of the most important factors in womenÊs arrest is demeanor. When womenÊs behavior fulfills traditional gender expectations of passivity and great politeness, women are less likely to be arrested than their more assertive counterparts. Whereas police have discretion in arrest in some circumstances, this discretion can become influenced by a belief in particular kinds of social control, including that of gender. When women adhere to gender traditional norms or who play gender traditional roles (such as mother), those women may be less likely to be identified and defined as criminal. More quiet, less violent female serial murderers may not be noticed and identified until much later than their male counterparts (Hickey, 2009). Women who kill infants may escape scrutiny initially if they are able to play the role of grieving mother whose baby died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), for example. The mental state of a woman who is identified as killing an infant is often brought into question and may receive a lighter sentence than a comparable man whose frame of mind or mental status are not brought into question (Porter and Gavin, 2010). Playing the traditional role of grieving mother helped deflect suspicion from Susan Smith, for example, as she fulfilled the expectations we associate with motherhood in her public statements and pleas for the alleged kidnappersÊ return of her sons who in truth she herself had drowned. The playing of this role kept her from suspicion for weeks. One important aspect of the process of defining womenÊs criminality is the focus on the individual rather than on the social system or society that influences womenÊs

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 57

lives. Whether the focus is on designations of mental illness or incapacity, or if there are particularly greedy or „evil‰ motives for committing crime, emphasis is deflected from the influence of larger social forces. The definition process relies heavily on emphasizing the individual woman and minimizing these larger influences. In studying women and offending, it is important to examine the intersections of societal and individual, and social and psychological/biological, in order to best understand women as criminals and to understand both the etiology of criminality as well as the ways in which definitions are placed upon women that designate criminality or something else. BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES There are several different kinds of biological perspectives that have been and are applied to womenÊs offending. These perspectives either draw upon some specific feature of womenÊs anatomical makeup vis-à-vis men or generally rely upon arguments that connect womenÊs particular biology to her the ability to bear children. Good quality research is generally lacking in these areas or has not been consistent. There are other biological perspectives, such as the impact of brain injury and cognitive dysfunction, that do not seem to have been examined for gender differences much at all but which are invoked as an argument for some womenÊs offending. Early Biological Perspectives: Lombroso Cesare Lombroso, considered the father of criminology, introduced the theory that there is a biological basis to criminality·that some people are born criminal. His work attributed crime to anatomy. He believed that based on someoneÊs appearance, individuals could be identified as criminal or noncriminal. Criminals were atavists, that is, evolutionary throwbacks. In other words, they were not as evolved as „normal‰ individuals and were representative of an earlier evolutionary state. Lombroso (with Ferrero) expanded their work to analyze different images of „fallen‰ women from all over Europe. His research on the different characteristics of these women provides a description that includes receding foreheads, facial asymmetry, overdevelopment of the lower jaw, projecting cheek bones, projecting and anomalous ears, tattoos, piercing, and thin lips. The goal was to create a typology of deviance that could be used to explain womenÊs offending. Women offenders, according to Lombroso and Ferraro, were atavists among women. Women were thought to be less evolved than men and less capable of reason. This is the reason they argued that women who were normally developed were less criminal. They associated the capacity to reason to be connected to the ability to engage in behavior that was moral and civilized. For women who allegedly were not as capable of reason, the noncriminal woman was one who had the ability to adhere to the expectations of

58

|

Women Criminals

women. However, the atavist woman was a serious threat as she was not evolved enough to display womenÊs expected passivity and other „feminine‰ traits (Lombroso and Ferrero, 1895). It is unclear how much of a direct legacy Lombroso left for the understanding of womenÊs crime. Later writers most certainly drew from a biological approach in attempting to understand women who committed crimes, but they did so in ways that argued more that womenÊs crime and the pattern of womenÊs crime was secondarily related to the effects of biology (e.g., a response to the reality of menstruation) rather than directly related (i.e., LombrosoÊs contention that differential anatomy was the cause) (Rock, 2007). The criminologists like Lombroso who argued that crime was directly derived from subnormal anatomical development were relatively rare, even for their time period. There were more loosely structured arguments that criminal women were somehow more manlike, whether it be in appearance or behavior. The argument that criminal women possessed excessive traits of men persisted into the early 1900s. Traits of so-called masculinity were suppressed in normal womenÊs lives by the traditional feminine qualities of passivity, weakness, purity, and childbearing. Still, there were some at this time who began to espouse the beginning of a social scientific view on womenÊs offending. For example, Frances Kellor, around 1900, explained that criminal womenÊs poorer performance on physical and intelligence tests was more likely due to poverty and other deficits in their backgrounds than their innate tendencies. Kellor did, however, categorize criminal women as being like misbehaved children who were easily influenced by men (Pollock, 1998). It would, however, be more than half a decade before biological and innate psychological arguments, with their essentialist assumptions, would be significantly challenged. Biology of Women’s Sexuality and Menstruation A central feature in theorizing about womenÊs criminality within biology and biologically based psychology has been the impact of womenÊs reproductive processes and sexuality. Otto Pollak (1950), unlike Lombroso, saw women and men as possessing equal potential for criminality. He argued that the differences apparent in womenÊs and menÊs offending rates were due to differential treatment by the criminal justice system and womenÊs own skill at preventing the discovery of many of their crimes. WomenÊs offenses were more obscured by favorable treatment given to women in criminal justice processing. In addition to the lenient treatment from the criminal justice system, Pollak argued that women had developed a „deceitful‰ nature because of their need to hide menstruation (Belknap, 2007). Emphasis was placed especially on early sexual maturation. According to Pollak, menstruation

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 59

in particular was seen as a final confirmation that a girl would never be able to be a man, something that was said to lead to feelings of injustice (Pollak, 1950; Weisheit, 1984). Pollak also made the argument that this deceit was found with regard to womenÊs role and behavior during sexual intercourse. Because of the „inactive‰ role played during sex and womenÊs so-called ability to hide orgasms, PollakÊs interpretation was that womenÊs responses to sex were rooted in biology. He ignored the significant impact of the cultural and social influences of gender roles and employed a gender-biased interpretation of womenÊs presumed lack of orgasm (Belknap, 2007). Even within the rise of a social scientific feminist criminology that started in the late 1960s, the arguments linking womenÊs menstruation to their criminality have persisted. In the 1970s, postmenstrual syndrome (PMS) was identified as a hormone-induced period of increased irritability, moodiness, and other emotional disruption that was thought to occur in the days before the menstrual period. Since then, PMS as been described as a „biological problem‰ for the female population (Belknap, 2007). Proponents of the PMS argument have argued that the menstrual cycle is characterized by highly fluctuating hormones that, at their height, results in PMS and an increased likelihood for violence and other deviant behavior. The image of this perspective, labeled by many as antifeminist, is one of womenÊs instability which researchers have attempted to link to criminal behavior without conclusive results. PMS has been used as a legal defense with limited success, but the implications for womenÊs rights ethically and politically are highly problematic (Anderson, 2007). It is also important to note that these changes occur in a social context, and, often, correlations between such hormonal changes and deviant or aggressive behavior cannot be substituted for a causal relationship. In other words, if PMS and deviance/aggression are somehow occurring at the same time, we cannot conclude that the cause of the behavior is the change in hormones. There may be other factors at work. The emphasis on PMS and similar womenÊs hormonal issues is an emphasis on womenÊs pathology·medical and other internal explanations of aberrant behaviors. To emphasize womenÊs pathology dismisses the reality that womenÊs actions are based on normal responses to the pains of living in a society that is characterized by womenÊs disadvantage. Thus, aggression and rage can become attributed to PMS rather than an understandable response to discrimination and mistreatment. This rise in the use of PMS as explanation has become one of the most recent resurrections of those old claims that womenÊs biology is the cause of womenÊs „maladjusted‰ behavior or fits of rage and anger. It places women in a tricky position, which is, ultimately, unwinnable. Those women who do suffer from the hormonal effects surrounding menstruation cannot seek help for this without risking being labeled as mentally unstable and potential criminals (Nechas and Foley, 1994).

60

|

Women Criminals

Biological-Psychological Explanations for Mothers Who Kill Their Children One specific kind of crime that has been addressed most often with regard to biological and biologically psychological explanations is a womanÊs killing of her own children (infanticide for babies and filicide for children). The essentialist view of women as being biologically and naturally inclined toward motherhood is violated by women who kill their babies and children. Societal response to such mothers is incredulous, and discussion usually moves quickly toward understanding some individual, biological, or psychological reason for the „unspeakable‰ act. Women who kill babies are most frequently explained in terms of biological or psychological pathologies that would lead to the killing of their own infant children. Several countries, including England, have instituted laws that reduce the charges for women who kill their children under the age of one and who show evidence of mental disturbance, reducing the offenses to manslaughter rather than murder. England passed the Infanticide Act in 1938. Other countries have granted special legal status to infanticide including Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand. Embedded in these laws is the argument that women who give birth are subject to such dramatic shifts in hormones and other psychological and physiological adaptation to the postpartum period that killing their children can be the result of such biological problems. The United States has not followed this lead of granting new mothers special legal status and, instead, prosecutes women who kill children with full force, sometimes more strongly than it does the killing of other victims (Dobson and Sales, 2000). The central argument in the thinking that childbirth can lead to the killing of babies is that hormonal disruptions cause psychological states that are distressing enough for a mother to turn on her child. Postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis is often cited in these cases. Postpartum depression is a depression that usually appears between two and six weeks postpartum, although some cases have shown later than that. It is not to be confused with „baby blues,‰ which occur immediately after birth and which are usually gone by two weeks or so after the birth of the child (Blum, 2007). Postpartum depression is diagnosable using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) using a specifier in the diagnostic process to indicate that a depressive episode occurred within four weeks of giving birth. This modifier may also be applied to brief psychotic disorder that refers to the sudden onset of a set of psychotic symptoms including delusions, hallucinations, and so forth. Postpartum psychosis is not considered to be an ongoing psychotic state. Postpartum psychosis is diagnosed as a far extreme form of psychological reaction to childbirth (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000).

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 61

The argument that hormones cause problems throughout the postpartum period of all women is not well-founded. In the case of neonaticide, killing in the first 24 hours after birth, the impact of the hormonal shifts causing the „baby blues‰ has not had time to take hold. Little evidence can be found that women who kill their infants within 24 hours of giving birth are seriously mentally ill or exhibit any symptoms that indicate diminished capacity. Instead, what is more typical is that these women and girls tend to be young and unmarried, and they wish to conceal the pregnancy and birth. Killing the baby seems like the only way to continue the secret of the pregnancy (Dobson and Sales, 2000). However, despite the fact that this kind of killing does occur, it is likely to elicit reactions of horror and the quest to find some biological or psychological pathology to explain it. Research has found that the first 24 hours after birth is one of the most vulnerable ages for homicide victimization with nearly 50 percent of children murdered under the age of one dying within 24 hours of birth. Mental illness is generally not present in these cases. Instead, there are several different kinds of life influences on a pregnant and birthing woman that are much more prevalent. Denial of pregnancy is one of the most frequent. This is often experienced simultaneously with fear of being pregnant and having the pregnancy found out by others. This denial sometimes has physiological outcomes, including continued menstruation. Denial can go so far as to push the pregnancy from consciousness resulting in a birth that occurs seemingly by surprise. The lack of conscious recognition of a pregnancy denies important bonding with the fetus, and this increases the risk to the newborn baby. In a small number instances, there may have been a prior psychological illness, but in these cases, this is a problem that precedes the biological reality of birth. These women have, however, experienced very little to no support from individuals in their lives and in their pregnancies, often not having anyone notice that they have gained weight or that their bodies have changed while pregnant. A pregnancy can be a threat to the girlÊs or womanÊs social system as she is faced with hiding and denying the pregnancy rather than risk disapproval, rejection, or worse. These circumstances can be are exacerbated by a lack of financial resources to terminate the pregnancy or to take care of a newborn, thus forcing young women into the proverbial corner and increasing the chance that she might kill the newborn (Meyer and Olberman, 2001; Porter and Gavin, 2010). The advent of postpartum depression has also provided another route for biological arguments to explain women who kill their young children. The connection between postpartum depression and womenÊs killing of their children is weak. There is little to indicate that there is a significant difference in the number of women who suffer from depression in the general population and postpartum (Dobson and Sales, 2000). An additional problem for those who advocate that postpartum depression is a physiological result of the hormones of womenÊs childbirth is the increasing evidence that this depression is not directly linked to hormonal processes.

62

|

Women Criminals

Earlier thinking about postpartum depression connected it to hormones and biological causes, but the research has more or less pulled away from that perspective. When researchers propose causal models that involve biological components, social psychological and social factors take precedence over biological ones (Blum, 2007). These social and social psychological factors include instrumental and emotional support from the motherÊs partner and close family, particularly in the face of other stressful life events suggesting social support serves as a buffer between stressors and the development of depression after childbirth (Collins et al., 1993). Medical difficulties with the delivery such as induced labor and caesarian section are also associated with postpartum depression. What is problematic is not the particular physical experience but the psychological adjustment to it (Campbell and Cohn, 1991). These factors are not biological and, given the weak or nonexistent association with infanticide, postpartum depression is not a useful explanation for why women kill their children. Postpartum psychosis refers to the emergence of psychotic symptoms (e.g., hallucinations, delusions) after giving birth and is thought by some to be at the furthest extreme of hormonal and other postpartum influences on a womanÊs mental status. Symptoms can include cognitive disorganization, bizarre behavior, and homicidal ideation, some say more so than for women with psychotic depression not in a postpartum period (Wisner, Peindl, and Hanusa, 1994). Postpartum psychosis is estimated to occur in 1ă2 cases per 1,000 births (Kumar, 1994). The term was given public recognition and discussion in the case of Andrea Yates, a mother who drowned her five children allegedly because of postpartum psychosis. The prevalence of postpartum onset of psychotic symptoms is very rare, and those who kill children as a result are even rarer. Some researchers have found that it is not a particularly unique form of the disease, like postpartum depression, as many of these cases do not resolve after the postpartum period (Porter and Gavin, 2010). Of the three postpartum mental health challenges experienced by women·„baby blues,‰ postpartum depression, and postpartum psychosis·postpartum psychosis is the only one given any possible credibility as a resulting medical/psychological factor of childbirth that has the potential to lead to homicidal acts, though those acts are extremely rare even for women with diagnosable postpartum psychosis (Dobson and Sales, 2000). The drive to psychologically diagnose mothers who kill their children is one side of the „mad versus bad‰ debate in addressing women who kill their children. The act violates the publicÊs sense of what is part of the natural order of things: women nurturing and caring for their children. Thus, women who kill children tend to get psychological consideration first. In other words, a woman who kills her child must have had a psychological problem that led to her away from her so-called natural role. When society cannot find a psychological problem, such as in the case of

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 63

Susan Smith or Casey Anthony, the only other option is to consider that woman as evil and otherwise unredeemable (Wilczynski, 1991). PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES AND WOMEN’S CRIMINAL OFFENDING In addition to perspectives that connect biology to womenÊs offending, there are several areas of psychology that have received attention with regard to womenÊs offending. The literature in this area is quite varied in coverage and quality and does not coalesce very well into any unified perspective. Some of the literature, such as that in brain injury/cognitive deficits, does not directly address women at all. Furthermore, some of the literature in psychology depends upon diagnoses that contain within them their own gender biases. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, there are psychological factors that are salient and need to be addressed within a comprehensive, multifaceted view of the woman offender. This section reviews some nonexhaustive samples of how psychology has been applied to some kinds of womenÊs offending. Cognitive and/or Learning Deficits One of the more controversial areas of psychology has been in connecting cognitive deficits, brain injury, and learning disabilities to criminal offending. This literature offers primarily correlational and exploratory discussion as to the connection between the brain and criminal behavior, particularly violence. IQ levels as well as learning disabilities are have been found to be related to criminality, according to some published literature. Lower IQ and the presence of learning disabilities are associated with a greater propensity toward juvenile delinquency and adult criminality. These factors alone are extremely unlikely to create criminal behavior. Other probable explanatory factors have been identified such as parental mental illness, temperamental issues, neurological problems, genetic susceptibility, and environmental influences. These can all affect both IQ and criminal behavior. An additional potential factor linking IQ or learning disabilities to criminality is an absence of proper intervention to address learning and social difficulties. Without help, children who are struggling may find themselves frustrated and acting out in response to that frustration. Another potential linking factor is selfesteem and the power of labeling. A child who is identified as having a low IQ or learning disabilities may be labeled as „slow‰ or „stupid,‰ which, in turn, can have a negative effect on the childÊs emotional and social development. An internalized label of „stupid‰ is far from conducive to a healthy self-image. What is important to note about the IQ/learning disabilities connection to behavior is that the correlation

64 |

Women Criminals

is not some organic, biological connection. Environmental and social factors can help improve resilience and functioning or impair them critically (Fishbein, 1990). Another important point to make is that these discussions have not examined differences between men and women or whether the link between IQ and criminality works the same way for women as it does for men. Most studies have either been constituted by male samples or have not identified gender within the samples at all. Brain injury or other damage has also been cited as being associated with increased aggressive and antisocial behavior. In particular, damage to the frontal lobes responsible for reasoning has been associated with higher levels of aggressiveness. While the argument has been made that such damage disrupts the executive function·that is, the brainÊs organizing ability·there has been no reliable study that has demonstrated that this is the case. The strongest evidence may be the connection between brain damage in the prefrontal region and impulsive subtypes of crime. In general, the increased risk of violence connected to brain injury is less than has been widely presumed (Brower and Price, 2001). There is an argument that a higher IQ and fully intact brain functioning can provide additional abilities to reason, problem solve, and otherwise be able to think through situations and influences of others in ways that serve as a buffer toward other criminogenic influences (Fishbein, 1990). There are several noted cases in which learning difficulties or IQ may have inhibited the ability to be able to resist the use of aggression or to adequately assess the motives of others who wanted them to participate in crimes. Teresa Lewis and Caril Fugate are both examples of women who were convicted of murder or conspiracy to commit murder and whose cognitive and mental abilities were demonstrably low. Teresa LewisÊ IQ was tested at 82, two points above the point at which a defendant is judged as too impaired to execute. She was convicted of hiring her lover and another to kill her husband and son, but later evidence revealed that she was as likely to have been manipulated into doing so by her lover, who saw her vulnerability and who would provide him the insurance money. Caril Fugate was identified by teachers in elementary school as a „slow learner‰ and held back a grade. She was recruited and encouraged by her partner Charles Starkweather to engage in a very violent murder spree. To what degree her alleged limitations made her vulnerable to Starkweather, a seasoned criminal, is unclear. It is clear that Fugate may have had impairment in her thinking at the point she began her crimes with him. Wanda Jean Allen is another example of a woman murderer whose mental and cognitive capacities called into question her full culpability in the crime that ultimately resulted in her execution. As a child, Allen suffered from two head injuries and tested at a 69 IQ. By the time she was on death row, her IQ was 80· questionable at best. Allen committed two acts of homicide but was only convicted of the killing of her lesbian lover. It is unclear exactly how AllenÊs cognitive deficits played into her offending, but she clearly fits the profile suggested by some of the literature in

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 65

the area of cognitive capacity and crime. There are also suggestions that brain injury may have impacted Rosemary West as well. Personality Disorders Personality disorders are recognized in DSM-IV as a diagnosis, although treatment for personality disorders is usually seen as ineffective at best. A personality disorder represents a longtime pattern of inner experience and outward behavior that is seen to „deviate markedly from the expectations of an individualÊs culture‰ (APA, 2000, 689). The range of effects can include cognition, emotional response, interpersonal functioning, and impulse control. The pattern that makes up the personality disorder is seen as unchanging over a wide variety of situations, leading to significant problems in some crucial area of functioning (e.g., work); is of long duration and stable beginning in adolescence or early adulthood; and is not better explained by other mental disorder or medical/pharmacological reasons. Personality disorders have been identified among women criminals, mostly those who are incarcerated. Between quarter and three-quarters of the population of criminal women may be diagnosable with a personality disorder. The general thinking is that personality disorder impacts offending through its effects on such areas as impulsivity and emotionality, resulting in behaviors seen as irresponsible that may be subject to arrest. Others, citing developmental influences, identify the impact of childhood and adult victimization as creating psychological distress that then becomes a psychiatric diagnosis (Warren et al., 2002). The connection between sexual victimization and the development of borderline personality disorder is particularly salient here. Dean and colleagues (2006) additionally report that personality disorder seems to increase the risk of violence when comorbid with a psychotic disorder. They note these effects with respect to borderline, antisocial, and histrionic personality disorders. The most commonly reported personality disorder with respect to women criminals is borderline personality disorder (Morton, 2004). Borderline personality disorder is characterized by an instability in interpersonal relationships and sense of self. Some of the criteria that are employed in diagnosis include frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment, unstable relationships that include changes from idealizing others to devaluing them, impulsivity, intensity in relationships and other emotional areas such as anger expression, and other such instabilities. It is one of the most frequently reported personality disorders among the population diagnosed with a personality disorder (APA, 2000). Borderline personality disorder is reported in about 2 percent of the population, 10 percent of outpatient clients, and 20 percent of inpatient clients (APA, 2000). Reported proportions of women criminals with diagnosable borderline personality disorder range from 15 percent to nearly 30 percent (Warren et al., 2002).

66 |

Women Criminals

Borderline personality disorder is highly associated with childhood experience with trauma including sexual and physical abuse and neglect. The high incidence of borderline personality disorder reported in the population of criminal women is most likely directly reflective of the greater likelihood of having being victims of abuse. Antisocial personality disorder is often associated with men, particularly those who are portrayed as „cold‰ and having no feeling for their victims. It is the professional terminology for those who have been called „psychopaths‰ and „evil.‰ However, it is the reality that both men and women can be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder in early adulthood after adolescent symptoms of conduct disorder. For some crimes, to be criminal is to exhibit symptoms of this particular personality disorder. Criteria for diagnosing antisocial personality disorder (not all need to be met) include a failure to conform to societal norms and laws, deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability or aggressiveness, reckless disregard for safety of others or of the self, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse for wrongdoing (APA, 2000). According to DSM-IV, the overall prevalence of antisocial personality disorder is around 1 percent of the population (APA, 2000). Research has found between 10 percent and 18 percent of criminal women are diagnosed or diagnosable with this personality disorder·a significantly higher number than in the general population (Warren et al., 2002). Of course, one must take into account the fact that criminals by definition meet at least one of the criteria for antisocial personality disorder. The real focus of the diagnosis is on the lack of remorse and impulsivity that simultaneously increase the chances for spontaneous and opportunistic crime and decreases the social controls experienced by the offender who does not or cannot feel empathy for another. Many women criminals have been described in terms of „evil,‰ „remorseless,‰ and otherwise cold, though not necessarily diagnosed as having antisocial personality disorder. A number of them have served or are serving life sentences or are on death row: for example, Aileen Wuornos, Melissa Huckaby, the Manson followers (Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten), and Myra Hindley. Speculation remains that Casey Anthony fits this description. Dependent personality disorder is another personality disorder that has been found in the population of women criminals. Dependent personality disorder, in short, represents a disorder in which a person exhibits an excessive need to be taken care of, which results in passive, submissive, and clinging types of behaviors. Some of the characteristics of dependent personality disorder can include difficulty making decisions or doing things by themselves without others, difficulties expressing dissenting opinions for fear of losing support, going to excessive lengths to obtain the nurturance and support of others, and being unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of oneself. While DSM-IV does not report actual prevalence statistics for this personality disorder, it does state that it is commonly seen in practice (APA, 2000). The research that identifies dependent personality

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 67

disorder as being quite common does not give prevalence figures either, and it is difficult to see if the prevalence within the criminal population is consistent or disproportionate compared to the general population of women. One criticism of the use of dependent personality disorder as a diagnostic category is that it is consistent with forms of femininity that are traditionally encouraged, including submissiveness and the need for men. Dependent personality disorder, if it does play any role in womenÊs criminality, is probably most related to those crimes that women commit either because of the urging of others or in an extreme desire to please them. Mildred Elizabeth Sisk Gillars was thought to have dependent personality disorder. Teresa Lewis was argued to have both a low IQ and dependent personality disorder, which combined to make her unable to fully process the manipulation that she was allegedly receiving from her lover but also made her incapable of making the decision to hire her lover and his friend to kill her husband and son. Her submissiveness and fear of losing what she experienced as love and support allegedly led her to participate in this killing. The argument of low IQ and/or the impairment of the personality disorder was not accepted by the court, and Lewis was executed in 2010. Histrionic personality disorder is also listed as a common personality disorder among the population of criminal women, though actual prevalence figures are not available (Pollock, 1998). Histrionic personality disorder involves what is deemed to be an excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior. Criteria considered for a diagnosis include some of the following: being uncomfortable in situations in which one is not the center of attention; interacting in inappropriate sexual or provocative ways; using physical appearance to draw attention to the self; being both superficial and highly dramatic; and being suggestible (APA, 2000). The connections between this personality disorder and women criminals are not clear, and as some critics have noted, there are several features of borderline, dependent, and histrionic personality disorders that overlap with gender stereotypes about women, and it is for this reason that, at least for these types of personality disorders, we may see a higher than average representation of these personality disorders among criminal women. General Psychological Disorders Several studies have found a relatively high rate of mental illness or other problems related to emotional health among criminal women, particularly those who are incarcerated (Farrow, Kelly, and Wilkinson, 2007). This rate appears to be higher, in general, than that of the general population of women with the exception of schizophrenia and panic disorder (Warren et al., 2002). Morton (2004) reports that around 25 percent of criminal women can be categorized as mentally ill with as many as 25ă60 percent of incarcerated women as having psychological problems. Mental

68

|

Women Criminals

illness is listed as one of the top two problems among imprisoned women. Pollock (1998) reports that 10 percent of incarcerated women have „serious‰ mental health problems. Women in prison appear to have higher rates of psychopathology than men in prison. The connection between mental illness and womenÊs criminality is unclear at best. Most of the research appears to be largely correlational without a clear, identified causal pathway or is based on too few cases to be able to generalize to the larger population. For example, Feldman (2001) states that there seems to be a stronger influence of psychiatric illness on womenÊs violence than there is for men with a rate of psychiatric illness among women convicted of a violent crime that is 28 times greater than that of women in the general population. But why is this? Perhaps violent women with mental illness are more likely to come to the attention of authorities than other women who commit violence, perhaps because the victim patterns are different. There may also be a stable and consistent connection between mental illness and crime for men and women, but the proportion seems higher for women because fewer mentally healthy women commit violence, as compared to men who live in a culture that normalizes and even encourages male violence. Campbell (1993), for example, notes that men are much more likely to see the use of aggression as instrumental, that is, as a tool in order to achieve a purpose. This notion is part of masculine socialization and, as such, brings with it a greater comfort at using aggression (and violence) than women who are socialized to be nurturing and to present a passive and calm demeanor. If men feel more comfortable with aggression, then it is safe to say that more „normal‰ men would engage in it. Other associations between mental illness and womenÊs criminality involve institutional influences upon women. Deinstitutionalization may be a factor that helps explain the high rates of womenÊs mental illness in prisons. In the 1980s, many mental institutions closed, resulting in an increase in homelessness among the mentally ill, including many women who would have had psychological and medical support for violent outbursts. An additional institutional factor involves the impact of incarceration on womenÊs mental health. The stress of incarceration can create various depressions, anxieties, and low self-esteem, and can facilitate the escalation of mild psychological difficulties into full-blown illnesses. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in particular, is a psychological problem that is intensified in the conditions of the prison (see essay „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending‰ for a fuller discussion of PTSD). Psychotic disorders are the most addressed mental illnesses in the literature that may be connected to womenÊs criminal offending, except perhaps alcohol and drug addiction. Schizophrenia is most discussed, though the literature is mixed with regard to its impact on womenÊs criminality. Warren et al. (2002) report that the rates of schizophrenia amongst incarcerated women is not more prevalent than those of a community sample. Modestin, Mauron, and Erni (2002), on the other hand,

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 69

found a higher prevalence rate of schizophrenia in the womenÊs prison population but argued that most of the offenses committed by schizophrenic women were not particularly serious. Violence appears to be of most concern. The subtype of paranoid schizophrenia is most associated with assaultive behavior (Tardiff and Sweillam, 1980). This subtype is most characterized by delusions and hallucinations of grandiosity and/or persecution. Amongst the associated symptoms are anger and argumentativeness (APA, 2000). The disease of schizophrenia per se is likely not the cause of violence, but it is instead the impact of such secondary symptoms as delusions and hallucinations that increase the likelihood of violence. Commanding hallucinations demanding acts of violence are one example of this connection (Junginger, 1996). Other mental health problems have been associated with womenÊs criminality including depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and the like, but it is difficult to separate the rates of these in the incarcerated population, criminal population, and population of women in general. It is true that, whether or not these psychological issues are a causal influence on womenÊs criminality, treatment of them is an issue for correctional personnel (Farrow et al., 2007). There are several examples of women criminals who have been either diagnosed with particular mental illnesses or whose behavior was considered bizarre enough that might warrant one. Elizabeth Bàthory, the countess who killed dozens if not hundreds of young girls allegedly for their blood, is one example. Laurie Dann, a mass murderer who opened fire on a classroom, was treated for bipolar disorder, though the link between bipolar disorder and crime is not clear. Velma Barfield was said to have had a „mental breakdown.‰ Laura Fair plead insanity at her trial with the claim that she was „weak‰ and prone to „hysteria.‰ Hysteria may have presented as anxiety does now. One mental health issue that shows up repeatedly in the literature is alcohol and drug addiction. Morton (2004) places addictions along with mental illness as the top two issues for incarcerated women. Most studies find drug and alcohol dependency to be the most common diagnosis given women in correctional institutions, with some estimates being in excess of 70 percent of women meeting the criteria for addiction. Incarcerated women have been found more likely to use serious drugs and to use them more frequently than incarcerated men who, in comparison, used more alcohol (Pollock, 1998). The motivations for using drugs between men and women may differ as well with many stating that women are more likely to use drugs for escape than men are. This indicates a particular psychological use connected to victimization. (For more discussion, please see „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending‰ essay). Addictions can have two influences on womenÊs crime. First, there is the use of crime to get money for drugs. Robbery, theft, and other economic-based crimes may be committed by addicts for this reason. In some cases, murder may be used. Velma Barfield was addicted to tranquilizers and, according to her story, began stealing from individuals in her care and quickly escalated to killing them. She

70 |

Women Criminals

claimed before her execution that the addiction completely clouded her mind and changed her into a criminal. Cecile Bombeek was a morphine addict who stole and ultimately killed related to her addiction. The cocaine addiction of Regina McKnight led to her conviction for murder not for killing a person intentionally but for being an addict and pregnant. When her baby was born stillborn and tested positive for cocaine in his system, McKnight was arrested, tried, and convicted in South Carolina of murder. Munchausen by Proxy Munchausen by proxy syndrome has been offered as a psychological reason why some women have killed or physically harmed children. Munchausen by proxy is a term used to describe individuals who either create false or real illnesses in a child or other person in order to gather attention for themselves. In over half of the cases, the perpetrator actively produces symptoms, most commonly through poisoning or smothering (Sheridan, 2003). In the case of women who have killed children, Munchausen by proxy syndrome has been offered as a specific explanation for some of the women who either killed their own children or who killed children under their care in medical facilities. It is difficult to say if the homicides were unintentional or if they were the result of a conscious act to kill the child in order to garner sympathy and attention for themselves. Munchausen by proxy syndrome is distinguishable from intentional abuse through motive. Intentional abuse occurs when there is a desire to hurt the child or mistreat the child. In Munchausen by proxy, the child is a tool for the perpetrator to get a specific kind of reaction from others: that of sympathy. Perpetrators often demonstrate symptoms of their own abnormal illness behavior including somatizing (physical symptoms coming out of psychological needs) and factitious (false illness) disorders (Meadow, 2002; Sheridan, 2003). Meadow (2002) lists four key criteria necessary for a diagnosis of Munchausen by proxy syndrome, though it was not formally recognized in DSM-IV. These include the following: (a) an illness in the child that is faked or produced by a parent or guardian, (b) the child is taken to the doctor persistently for illness or injury that the perpetrator denies having caused, (c) the illness goes away when the child is separated from the perpetrator for some time, and (d) the motive for the behavior is an acting out of the need of the perpetrator to assume a form of sick role by proxy or as another form of attention-seeking behavior. Thus far in the literature, research findings indicate that women make up a majority of Munchausen by proxy offenders. Meadow (2002) indicates that women are 95 percent or more of cases. Sheridan (2003) indicates that 75 percent or more are birth mothers but cautions that mothers and women are not the only offenders. Clearly, though, identification of Munchausen by proxy has focused on women and mothers, a process that is particularly aided by its definition as an attention-seeking

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 71

behavior that is subtle and done through children. As well, perpetrators often have a background in health care either through experience or training which is also stereotypical for women. There does not seem to be a gender pattern with regard to victims. The average age is around four years old with slightly over a half of cases at or before the age of two. The typical case has usually gone on for more than a year before diagnosis of Munchausen by proxy. According to an analysis of available literature, in around 6 percent of cases the child dies, most commonly from apnea, which is a common result of smothering. Around a quarter of cases involve apnea, and a little less than a quarter involve problems feeding or lack of eating (anorexia) (Sheridan, 2003). The connection between Munchausen by proxy and the death of children is strong. According to available research, 6 out of 100 children subjected to the diseased caretaker die. Around half of all children affected have siblings, and of those siblings, 25 percent are known to be dead. This indicates that there are likely multiple victims. Around 61 percent of the siblings experienced symptoms similar to the victim or that were otherwise suspicious (Sheridan, 2003). There are some women who have killed multiple children who have been described as displaying the symptoms of Munchausen by proxy. Marybeth Tinning, for one, was ultimately discovered to have killed eight of her children over a 13-year period, many of them through suffocation, which was erroneously diagnosed as SIDS. Because there seemed to be a legitimate illness diagnosed for the children, particularly the first ones, investigation into the murders was significantly stifled. After the revelations of this case, many cases of SIDS were reexamined. Beverly Allitt, on the other hand, was a nurse who had first displayed somatizing and Munchausen symptoms before moving on to harm and kill several child patients in a Munchausen by proxy pattern. She deliberately created symptoms through injections and other means that put the children in life-threatening and deadly jeopardy. It is thought that the drive for Allitt was to receive attention for her „heroic‰ attempts to save the children from death and then to garner sympathy when she did not save them. Stockholm Syndrome Stockholm syndrome refers to the paradoxical bonding or fond feelings that hostages can develop for their captors. It was first identified in Stockholm, Sweden, after a six-day hostage standoff resulted in hostages being uncooperative with police and displaying sympathy for the captors. One woman, allegedly, even became engaged to one of the captors. These situations can involve threats of death, violence, and other brutalization. Further examination of this phenomenon revealed that there are several features of captivity that are particularly influential of this kind of hostage reaction. These are: (a) the captor threatens and has the ability to kill

72

|

Women Criminals

the captive, (b) there is no escape for the captive, which renders him/her dependent upon the captor for survival, (c) the threatened captive is isolated from all other influences and perspectives except that of the captors, and (d) the captor is perceived as showing some form of kindness. These features all emphasize the very extreme power imbalances between captors and captives. From these conditions, captives may need to bond with captors in order to ensure their very survival (Graham, Rawlings, and Rimini, 1988). In fact, the failure to develop positive feelings toward captors may be extremely dangerous for the captive. In this situation, a hostage may develop empathy through the need to bridge the gap between the need for a bond with the hostage-taker and oneÊs feelings of fear, danger, and anger. This empathy allows the captive to see the captor in a more positive light and quell the conflict within. The root of the problem, of course, is the extreme power the hostage-taker has over his or her victim who is left to manage the grave danger in the situation (Kuleshnyk, 1984). A parallel has been drawn between the experiences of hostages in a criminal standoff and the experiences of many battered women; there is a great deal of similarity between the two (Graham et al., 1988). The application of Stockholm syndrome to womenÊs offending can be found in at least a couple of different ways. First, a battered woman who is in a highly controlled and dangerous situation with a batterer may form that traumatic bonding that both inhibits the recognition of the real danger of the situation as well as brings the victimÊs belief system in alignment with the batterers as isolation and exposure to solely to his perspective. A criminal result of this can be twofold. A battered woman who is unable to leave a physically abusive relationship for reasons of safety, economics, and/or emotional ties is at increasing risk of escalating violence the longer she stays in that relationship. If the violence escalates to its most severe level, she may be forced into a position to kill her abuser to save her life. The battered woman may also become involved with the crimes of her batterer as part of a Stockholm syndrome response that arises both out of fear and a sympathy developed out of the experience of abuse alternating with kindness in so-called honeymoon periods in the cycle of violence. The most famous case of Stockholm syndrome connected to womenÊs crime is the case of Patty Hearst. Hearst was kidnapped from her apartment by members of a group calling itself the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). (See biography of Kathleen Soliah for a description of one of its women members.) While the SLA attempted to get several forms of ransom from HearstÊs wealthy family, Hearst, by her account, was locked in a closet for two months while she was physically and sexually assaulted, told repeatedly that no one would rescue her, forcibly exposed to SLA ideology, and told she needed to join the army or be killed. The end result was HearstÊs arrest and conviction for her part on an SLA bank robbery in which it was noted that she didnÊt leave, despite the fact she was armed with a loaded rifle. After she was free from them, Hearst described her actions as strongly relating to the need for her to survive the brutal conditions in which she was held.

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 73

Psychology and biology play some role in understanding womenÊs criminality but the size of this role is debatable. Certainly, physiological differences with men cannot explain the huge gaps between menÊs and womenÊs offending. Many women in the general population are diagnosed with depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, personality disorders, and even schizophrenia and do not commit crimes. The intersections between individual and environment cannot be overlooked. As Modestin and colleagues (2002) have noted adverse effects in the life of a woman schizophrenic can interact with vulnerabilities created by the disease to create a greater potential for crime. They also identify interactions with other problems such as substance abuse disorder that increase the likelihood of crime among women schizophrenics. Clearly, understanding the individual woman criminal is more complicated than simply relying on a diagnosis or turning to biological differences. More research needs to be done that fully explores all of those linkages. SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVES ON INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL WOMEN’S OFFENDING Biology and psychology are insufficient alone to understand the woman offender. Social scientific approaches are clearly needed to understand and establish the contextual influences on women offenders both in terms of development and in terms of the immediate context in which women commit their crimes. Three different areas of individual-level social influence will be examined with respect to criminal offending by women. These are not meant to be an exhaustive list nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Additionally, while this essay directly addresses the individual criminal woman, the reader is also directed to a larger, more societallevel view as discussed in the essay „Women and Criminal Offending: SocietalLevel Perspectives.‰ Socialization Socialization refers to the process of learning oneÊs own culture including its values, norms, symbols, tools, and meaning systems. We learn these things in many areas and many ways. We learn these important lessons about our culture from family, school, media, peers, religion, and other places. We learn directly through instruction and, perhaps more often, indirectly through more passive observation of others and messages presented in arenas like the media. When we examine women and criminal offending, a socialization perspective argues that the ways in which women learn gender have an impact on the kinds of crime they commit and why. In order to examine this connection, we need to ask two important questions: what do women learn about gender and gender roles, and how do they impact the crimes women commit and why?

74

|

Women Criminals

The first sociological discussion of womenÊs gender roles and crime came from the study of prisons. Rose Giallombardo (1966) examined the question of whether prison culture was experienced the same in womenÊs prison as it was in menÊs. What she found among those women criminals was that traditional gender roles related to nurturing, family, and the quest for emotional intimacy were organizing principles in womenÊs prison life. Solidarity was determined on an individual and utilitarian basis. This was quite different from the solidarity demonstrated in menÊs prisons, which was characterized by loyalty, separation from staff and staff values, and enforcement of codes of conduct with violence. What Giallombardo (1966) found in womenÊs prisons was a network of relationships resembling those of families and intimate partnerships created out of a need for intimacy and mutual care. These were reproductions of gender roles and norms that were (and are) part of traditional definitions of womanhood. Later research (Jensen, 1991, for example) discovered the same kinds of traditional gender behaviors among incarcerated women. These included engaging in the same kinds of fictive kin relationships that Giallombardo described but mostly in „mother-daughter‰ or „sister‰ relationships. Women also fulfilled traditional gender roles in the way many of them took their living spaces and recreated „house‰·a physical space created to fulfill the function of the home on the outside. Women would enforce several rules about their „ house‰ but would exhibit hospitality once one was invited in, much like a traditional „woman of the house‰ does in the free world. Food and drink were offered, and pictures of children were shown. Power-control theory, first described by Hagan (1987), looks specifically at the family as a source of socialization and a way to explain the ways girls and women get involved in crime. In this theory, the quantity of girlsÊ deviance are attributable to family power dynamics and their influences on gender socialization. Family power relations are a reflection of power in the workplace that then influence the ways in which adolescents are controlled, preferences for risk taking, and the ultimate way in which gender and delinquency are patterned. One family type he described was the patriarchal. In this family type, gender roles are clear, and the division of labor follows traditional lines. Typical gender roles include fathers working and women being in charge of home and children. The father, who holds the highest status in a patriarchal family, has very little to do with the socialization of children. The mother, on the other hand, has the majority of the responsibility of socializing her sons and daughters into proper gender roles. In this type of family, Hagan argues that sons are socialized to be risk takers, and daughters are socialized to stay safe, close to home, and close to their mother. Differential controls of boys and girls leads to less opportunity as well as a socialization inhibiting delinquent behavior in girls. The other family type described by Hagan is more egalitarian both in terms of power division between mother and father at home and in the workplace, and in

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 75

relative encouragement of risk-taking behaviors in their adolescent children. In this home, children are socialized more equally. Both boys and girls are presented with equal opportunities to learn to be risk takers. In the case of girlsÊ deviance, or „risk taking,‰ girls of egalitarian families are more likely to engage in deviant behavior than their patriarchal counterparts. Socialization theory and power-control theory explain girlsÊ and womenÊs deviance and delinquency as influenced by images and lessons of femininity growing up. In this case, an underlying assumption in powercontrol theory is that the more girls are socialized like boys, the more likely they are to participate in risky and delinquent behavior (Hagan, 1987). The research examining power-control theory is mixed in its support of this particular perspective, however (Belknap, 2007). Dynamics of the Context In addition to background variables such as socialization, we must consider how crime becomes a product of the intersection between the person and the environment as well as elements of the actual situation. While there are several general perspectives in criminology that address the dynamics of the situational context and criminality (control theories, rational choice theories), a phenomenological approach has been applied the most directly to womenÊs offending. This approach focuses on the ways in which gender is constituted by everyday behavior·the routine, methodical, ongoing ways in which we demonstrate that we are gender competent. In other words, gender is an accomplishment that demonstrates to others that we know the culturally prescribed ways in which to be men and women. This is referred to as „doing gender,‰ a term that recognizes gender as something that is dynamic and based not in static characteristics of individuals and their personalities (West and Zimmerman, 1987). One of the important features of this process is in the process of accounting, that is, how individuals make sense of their behavior and present it to others. Providing accounts in this way contextualizes agency and helps to sustain the relationships of inequality. In other words, using explanations that are part of the „taken for granted‰ body of assumptions in any given setting, the basis for gender difference and inequality can go unexamined, and those assumptions about gender inequality that support it are more ingrained in ways in which we are not aware (West and Zimmerman, 2009). How does doing gender apply to girlsÊ and womenÊs criminality? One area in which we see the effects of doing gender is in the characteristics of womenÊs participation in crime, that is, what crimes they commit and how they engage in the crime. Miller (2004) finds that while women robbery offenders generally commit robbery for the same reasons as men, the ways in which they commit robbery are also ways in which they do gender in an attempt to be seen as competent gender members of the criminal culture. Men are suspicious of women and their ability to

76

|

Women Criminals

handle major tasks of this nature. Women who rob tend to rob other women, and they tend to rob men under the guise of sexual interest. These women robbers engage in behaviors that indicate an interest in a particular man, something that does not arouse suspicion because she is doing behaviors that fit within the boundaries of expected womenÊs behaviors·using attractiveness and sexuality in a way that focuses on men and menÊs desires. Once the man has gone to a more secluded spot, he is then robbed. Another way in which women do gender while they are doing crime is in theft. While many items are taken by men and women, the favorite items to steal for women and girls are cosmetics and other things related to beauty. Stealing beauty items is one way in which women can do gender as the general expectation in society is for women to pay attention to attractiveness with men in mind (Messerschmidt, 1986). In general, crime can constitute a way in which individuals may do gender. Messerschmidt points out that men and women are often held up and compared to an idealized form of manhood and womanhood, and it is in demonstrating that they measure up to these idealized forms that men and women may engage in a variety of behaviors, including criminal ones. Dominance, for example, is one focus of the ruling form of masculinity·hegemonic masculinity·and we can see the use of violence by some men as a means of proving their status as real men. The foci for emphasized femininity of a man-centered sexuality and passivity combine in the example of stealing cosmetics. The means of doing gender, the context, and the role a crime plays are complex and, by definition, individual. They are guided, however, by what is recognized as these ideals to one degree or another (Messerschmidt, 1993, 1995). Feminist Pathways and Criminal Careers One final sociological consideration is a developmental one, that is, how do careers in crime develop for women, and how might that differ than that of men? What we know about womenÊs engagement in crime over the long run is that women do show some differences when compared to men. The role of victimization and the vulnerability victimization creates is cited by many as an important and differential influence on women as compared to men (DeHart, 2008; Farrow et al., 2007). Onset factors of womenÊs criminality most often involve both vulnerabilities and social and relational networks that connect them to a criminal life. Women tend to start offending later in life and to peak and stop earlier than the majority of male offenders. For example, women offenders are more likely than men to have a partner or child convicted of offending (Farrow et al., 2007). Likewise, Morton (2004) reports that women are less likely than men to have long criminal histories, adult or juvenile, and are more likely than men to have one or more family members in prison at one point.

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 77

Feminist pathways and other related perspectives including life course theory (though this is not directly feminist) refer to the examination of key events in the course of girlsÊ and womenÊs lives for their effect on creating criminal behavior and criminal careers. The focus has typically been one of a retrospective kind of exploration, asking groups of incarcerated girls and women to comment on key events in their lives that helped to shape them in terms of crime. The primary theme coming out of this kind of research is the influence of sexual and other victimization of girls on later crime. Placed in a situation of trying to escape abuse and the pain associated with it, girls and women are more likely to engage in escapist behavior (running away, abusing drugs and alcohol), which, in turn, has its own criminogenic properties, such as prostituting or stealing to make needed money. Victimization too often leads to more victimization on the street which then leads to more possibilities of criminal activity (Belknap, 2007). Victimization for criminal women is often multifaceted and involving multiple relationships in childhood and adulthood. This is often coupled with a lack of support or encouragement from family and social networks for legitimate pathways in life such as school and work. Instead, those networks often tend toward perpetration and collusion with corrupt role models and poor, drug-infested, and violent living conditions (DeHart, 2008). The feminist pathways and victimization perspective is further discussed in the essay „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending.‰ CONCLUSION An individual look at girlsÊ and womenÊs offending must include an appreciation for the complexity provided by intersections of biology, psychology, and social context. Perspectives such as biology and psychology, when taken alone, tend to individualize and pathologize criminality in ways that are not helpful on a larger scale. While it is true that some women are impacted by biological and, more-so, psychological issues and need appropriate treatment, it is also true that our society has a tendency to attempt to either pathologize or demonize womenÊs criminality based upon societal ideas about gender roles and gender expectations. This process, on the whole, diverts attention from areas that need to be addressed such as the influence of victimization upon womenÊs mental health and illness and the role social support plays in the postpartum mother who can see no way out of her situation except to kill her child. Every point in the situational and developmental process is important, and the ways in which the various influences intersect with the larger society are also important for the fullest understanding of women criminals. References American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition, text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

78

|

Women Criminals

Anderson, G. 2007. Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Belknap, Joanne. 2007. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Blum, L. 2007. Psychodynamics of postpartum depression. Psychoanalytic Psychology 24: 45ă62. Brower, M. C., and B. H. Price. 2001. Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction, violence, and criminal behavior: A critical review. Journal of Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 71: 720ă726. Campbell, Anne. 1993. Men, Women, and Aggression. New York: Basic Books. Campbell, S., and Cohn, J. 1991. Prevalence and correlates of postpartum depression in first-time mothers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 100: 594ă599. Chesler, Phyllis. 1994. Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Collins, N., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Lobel, M., and Scrimshaw, S. 1993. Social support in pregnancy: Psychosocial correlates of birth outcomes and postpartum depression. Journal of Personality and Psychology 65: 1243ă1258. Dean, K., E. Walsh, P. Moran, P. Tyrer, F. Creed, S. Byford, T. Burns, R. Murray, and T. Fahy. 2006. Violence in women with psychosis in the community: Prospective study. British Journal of Psychiatry 188: 264ă270. DeHart, Dana. 2008. Pathways to prison: Impact of victimization in the lives of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women 14: 1362ă1381. Dobson, Velma, and Bruce Sales. 2000. The science of infanticide and mental illness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6: 1098ă1112. Farrow, Kathryn, Gill Kelly, and Bernadette Wilkinson. 2007. Offenders in Focus: Risk, Responsivity, and Diversity. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Feldman, T. B. 2001. Bipolar disorder and violence. Psychiatric Quarterly 72: 119ă129. Fishbein, Diana. 1990. Biological perspectives in criminology. Criminology 28: 27ă72. Gadd, David, and Tony Jefferson. 2007. Psychosocial Criminology: An Introduction. London: Sage. Giallombardo, Rose. 1966. The Society of Women: A Study of a WomanÊs Prison. New York: John Wiley. Graham, Dee L. R., Edna Rawlings, and Nelly Rimini. 1988. Survivors of terror: Battered women, hostages, and the Stockholm syndrome. In Kersti Yllo and Michele Bograd (eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse (217ă233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hagan, John. 1987. Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology 92: 778ă816. Heidensohn, Frances. 1968. The deviance of women: A critique and an enquiry. British Journal of Sociology 19: 160ă175. Hickey, Eric. 2009. Serial Murderers and their Victims. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jensen, Vickie. 1991. Convicts, Residents, and Inmates: Social Types in a WomanÊs Prison. Unpublished masterÊs thesis. University of Oklahoma. Junginger, J. 1996. Psychosis and violence: The case for a content analysis of psychotic experience. Schizophrenia Bulletin 22: 93ă103. Kuleshnyk, Irka. 1984. The Stockholm syndrome: Toward an understanding. Social Action and the Law 10: 37ă42. Kumar, R. 1994. Postnatal mental illness: A transcultural perspective. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 29: 250ă264.

Women and Criminal Offending: Individual-Level Perspectives

| 79

Kunst, Jennifer, and Michele Reed. 1999. Cross-cultural issues in infanticide: A case study. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 5: 147ă155. Lindqvist, P., and Allbeck, P. 1990. Schizophrenia and crime: A longitudinal follow-up of 644 schizophrenics in Stockholm. British Journal of Psychiatry 157: 345ă350. Lombroso, Cesare, and William Ferrero. 1895. The Female Offender. London: Fisher Unwin. Meadow, Roy. 2002. Different interpretations of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Child Abuse and Neglect 26: 501ă508. Messerschmidt, James. 1986. Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Messerschmidt, James. 1993. Masculinities and Crime. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Messerschmidt, James. 1995. From patriarchy to gender: Feminist theory, crime, and the challenge of diversity. In Nicole Hahn Rafter and Frances Heidensohn (eds.), International Feminist Perspectives in Crime: Engendering a Discipline (167ă188). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Meyer, Cheryl, and Michelle Oberman. 2001. Mothers Who Kill Their Children: Understanding the Acts of Moms from Susan Smith to the „Prom Mom.‰ New York: New York University Press. Miller, Jody. 2004. Feminist theories of womenÊs crime: Robbery as a case study. In Barbara Price and Natalie Sokoloff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Prisoners, Victims, and Workers (51ă68). McGraw-Hill. Modestin, J., S. Mauron, and T. Erni. 2002. Criminal behavior in female schizophrenia inpatients. Archive of WomenÊs Mental Health 4: 93ă98. Morton, Joann Brown. 2004. Working With Women Offenders in Correctional Institutions. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Nechas, Eileen, and Denise Foley. 1994. Unequal Treatment. New York: Simon and Schuster. Pollak, Otto. 1950. The Criminality of Women. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Pollock, Joycelyn. 1998. Counseling Women in Prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Porter, Theresa, and Helen Gavin. 2010. Infanticide and neonaticide: A review of 40 years of research on incidence and causes. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 11: 99ă112. Rock, Paul. 2007. Caesare Lombroso as a signal criminologist . Criminology and Criminal Justice 7: 117ă133. Schur, Edwin. 1984. Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma, and Social Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sheridan, Mary. 2003. The deceit continues: An updated literature review of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Child Abuse and Neglect 27: 431ă451. Simon, Rita, and Jean Landis. 1991. The Crimes Women Commit: The Punishment They Receive. Lexington Books. Tardiff, K., and A. Sweillam. 1980. Assault, suicide, and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry 37: 164ă169. Visher, Christy. 1983. Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology 21: 5ă28. Warren, Janet, Susan Hurt, Ann Booker Loper, Risha Bale, Roxanne Friend, and Preeti Chauhan. 2002. Psychiatric symptoms, history of victimization, and violent behavior among incarcerated female felons: An American perspective. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 25: 129ă149. Weisheit, Ralph. 1984. Women and crime: Issues and perspectives. Sex Roles 11: 567ă581. West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 2009. Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society 23: 112ă122.

80

|

Women Criminals

West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1: 125ă151. Wilczynski, Ania. 1991. Images of women who kill their infants: The mad and the bad. Women and Criminal Justice 2: 71ă88. Wisner, K. L., K. Peindl, and B. H. Hanusa. Symptomatology of affective and psychotic illnesses related to childbearing. Journal of Affective Disorders 30: 77ă87.

WOMEN AND SEXUAL OFFENDING Rebecca Trammell and Sharon S. Oselin

INTRODUCTION This essay provides the reader with a broad overview of the connection between sexuality, gender, and crime, examining topics including sexual abuse, prostitution, incarceration, and female sex offenders. In doing so, we pay particular attention to issues about prostitution, sexual violence, rape laws, homosexuality, incarcerated women, and female sex offenders. The U.S. Department of Justice (2000) reports that 96 percent of reported sexual assaults involve a male offender; however, 12 percent of offenders who sexually assault children under the age of 6 are women. Studies on sex offenders generally exclude women (Higgs, Canavan, and Meyer, 1992), focus on incarcerated women (Alarid, 2000; StruckmanJohnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, and Donaldson, 1996), or assert that female offenders are less predatory and dangerous than their male counterparts (Mendel, 1995). In general, women commit far fewer violent felonies than men. In fact, only 9 percent of American prisoners are women (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007), and women are statistically less likely to commit violent offenses than men (Pollock and Davis, 2005). However, women are one of the fastest growing prison populations, and the United States incarcerates more women than any other country (Hartney, 2006). Women can, and do, commit crime, including sexual assault (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). In this essay, we examine women as victims and offenders as well as the laws addressing sexuality and sex crimes. To a large degree, interpersonal and sexual relationships develop as a result of our socialization. We learn how to behave like a man or a woman by observing and internalizing the gendered norms of our society. Violence and aggression are usually attributed to males, and scholars generally argue that aggressive behavior stems from male socialization patterns (Bourdieu, 2001; Connell, 1987; Connell, 2000). Therefore, it is imperative that we consider gender socialization when examining sexuality and sex crimes. Much of the current research on gender follows the framework developed by West and Zimmerman (1987), who argue that gender differences are based on social interactions that link institutional arrangements to interpersonal relationships. Gender is not simply a role we take on; it is produced via ongoing

81

82

|

Women Criminals

interactions between actors. Women are socialized to make connections and value relationships, and men are socialized to value independence (Chodorow, 1978). For women, it is often their relationships with men that pull them into crime. Bottcher (2001), among others, argues that associations with criminal men pull women into crime and ultimately make it harder for them to find nondeviant partners. Warren and Hislop (2001) find that some women ignore or aid male partners when they sexually abuse children out of fear of abuse or abandonment. Studies on teenage girls suggest that they use violence and aggression against other girls as a way to gain attention from boys (Brown, 2005; Crick and Grotpeter, 1995). Overall, the crimes women commit are, many times, tied to interpersonal relationships with men. Another factor that pulls women into crime is physical and sexual victimization which is especially prevalent among prostitutes and incarcerated women (ChesneyLind, 2002; Dalla, 2000; Miller, 1993; Pearl, 1987). Scholars find a causal relationship between experiencing abuse and committing deviant and criminal acts. For instance, Chesney-Lind (2002) claims 57 percent of women in prison have a history of physical and sexual abuse. Teenage female delinquents, who are more likely to be sexually abused by relatives and treated like property by family members, are more likely to be arrested for status crimes (Chesney-Lind, 2005). Of course, we are reluctant to apply this model to all female offenders, and certainly there are cases where sexual abuse is not a contributing factor to criminality. However, empirical evidence highlights the fact that men and women are socialized differently, and this influences criminal behavior and the ways in which law enforcement respond to male and female offenders. Furthermore, female criminals are seen as being particularly deviant due to the pervasive gender norms that assign gender-specific roles to men (e.g., breadwinner, provider) and women (e.g., mother, care-taker). The old adage boys will be boys does not apply to female criminals. In fact, female criminal are viewed as especially deviant because women are supposed to represent virtues that do not coincide with criminal acts. WomenÊs sexuality and sexual behaviors are subjected to even closer scrutiny, in spite of the fact that our society provides conflicting messages, including those that show that women are expected to be sexually alluring yet not promiscuous outside of marriage. The Madonna/whore duality of womanhood is often upheld by members of patriarchal societies. One prominent example is prostitution which is one of the oldest and most notoriously gendered (female) crimes that greatly stigmatizes the offenders. To a large degree, womenÊs sexuality and virtues are linked to their actions. If women are negatively labeled, their personal and social identities are seriously affected. Needless to say, this stigma can diminish their chances of effectively reintegrating back into society after arrest or incarceration. In this essay, we discuss womenÊs sexual crime and the legal and criminal responses to womenÊs sexuality. These topics are not exhaustive as there are numerous

Women and Sexual Offending | 83

issues pertaining to women, sexuality, and crime. That being said, we aim to present a broad overview of some of the more salient issues in an attempt to provide the reader with a better understanding about how gender, sexuality, and crime intersect and influence one another. AMERICAN RAPE LAWS AND SEXUAL ABUSE Modern rape laws emerged in the United States shortly after the Civil War and only provided protection for white women. Legal scholar Randall Kennedy (1998) points out that these laws were designed to implicitly shield white women from the perceived threat of newly freed African American slaves. Moreover, these laws prohibited interracial relationships in the Reconstruction Era, monitored African American men, and did not protect African American women. Since sexual abuse against African American female slaves was common in the South, they would have greatly benefited from legal protection. These laws perpetuated racial stereotypes and discrimination. This legal bias was not accidental but reified the commonly held beliefs of former slave owners that African Americans are hyper-sexual beings (Harris, 1993). These laws also maintained white citizensÊ social and legal dominance over former slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (Kennedy, 1998; Wacquant, 2001). Legal, racial, and social differences affect womenÊs experiences of sexual abuse. Angela Harris (1993) states: The rift between white and black women over the issue of rape is highlighted by the contemporary feminist analyses of rape that have explicitly relied on racist ideology to minimize white womenÊs complicity in racial terrorism. Thus the experience of rape for black women includes not only a vulnerability of rape and a lack of legal protection radically different from that experienced by white women. (351) A good deal of scholarly work that examines African Americans and the criminal justice system focuses almost exclusively on men (Collins, 2004; Crenshaw, 1993; Crenshaw, 1996; Harris, 1993). For example, Collins (2004) details how lynching (the public execution of black men) is politicized (in antilynching laws) yet the sexual assault of African American women is ignored. Crenshaw (1993) explains that the exclusion of women from the legal theory served to eliminate black women from history. In spite of such evidence, U.S. courts, civil rights leaders, feminists, and social movementsÊ actors often denied that African American women experienced compounded discrimination. Issues such as rape, sexual harassment, and discrimination become an even harder burden for those who are both African American and female.

84

|

Women Criminals

The law not only favored white citizens generally but granted even more precedence and legal protections to white males that simultaneously mitigated womenÊs claims of sexual assault. In early anti-rape laws, married women were not protected against sexual abuse carried out by their husbands as rape was legally defined as „sexual intercourse with a female that is not his wife without her consent‰ (Barshis 1983: 383). As others point out, this gave men legal and physical access to their wives (Barshis, 1983; Bergen, 2003; Eskow, 1996). Although marital rape was universally outlawed in 1993, 33 states included loopholes in which married men could not be charged with rape if their wives were physically or mentally unable to consent to sexual intercourse (Bergen, 2003). In most cases, when women are sexually abused, assaulted, or murdered in the United States, the aggressor is typically someone she knows (Iadicola and Shupe, 2003; Lewis, 2004). In fact, the offender is often someone she is intimately involved with. The Department of Justice reports that 85 percent of violence between „intimates‰ occurs when men abuse the women they supposedly love (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998). On average, there are over 191,000 incidents of sexual assault/ rape reported to the National Crime Victimization Survey (2006). The Federal Bureau of Investigations reports approximately 93,000 cases of forcible rape each year (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2007). Approximately 56 percent of sexual assaults go unreported (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network [RAINN], 2008). Statistically, young females are the most at-risk for sexual abuse; however, 1 out of 33 men (mostly children) are also victims of abuse (RAINN, 2008). Some men who sexually assault women tap into cultural myths about gender and sexuality in order to socially reconstruct and redefine their behavior as coinciding with cultural mores. Scully and Marolla (1984, 1985) interviewed convicted rapists and found that some justify their behavior by holding their victim culpable while others offer excuses for the assault. Some men justify rape by claiming women seduced them, lie about the rape, or enjoy the assault. Others employed excuses for their actions, such as alcohol or mental problems. In some cases, rape is used as punishment or revenge in which men believe they have the right to discipline and punish women (Scully and Marolla, 1985). These men justify assaults by pointing to gender norms that posit „nice‰ girls as immune to sexual assault. They state: In our study, 69% (N = 22) of deniers and 22% (N = 10) of admitters referred to their victimsÊ sexual reputation, thereby evoking the stereotype that „nice girls donÊt get raped.‰ They claimed that the victim was known to be a prostitute or a „loose‰ woman or to have had a lot of affairs, or to have given birth out of wedlock. (Scully and Marolla, 1984: 563) Their findings illustrate how rape myths are used by the aggressor to justify and excuse his crime. Through their responses, these men upheld the Madonna/whore

Women and Sexual Offending | 85

dichotomy view of woman as well as the social construction of gendered behaviors. As others have documented, victims of rape are frequently blamed for provoking the assault (Schneider, Soh-Chiew Ee, and Aronson, 1994). In recent years, lawmakers have worked to protect women from this abuse. In 1993, the Violence Against Women Act (1993) passed, providing enhanced sentences for gender-related violence. The act provides grants to police agencies to combat violence against women and funds domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers. The anti-rape movement of the 1970s is largely responsible for raising awareness about rape and helped change the tone and public discourse concerning sexual abuse (Gornick and Meyer, 1998). Those who are raped are called „survivors‰ rather than „victims,‰ and police agents are now much more likely to take sexual abuse seriously (Lewis, 2004). In spite of such advances, sexual abuse is often still considered a „private‰ domestic problem and thereby relegated to the home environment. We discuss these legal and social issues for several reasons. To a certain degree, laws reflect societal beliefs and norms. As others have shown, those with social and economic power disproportionately control and influence legal institutions (Domhoff, 1998; Mills, 1956; Mills, 1958). In patriarchal societies, this means that laws are designed to favor men over women. In capitalist nations, class intersects with gender and race in ways that benefit the ruling class (MacKinnon, 2007). Therefore, national laws on sexual abuse that protect men (over women) and whites (over non-whites) fall into line with the historical trajectory of gender and racial oppression. Laws not only provide punishments but they also influence societal behaviors. When laws protect certain individuals over others, normative behaviors begin to evolve to reflect the inherent prejudices embedded in such laws.

PROSTITUTION Prostitution has existed for thousands of years and is one of the worldÊs oldest occupations (Flowers, 1998). It is loosely defined as „attending to the sexual desires of a particular individual with bodily acts in exchange for payment of money‰ (Zatz, 1996: 2). In the social sciences, there is a significant amount of research on prostitution, including studies on the motivations for engaging in sex work (Brock, 1998; OÊNeill and Barberet, 2000), the daily lives of street workers (Pearl, 1987), and legal issues concerning sex work (Alexander, 1987; Chapkis, 2000; Weitzer, 2000). It is estimated that about 20 percent of prostitution in the United States is classified as street prostitution, and the rest include prostitution in massage parlors, bars, escort agencies, and brothels (Porter and Bonilla, 2000; Raphael and Shapiro, 2002). Although there are no exact statistics on the racial composition of prostitutes, current research is somewhat contradictory. Some studies find that a majority of

86

|

Women Criminals

street prostitutes are non-white (Carmen and Moody, 1985; Cohen, 1980; Goldstein, 1979; Zausner, 1986), while others conclude that the racial composition of prostitutes varies according to districts within a city (Bernstein, 1999). One particular study argues that race is linked to the type of prostitution: „nearly 70 percent of the street sample was African-American whereas nearly 80 percent of the off-street sample was white‰ (Lever and Dolnick, 2000: 88). Though racial composition as predictive of types of prostitution may be uncertain, most scholars agree that street prostitution affects marginalized groups of women who have a history of being institutionally disenfranchised. At the same time, scholars disagree on the causal factors pulling women into prostitution. Some scholars contend there is no single cause that pulls women into prostitution (Bullough and Bullough, 1996), while others cite structural and individual factors that are associated with prostitution, including financial necessity (Brock, 1998; Chapkis, 2000), social networks (Potterat, Phillips, Rothenberg, and Darrow, 1985; Raphael and Shapiro, 2002), and drug addiction (Potterat et al., 1985). Women who occupy a lower socioeconomic status have fewer educational and employment opportunities, making it particularly hard to escape poverty (Ehrenreich, 2002). As a result, they turn to other survival strategies, such as secretly working in an informal or underground economy to survive (Edin and Lein, 1997). Some scholars claim that poor women lack viable alternatives and therefore some chose to enter prostitution (Delacoste and Alexander, 1998). A cultural deviance theoretical perspective can provide alternative explanations for why women work in prostitution. This approach attributes crime to a set of values that exist in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In particular, Sutherland (1939) proposed a theory of differential association that argues that people learn to commit crime due to regular contact with antisocial values, attitudes, and criminal behavior. These values, attitudes, and behaviors set the norms for individuals within these communities, which often contradict norms held by middle-class Americans. Conforming to antisocial norms becomes more common when your personal networks are primarily filled with individuals who uphold and perpetuate them. In their study of prostitutes in Chicago, Raphael and Shapiro (2002) found that 32.5 percent of their sample had a household member work in prostitution where they grew up, and 71 percent of their sample claimed someone suggested they work in prostitution to earn money. In short, it appears cultural deviance theories (social networks) may partially explain why women from disadvantaged background enter prostitution. Another factor pulling women into prostitution is drug addiction. Sex workers are particularly susceptible to drug use, and many studies find it is a common behavior among street working prostitutes (Alexander, 1987; Dalla, 2000; Porter and Bonilla, 2000). However, drugs may be used as a coping mechanism for street prostitutes (Davis, 2000; U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). In fact, one report claims

Women and Sexual Offending | 87

that 92 percent of women in the sex industry use drugs or alcohol to cope (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Without effective treatment and sustained recovery efforts, access to quick money perpetuates addiction and often keeps women on the streets. Prostitutes who do not have the qualifications or opportunities to earn a viable income outside of prostitution, and those living in neighborhoods that promote „deviant‰ norms (e.g., rampant drug use), face serious obstacles to leave this trade and enter mainstream society. The reasons women enter prostitution, unless they are overcome, are often the same that keep them tied to this trade. Our society punishes prostitutes in spite of the numerous disadvantages these women face. They are stigmatized (Chapkis, 2000; Pheterson, 1996) and labeled as deviants (Becker, 1963), even though many remain in this business due to a lack of viable economic alternatives. After being labeled, they have a „spoiled identity‰ (Goffman, 1963) which becomes internalized into their self-concept. In a recent study, Sanders (2007) found that street sex workers struggle to escape deviant labels and identities as they attempt to leave the business. As previously noted, women (and especially mothers) in our society are still expected to be virtuous (Collins, 1991), and known prostitutes are particularly demonized by moral entrepreneurs (Becker, 1963). In addition to being stigmatized for working as prostitutes, these women also experience physical abuse and legal repercussions for prostituting. Street prostitutes, arguably one of the most disadvantaged groups of sex workers, suffer the most physical abuse at the hands of johns (men who solicit prostitutes), pimps (men who „manage‰ prostitutes), and the police (Davis, 2000; Pearl, 1987). Conversely, women working in „high-end‰ prostitution, such as call-girls, appear to experience much less victimization from their clients (Perkins, 1991). The U.S. legal system approach to prostitution is primarily comprised of containment efforts (arrests and jail time) which do little to reduce the number of street prostitutes or provide them protection (Weitzer, 1999). In 2006, approximately 40,000 prostitution arrests were made in the United States (Bureau of Justice, 2006); this number indicates that prostitution is still a prevalent social condition. Street prostitutes are particularly vulnerable to arrest due to their heightened public visibility, and they comprise an estimated 80ă90 percent of all prostitution arrests (Alexander, 1987). The public provides additional support for police containment strategies and often blame prostitutes for contributing to neighborhood decay and street disorder (Weitzer, 1999; Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Weitzer (2007) argues that public moral crusades fuel U.S. government policy and practices pertaining to prostitution. Changes to existing laws (such as decriminalization, legalization) and social norms (e.g., public acceptance, reduced stigma) concerning prostitution are unlikely to occur anytime in the near future. Thus, when it comes to prostitution (and sex work generally), womenÊs sexuality continues to be policed by moral and legal codes.

88

|

Women Criminals

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE LAW Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, law enforcement agencies arrested gays and lesbians for „lewd and lascivious acts.‰ At the same time, psychiatric medical professionals treated homosexuality as a disease (Duberman, 2002). According to DÊEmilio (2000), the Stonewall era (1969ă1980) was marked by gays and lesbians demanding equality. Homosexuals took advantage of widespread cultural changes to demand equal rights. Social movement groups (totaling over 800 by 1973) held sit-ins and put pressure on political and psychiatric professionals to enact change. Political victories included the repeal of antisodomy laws in half of U.S. states, an end to the ban on homosexuals working in civil service jobs, and the revocation of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (DÊEmilio, 2000). The Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) ruling upheld the constitutionality of antisodomy laws yet this decision was overturned by the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Supreme Court case 12 years later. Within this body of research, the majority focuses on gay men while the experiences of lesbians are often erased or forgotten (Cain, 1993; Cain, 1993; Colker, 1993). Calhoun (1994) argues that lesbians are not often oppressed in the domestic sphere because they do not marry men or have children. However, they are oppressed in nondomestic institutions because of their status as sexual outsiders. Given that laws are written to protect some over others (Kennedy, 1998), those with political, economic, and social power disproportionately control and influence legal institutions (Domhoff, 1998; Mills, 1956; Mills, 1958). Legal scholars argue that in the early years of the civil rights movement, lesbians were ignored by both feminist and gay rights groups (Colker, 1993). In short, the current feminist movement pushed for broad legal and social change, yet African Americans and lesbians were often excluded from these discussions. According to feminist legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon (1993), laws in patriarchal societies dominate all women in the same manner. Therefore, all women are excluded from full legal protection. Cain (1993) argues against this assertion: „MacKinnon has defined lesbian sexuality to suit her purposes . . . Although I do not dispute that lesbian couples can sometimes ape their heterosexual counterparts, I am an infuriated by MacKinnonÊs silencing of the rest of lesbian experience‰ (Cain 1993: 362). In other words, women are all put into one category (an essential woman) and supposedly experience legal oppression in the same manner. Furthermore, women are defined by (a) their ability to give birth and/or (b) their subordinate position to that of men. When lesbians are brought into MacKinnonÊs (1981) theory, they are simply women who have sex with other women. In recent years, the focus on gay and lesbian issues centered on repealing antisodomy laws (Green, 2000) and promoting hate crime laws that include sexual orientation (Jenness, 1997). What is important to remember about the last 30 years is

Women and Sexual Offending | 89

that while great strides were made regarding gay rights, there is always opposition to legitimizing and legalizing gay and lesbian relationships. Those who promote antisodomy laws have won legal battles. According to Green (2000) and Herman (2000), the Christian Right is the main opponent to gay rights activism, and they focus on criminalizing gay and lesbian sex. These groups work towards establishing broad Christian ideology throughout the United States, and many members wish to restore so-called traditional Christian values through legal channels because of their fear of Armageddon. According to Herman, „Premillennial understandings largely animate the Christian Right and its potential constituents‰ (2000: 141). He argues that Christian Right leaders rally followers against homosexuality by putting the fear of God into them about the impending End Times.

FEMALE INMATES, LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS, AND SEXUAL ABUSE In 1980, there were approximately 12,000 female prison inmates, but by 1997, the number increased to over 82,000 (Mauer, Potler, and Wolf, 1999). The United States imprisons three times more females than any other country (Walmsley, 2005). The majority of women in prison (57 percent) have a history of sexual or physical abuse (Chesney-Lind, 2002) while men in prison report less childhood abuse (14 percent), and 5.8 percent of these men have been abused as adults (Chesney-Lind, 2002). Scholars find that women need a strong social support system in prison (Toch, 2002; Toch and Adams, 1989) and maintain friendships while incarcerated (ChesneyLind, 2002; MacKenzie, Robinson, and Campbell, 1989; Pollock, 1998). As Barbara Owen (1998) points out, women use these friendships to stay „out of the mix‰ and simply do their time. Furthermore, women have lesbian relationships as a way to create ad hoc families in prison (Bowker, 1977; Clark, 1995; Forsyth, Evans, and Foster 2002; Hampton, 1993; Leger, 1987; Propper, 1982). There are various explanations for the prevalence of transitional lesbianism in prison. Scholars find that sexual relationships provide a coping mechanism and make prison life more bearable for inmates (Hart, 1995; Owen, 1998) and also make the overall experience less traumatic (Pollock-Byrne, 1990). Transitional lesbianism becomes commonplace in part because there is a lack of available male partners for the duration of their prison sentence (Kruttschnitt, Gartner, and Miller, 2000; Pollock-Byrne, 1990). Current studies show that these relationships are not always helpful in reducing the pains of incarceration. Furthermore, homosexual relationships in prison are not well-tolerated by prison officials (Dodge, 2002). Greer (2000) asserts that these relationships are less stable than previously believed and are primarily based on economic exchanges between inmates. For instance, some women have sex with other female inmates in order to gain access to money or material goods. In fact,

90

|

Women Criminals

the interviewees in GreerÊs (2000) study claim sexual relationships between inmates have little to do with romantic attachment at all, contrary to what most of the studies on incarcerated women have argued. Alarid (2000) studied letters from a female inmate and found sexual abuse may appear consensual depending on how questions are asked or whether inmates label specific acts as abuse. She detailed how some women force others into sexual relationships, and some use violence to do so. Sexual coercion, when ignored by prison staff, is likely to escalate to more serious acts of violence (Alarid, 2000). Her findings are limited in that she relied on letters from one inmate which raises questions about reliability and external validity. However, her research provides new insight into female aggression and coincides nicely with GreerÊs (2000) study of sexual relationships in womenÊs prisons. Statistics on sexual abuse and rape in prison vary depending on how the question is asked (Gaes and Goldberg, 2004). In a study of sexual assault in both menÊs and womenÊs prisons, Struckman-Johnson et al. (1996) found that 22.0 percent of incarcerated men and 7.7 percent of incarcerated women report being pressured and/or forced into sexual acts. This study reports one of the highest rates of sexual assault for female inmates. Although female and male inmates may sexually assault each other in prison, female inmates are also attacked by correctional officers (Amnesty International, 1999; Burton-Rose, 2003; Human Rights Watch, 2001; Human Rights Watch, 1996; Smith, 1998; Talvi, 2003). (See also the case of Joan Little.) According to a 1996 Human Rights Watch report: Sexual abuse against women by correctional officers remained widespread despite new laws prohibiting it and greater public awareness of the problem. A federal circuit court upheld federal legislation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act that bars lawsuits by inmates seeking damages for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody where there is no proof of significant physical injury. Georgia inmates had filed a lawsuit alleging that in 1996 prison officers had made them remove their clothes in front a female guard, tap dance while naked and shave with an un-lubricated razor. Under the courtÊs ruling, inmates cannot sue for humiliation, mental torture or non-physical sadistic treatment by guards unless, in effect, they have broken bones or blood to show for it. This restriction on the ability of inmates to vindicate their rights in court was one of many ways in which U.S. laws and judicial mechanisms failed to meet the standards mandated by the Convention against Torture. (Human Rights Watch, 1996: 11) In 2003, President Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA Act) which promotes a zero tolerance policy for prison rape in the United States. The PREA Act (2003) provides grants to study prison rape in order to formalize recommendations for reducing or eliminating sexual violence in American prisons. Therefore,

Women and Sexual Offending | 91

human rights organizations and the U.S. government have worked toward bringing to light this problem, and now there is some implementation of legislation to reduce or eliminate sexual abuse in prison. However, as prisons are closed institutions, this battle is slow, and prison reformers face many obstacles in eliminating sexual abuse against American prisoners. FEMALE SEX OFFENDERS AND THE CURRENT GAP IN THE LITERATURE The U.S. Department of Justice (2000) reports that 96 percent of reported sexual assaults involve a male offender; however, these numbers may not be completely accurate. As Hislop (2001) argued, law enforcement officers and therapists are reluctant to report female offenders. Some find that female sexual offenders are less violent and predatory than their male counterparts (Mendel, 1995). Boroughs (2004) argues that since women are more likely to be primary caregivers of children, the abused children are more likely to feel betrayed and angry at the women who violate them. The long-term affects for children who were sexually abused by female caregivers include higher rates of alcohol abuse, agoraphobia, and gender identity issues. Because sexual abuse is socially constructed as a „male‰ behavior, we do not expect women to sexually abuse children and they often get away with it, which results in the prolonged abuse of children (Boroughs, 2004): Sexual abuse of children by women is a crime that seems so unnatural that it offends societyÊs moral instincts, causing the issue to be relatively unexplored by social scientists. Like many abhorrent characteristics of human behavior, people often ignore or deny that which they are unwilling to accept or acknowledge. (481) Data collected by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect found that 12 percent of those who sexually abuse children are women, and there are upwards of 36,000 children who fall into this category of womenÊs sexual abuse victims (Boroughs, 2004). A variety of studies offer insight into how and why women abuse children. Jane Matthews (1993) found that female sex offenders often have abusive and disorganized childhoods. Warren and Hislop (2001) found that abusive women substitute their male children for adult men and outline several types of offenders. Facilitators are women who help men find children to abuse, while reluctant partners are females who allow their partner to abuse children out of fear of abandonment. Initiating partners are women who seek out others to help abuse children, Seducers/ lovers are females who become attached to adolescent males or children, pedophiles

92

|

Women Criminals

sexually abuse young children, and psychotics suffer from severe mental illness, which exacerbates abusive behavior (Warren and Hislop, 2001). Clearly, the recent cases of teachers who sexually abuse their students fit the seducer/lover profile. For example, Mary Kay Letourneau began having sex with her 13-year-old male student and was sentenced to 89 months in prison for doing so (Robinson, 2001). Although rare, these cases often create a media frenzy and garner a good deal of attention which makes academic research imperative to evaluate these cases, paying particular attention to the model set forth by Warren and Hislop (2001). (Other examples of offenders include Melissa Huckaby and Debra LaFave.) Most of the research on female offenders comes from the field of psychology while criminological analysis is lacking. Furthermore, there is a paucity of studies that compare male offenders to female offenders and the conditions under which these offenses occur. Overall, female offenders are neglected in criminological and sociological studies, in part, because of the normative assumptions revolving around gender. We often think that violence is inflicted by men, and therefore, women are incapable or unlikely of committing such actions due to a presumed lack of sexual aggression (Mendel, 1995). Following along these lines, we presume that if a woman commits sexual assault, it is only because they are coerced to do so by a male partner. Scholars and the public at large assume that women are incapable of committing violent sexual acts in spite of the evidence that it does occur (Mendel, 1995).

CONCLUSION In this essay, we examined women as victims and offenders as well as the laws addressing sexuality and sex crimes. In doing so, we paid particular attention to issues about prostitution, sexual violence, rape laws, homosexuality, incarcerated women, and female sex offenders. The studies represented in this essay show that female criminal offenders are likely to be victims of abuse throughout their lives, and, although they are less likely to be violent offenders, some assault others while incarcerated. Women also carry out sexual abuse outside of prison as they sexually assault children and adolescents. Women are both victims of abuse and, at times, those who inflict abuse on others. Laws have historically addressed women and crime in such a way that to a large degree, women are treated differently in the criminal justice system based on pervasive normative assumptions of radical gender difference. It is possible that this is one of the main reasons that female sexual offenders are underreported. Laws pertaining to sexuality reflect societal values that favor males while hindering females. One need only look at the lack of good marital rape laws in the United States to see that the power structure disproportionately favors men. Therefore, as

Women and Sexual Offending | 93

current research begins to examine crime patterns of women, there is a growing awareness of the social constructions of gender that obscure the similarities and differences of male and female offenders. References Alarid, Leanne Fiftal. 2000. Sexual Assault and Coercion Among Incarcerated Women Prisoners: Excerpts from Prison Letters. Prison Journal 80: 391ă406. Alexander, Pricilla. 1987. Prostitution: A Difficult Issue for Feminist. In Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry, edited by F. Delacoste and P. Alexander. Pittsburg: Cleis Press. Amnesty International. 1999. Not Part of my Sentence: Violations of the Human Rights of Women in Custody. New York: Amnesty International. Barshis, Victoria. 1983. The Question of Marital Rape. WomenÊs Studies International Forum 6: 383ă393. Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press. Bergen, Raquel K. 2003. Marital Rape. Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse. http://www. vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=248. Bernstein, Elizabeth. 1999. WhatÊs Wrong with Prostitution? WhatÊs Right with Prostitution? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor. Hastings WomenÊs Law Journal 10: 91ă117. Boroughs, Deborah. 2004. Female Sexual Abusers of Children. Children and Youth Services Review 26: 481ă487. Bottcher, Jean. 2001. Social Practices of Gender: How Gender Relates to Delinquency in the Everyday Lives of High-Risk Youth. Criminology 39: 893ă932. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Masculine Domination. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986. Supreme Court of the United States. 478 U.S. 186. Bowker, Lee. 1977. Prisoner Subcultures. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press. Brock, Deborah. 1998. Making Work, Making Trouble: Prostitution as a Social Problem. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Brown, Lyn. 2005. Girlfighting: Betrayal and Rejection Among Girls. New York: New York University Press. Bullough, Bonnie, and Vern Bullough. 1996. Female Prostitution: Current Research and Changing Interpretations. Annual Review of Sex Research 7: 158ă180. Bureau of Justice, Statistics. 2006. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Burton-Rose, Daniel. 2003. Our SisterÊs Keepers. In Prison Nation: The Warehousing of AmericaÊs Poor, edited by T. Herivel and P. Wright. New York: Rutledge. Cain, Patricia A. 1993. Feminist Jurisprudence: Grounding the Theories. In Feminist Legal Theory: Foundations, edited by D. K. Weisberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Calhoun, Cheshire. 1994. Separating Lesbian Theory from Feminist Theory. Ethics 104: 558ă581. Carmen, Arlene, and Howard Moody. 1985. Working Women: The Subterranean World of Street Prostitution. New York: Harper and Row. Chapkis, Wendy. 2000. Power and Control in the Commercial Sex Trade. In Sex For Sale, edited by R. Weitzer. New York: Routledge. Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2002. Imprisoning Women: The Unintended Victims of Mass Imprisonment. In Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind. New York: The New Press.

94

|

Women Criminals

Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2005. GirlsÊ Crime and WomenÊs Place: Toward a Feminist Model of Female Delinquency. In Social Deviance: Readings in Theory and Research, edited by H. N. Pontell. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, Judith. 1995. The Impact of the Prison Environment on Mothers. Prison Journal 75: 306ă329. Cohen, Bernard. 1980. Deviant Street Networks: Prostitution in New York City. Lexington, MA: Heath. Colker, Ruth. 1993. The Anti-Subordination Principle: Applications. In Feminist Legal Theory: Foundations, edited by D. K. Weisberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Collins, Patricia H. 1991. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. Collins, Patricia H. 2004. Black Sexual Politics: African-Americans, Gender and the New Racism. New York: Routledge. Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, The Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Connell, R. W. 2000. The Men and the Boys. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1993. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. In Feminist Legal Theory: Foundations, edited by D. K. Weisberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1996. Whose Story is it Anyway?: Feminist and Antiracist Appropriations of Anita Hill. In Applications of Feminist Legal Theory to WomenÊs Lives: Sex, Violence, Work and Reproduction, edited by D. K. Weisberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Crick, Nicki R., and Jennifer Grotpeter. 1995. Relational Aggression, Gender, and Social Psychological Adjustment. Child Development 66: 710ă722. Dalla, Rochelle. 2000. Exposing the „Pretty Woman‰ Myth: A Qualitative Examination of the Lives of Streetwalking Prostitutes. Journal of Sex Research 37: 344ă266. Davis, Nanette. 2000. From Victims to Survivors: Working with Recovering Street Prostitutes. In Sex for Sale, edited by R. Weitzer. New York: Routledge. DÊEmilio, John. 2000. Cycles of Change, Questions of Strategy: The Gay and Lesbian Movement After Fifty Years. In The Politics of Gay Rights, edited by C. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Delacoste, Frederique, and Pricilla Alexander. 1998. Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry. San Francisco: Cleis Press. Dodge, Mara. 2002. Whores and Thieves of the Worst Kind: A Study of Women Crime, and Prisons, 1835ă2000. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Dodge, Mary, and Mark R. Pogrebin. 2001. Collateral Costs of Imprisonment for Women: Complications of Reintegration. Prison Journal 81: 42ă54. Domhoff, G. William. 1998. Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Duberman, Martin. 2002. Cures: A Gay ManÊs Odyssey: Tenth Anniversary Edition. New York: Basic Books. Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. 1997. Work, Welfare, and Single MothersÊ Economic Survival Strategies. American Sociological Review 62: 253ă266. Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2002. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Holt Paperbacks. Eskow, Lisa. 1996. The Ultimate Weapon? Demythologizing Spousal Rape and Reconceptualizing Its Prosecution. Stanford Law Review 48: 677ă709.

Women and Sexual Offending | 95

Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2007. Index of Violent Crime. Washington DC: FBI. Flowers, Ronald B. 1998. The Prostitution of Women and Girls. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company. Forsyth, Craig J., Rhonda D. Evans, and D. Burk Foster. 2002. An Analysis of Inmate Explanations for Lesbian Relationships in Prison. International Journal of Sociology of the Family 30: 66ă77. Gaes, Gerald G., and Andrew L. Goldberg. 2004. Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Reissue ed. New York: Simon & Schuster. Goldstein, Paul J. 1979. Prostitution and Drugs. Lexington, MA: Heath. Goldston, Linda. 2008. Gays Who Wed in California WonÊt Have Equal Marriage Rights. Mercury News, June 11, A6. Gornick, Janet C., and David S Meyer. 1998. Changing Political Opportunity: The Anti-Rape Movement and Public Policy. Journal of Policy History 10: 366ă398. Green, John C. 2000. Antigay: Varieties of Opposition to Gay Rights. In The Politics of Gay Rights, edited by C. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Greer, Kimberly R. 2000. The Changing Nature of Interpersonal Relationships in a WomenÊs Prison. Prison Journal 80 4: 442ă468. Hampton, Blanche. 1993. Prisons and Women. Kensington, Australia: New South Wales University Press. Harris, Angela P. 1993. Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory. In Feminist Legal Theory: Foundations, edited by D. K. Weisberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hart, Cynthia B. 1995. Gender Differences in Social Support Among Inmates. Women and Criminal Justice 3: 67ă88. Hartney, Christopher. 2006. U.S. Rates of Incarceration: A Global Perspective. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Herman, Didi. 2000. The Gay Agenda is the DevilÊs Agenda: The Christian RightÊs Vision and the Role of the State. In The Politics of Gay Rights, edited by C. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Higgs, Deborah C., Margaret M. Canavan, and Walter Meyer. 1992. Moving from Defense to Offense: The Development of an Adolescent Female Sex Offender. Journal of Sex Research 29(1): 131ă139. Hislop, Julia. 2001. Female Sex Offenders: What Therapists, Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services Need to Know. Ravensdale, WA: Issues Press. Human Rights Watch. 2001. World Report. 2001 United States. New York: Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch WomenÊs Rights Project. 1996. All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch. Iadicola, Peter, and Anson Shupe. 2003. Violence, Inequality and Human Freedom. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Jenness, Valerie. 1997. Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Kennedy, Randall. 1998. Race, Crime, and The Law. New York: Vintage Publishing. Kruttschnitt, Candace, Rosemary Gartner, and Amy Miller. 2000. Doing Her Own Time? WomenÊs Responses to Prison in the Context of the Old and the New Penology. Criminology 38: 681ă717. Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. Supreme Court of the United States. 539 U.S. 558. Leger, Robert. 1987. Lesbianism Among Women Prisoners: Participants and Nonparticipants. Criminal Justice Behavior 14: 463ă479.

96

|

Women Criminals

Lever, Janet, and Deanne Dolnick. 2000. Clients and Call Girls: Seeking Sex and Intimacy. In Sex for Sale, edited by R. Weitzer. New York: Routledge. Lewis, Susan. 2004. Ten Years of VAWA: Strengthening Anti-Sexual Violence Work. Enola, PA: National Sexual Violence Resource Center. MacKenzie, Doris, L, James W. Robinson, and Carol S. Campbell. 1989. Long-Term Incarceration of Female Offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior 16: 223ă238. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1981. Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence. In Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender, edited by K. T. Bartlett and R. Kennedy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1993. Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination. In Feminist Legal Theory: Foundations, edited by D. K. Weisberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 2007. WomenÊs Lives, MenÊs Laws. Boston: Belknap Press. Matthews, Jane K. 1993. Working with Female Sex Offenders. In Female Sexual Abuse of Children, edited by M. Elliott. New York: Guilford Press. Mauer, Marc, Cathy Potler, and Richard Wolf. 1999. Gender and Justice: Women, Drugs, and Sentencing Policy. Washington DC: Sentencing Project. Mendel, Matthew. 1995. The Male Survivor: The Impact of Sexual Abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Miller, Jody. 1993. Your Life Is on the Line Every Night YouÊre on the Streets: Victimization and the Resistance Among Street Prostitution. Humanity and Society 17: 442ă446. Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Mills, C. Wright. 1958. The Structure of Power in American Society. British Journal of Sociology 9: 29ă41. National Crime Victimization Survey. 2006. Rape Rates. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. OÊNeill, Maggie, and Rosemary Barberet. 2000. Victimization and the Social Organization of Prostitution in England and Spain. In Sex for Sale, edited by R. Weitzer. New York: Routledge. Owen, Barbara. 1998. In the Mix: Struggle and Survival in a WomanÊs Prison. New York: State University of Albany Press. Pearl, Julie. 1987. The Highest Paying Customers: AmericaÊs Cities and the Costs of Prostitution Control. Hastings WomenÊs Law Journal 38: 769ă800. Perkins, Roberta. 1991. Working Girls: Prostitutes, Their Life and Social Control. Canberra: Australia Institute of Criminology. Pheterson, Gail. 1996. The Prostitution Prism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University. Pollock, Joycelyn M. 1998. Counseling Women In Prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Pollock, Joycelyn M., and Sareta M. Davis. 2005. The Continuing Myth of the Violent Female Offender. Criminal Justice Review 30: 5ă29. Pollock-Byrne, Joycelyn M. 1990. Women, Prison and Crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Ponticelli, Christy M. 1999. Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction. Social Psychology Quarterly 62: 157ă172. Porter, Judith, and Louis Bonilla. 2000. Drug Use, HIV, and the Ecology of Street Prostitution. In Sex for Sale, edited by R. Weitzer. New York: Routledge. Potterat, John, Lynanne Phillips, Richard B. Rothenberg, and William Darrow. 1985. On Becoming a Prostitute: An Exploratory Case-Comparison Study. Journal of Sex Research 20: 329ă336. Prison Rape Elimination Act. 2003. Public Law No. 108ă79.

Women and Sexual Offending | 97

Propper, Alice M. 1982. Make-Believe Families and Homosexuality Among Imprisoned Girls. Criminology 20: 127ă139. Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. 2008. Statistics. Washington DC: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. Raphael, Jody, and Deborah Shapiro. 2002. Sisters Speak Out: The Lives and Needs of Prostituted Women in Chicago. Chicago: Center for Impact Research. Robinson, James. 2001. The Mary Kay Letourneau Affair. Kansas City: Leathers Publishing. Sanders, Teela. 2007. Becoming an Ex-Sex Worker: Making Transitions out of a Deviant Career. Feminist Criminology 2: 75ă95. Schneider, Lawrence J., Juliana Soh-Chiew Ee, and H. Aronson. 1994. Effects of Victim Gender and Physical vs. Psychological Trauma/Injury on ObserversÊ Perceptions of Sexual Assault and its Aftereffects. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 30: 793ă828. Scully, Diana, and Joseph Marolla. 1984. Convicted RapistsÊ Vocabulary of Motive: Excuses and Justification. Social Problems 31: 530ă544. Scully, Diana, and Joseph Marolla. 1985. Riding the Bull at GilleyÊs: Convicted Rapists Describe the Rewards of Rape. Social Problems 32: 251ă261. Smith, Brenda V. 1998. An End to Silence: Women PrisonerÊs Handbook on Identifying and Addressing Sexual Misconduct. Washington DC: National WomenÊs Law Center. Struckman-Johnson, Cindy, David Struckman-Johnson, Lila Rucker, Kurt Bumby, and Stephen Donaldson. 1996. Sexual Coercion Reported by Men and Women in Prison. Journal of Sex Research 33: 67ă76. Sutherland, Edwin H. 1939. Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Publishing. Talvi, Silja J.A. 2003. Not Part of My Sentence. In Prison Nation: The Warehousing of AmericaÊs Poor, edited by T. Herivel and P. Wright. New York: Routledge. Toch, Hans. 2002. Acting Out: Maladaptive Behavior in Confinement. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Toch, Hans, and Kenneth Adams. 1989. Coping: Maladaption in Prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. U.S. Department of Justice. 1998. Violence by Intimates. Washington DC: Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice. 2000. Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. The Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs. 2007. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. United States Violence Against Women Act. 1993. Public Law No. 103ă322. Wacquant, Loïc. 2001. Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and Prison Meet and Mesh. In Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences, edited by D. Garland. London: Sage Publishers. Walmsley, Roy. 2005. World Prison Population List (Sixth Edition). London: London: KingÊs College London, School of Law, International Centre for Prison Studies. Warren, Janet, and Julia Hislop. 2001. Female Sex Offenders: A Typological and Etiological Overview. In Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by R. R. Hazelwood and B. Ann. New York: Elsevier Publishers. Weitzer, Ronald. 1999. Prostitution Control in America: Rethinking Public Policy. Crime, Law and Social Change 32: 83ă102.

98

|

Women Criminals

Weitzer, Ronald. 2000. The Politics of Prostitution in America. In Sex for Sale, edited by R. Weitzer. New York: Routledge. Weitzer, Ronald. 2007. The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade. Politics and Society 35: 447ă475. West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing Gender. Gender and Society 1: 125ă151. Wilson, James Q., and George Kelling. 1982. Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly, March, 29ă38. Zatz, Noah. 1996. Sex Work/Sex Act: Law, Labor, and Desire in Constructions of Prostitution. Signs 22: 227ă308. Zausner, Michael. 1986. The Streets: A Factual Portrait of Six Prostitutes as Told in Their Own Words. New York: St. MartinÊs Press.

AGE AND WOMEN’S OFFENDING Carolyn Rebecca Block and Nicole T. Carr

(I had) three children·22, 25, 28. . . . When they started leaving to go to college·and I was married to a cop on top of that, I want to blame the empty nest syndrome·I got married and then I was pregnant, I always had children. Stayed home with them until they got into grade school. I was home with them during their formative years. Then I started working. When they started leaving home, I had dental surgery. And I discovered the Loratabs. Lola, age 55 (quoted in Carr and Hanks, 2007) This is the voice of a woman who first became involved in law violation in her late forties. LolaÊs life experience shows us that womenÊs offending patterns over their life span do not necessarily fit generally accepted research findings about age and offending. In this case, research showing that very few offenders begin a criminal career as adults is based largely on data from men and boys. Recent studies, however, have begun to provide evidence about the degree to which findings about age and offending, such as age of onset, age of termination, career length, and crime types across age, apply to women and girls. This essay reviews what is currently known about girls, women, criminal offending, and age. Though women like Lola may have been ignored in much of criminological theory and criminological research, there has been exciting progress in recent years. Recent research has begun to listen to the voices of Lola and her sisters. This essay begins with a short review of theoretical approaches to the relationship between age and offending, and it asks whether commonly accepted theories apply to women and girls as well as to men and boys. Next, we consider the methodological approaches available for researching age and crime, focusing on work that includes women and girls, and we review what we currently know about women, age, and offending. We conclude with recommendations for future research and policy initiatives. THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE AND OFFENDING Attempts to describe life span patterns of criminal offending can be divided roughly into two general perspectives: the invariant approach, which posits the relationship 99

100 |

Women Criminals

between age and offending is constant across individuals (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1983, 1986, 1989); and the life span dynamic approach, which posits a variety of offending patterns over the life course (Farrington, 1986; Laub and Sampson, 1993; Moffitt, 1993; Piquero, 2000, 2004; Piquero, Brame, and Lynam, 2004; Piquero and Brezina, 2001; Piquero and Buka, 2002; Piquero and Chung, 2001; Piquero et al., 2002; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein, 2003, 2007; Sampson and Laub, 1993, 2003). Age Invariance Theory Age-invariance theorists posit that an individualÊs offending increases from early adolescence to a peak in the middle to late teens, and then it declines rapidly and continues to decline throughout life. They posit, further, that this age-crime curve is essentially constant across all industrialized countries and demographic groups (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983), although there is some variation across kinds of crime. (Arrest ages for crimes against persons peak later than arrest ages for property crimes.) Some criminologists say that physical maturity explains both the age invariance of crime and the difference between person and property curves. They argue that the age at which individuals are more strong physically and therefore able to commit violent crimes is older than the age at which individuals are able to commit property offenses. Though age-invariance theorists say that girls and women follow the same agecriminal offending pattern as boys and men, they have traditionally maintained that offending peaks at a later age for women than men and that the decline after the peak is more gradual. These arguments, based on ideas about differences in gender socialization, explain observed differences in the crime curve shape for women and men. According to Pollack (1950), for example, the protection of girls extends to their would-be criminal activities. When they mature and lose that protection, their opportunities for offending increase. In addition, as girls age, their gender roles shift, and older women have more freedom to behave in less „womanly‰ ways. More recent research, however, reports little gender difference in the shape of the age-crime curve (Steffensmeier and Allan, 1988, 1996; Steffensmeier et al., 2006). When Steffensmeier and Streifel (1991) compared age, gender, and crime in three historical periods, for example, they found consistent similarity in the age-crime curves of females and males. Although involvement in specific crimes did vary by age (for example, womenÊs and menÊs burglary offending peaked early and declined quickly, while fraud peaked later and declined more slowly [Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1991: 878]), gender similarity remained. Across the three time periods, arrest age for many crimes, particularly property offenses, grew progressively younger, but gender similarity persisted. One offense type was an exception to this general rule·prostitution. Young women were arrested for sex crimes at earlier ages than

Age and Women’s Offending

| 101

men; this fits evidence from other researchers that girlsÊ sexuality is disproportionately controlled. Although Adler (1975) thought that womenÊs and menÊs offending patterns were converging over time, most later research (Belknap, 2007; Steffensmeier et al., 2005; Steffensmeier et al., 2006; Steffensmeier and Broidy, 2001) does not substantiate that assertion. While evidence suggests that similar structural factors affect both male and female offending, these macro-level conditions do not explain the gender gap in offending (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). Instead, they illustrate the similarity in factors that shape crime more generally. Arguing that increasing gender similarity in the age-crime curve over time indicates that social forces affect women and men in like ways, Steffensmeier and Allan (1996) integrate elements of traditional theories and gender-specific approaches to explain the gender gap in criminal offending levels, calling attention to the importance of gender differences and the organization of gender in society. Their theoretical paradigm suggests that five elements reduce womenÊs criminal offending but not menÊs: gender norms, moral development and affiliative concerns, social control, physical strength and aggression, and sexuality (Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996: 475). Because this perspective addresses gender differences, it can help us understand male and female involvement in (or abstention from) criminal offending. Crimes that are most consistent with gender norms for women have higher levels of female involvement, and offenses most at odds with traditional gender beliefs have the lowest levels. They conclude that gender norms shape criminal activity. Although this perspective focuses on gender differences, it does not address changes across the livespan of individual women and men. Gender norms and gendered behavior are not fixed; rather they vary over time and place. Across the life course, men and women will enact gender in a variety of ways. Attention to variation or stability over time and across the life course is the focus of the life course perspective and developmental life course criminology. Life Course Theory Hirschi and GottfredsonÊs (1983) assessment that the age distribution of crime is a „brute fact‰ (552) was not universally accepted. Criminologists such as David Greenberg (1985), for example, observed that the age curve varies over time and across countries and suggested that social forces condition the age effect. Recent research by Sampson and Laub (1993, 2003), Laub and Sampson (2003), and many others also indicates that important transitions throughout the life course affect crime. Significant life events, such as completing high school, entering the military, getting married, or having a baby have implications for future life experiences. The life course perspective posits that choices made in young adulthood or experiences in childhood can affect pathways into late adulthood and old age.

102 |

Women Criminals

The life course perspective as it is applied to offending and age is rooted in the work of Glen Elder (1974, 1985, 1994), who argued that „developmental processes and outcomes are shaped by the social trajectories that people follow‰ (Elder, 1994: 5). Generally speaking, trajectories are the life course pathways that follow a given transition. Age-graded trajectories exist within a social context and are subject to changing conditions within that setting (Elder, 1985). Four elements are central to the life course perspective: historical time, timing of lives, linked lives, and agency (Elder, 1974, 1994). For example, communication technology, including the Internet, alters the lives of young people in the 2000s in ways that it did not for people who came of age in an earlier historical period. Regardless of historical time, social timing structures a sequence of age-graded transitions such as age at marriage, childbirth, and retirement. Likewise, as individuals make transitions, they do so in concert with many others in their social world·their family, children, peers, and friends. Finally, people retain agency; they make choices within their range of options, and these choices alter their paths. Much of the early life course research focused on children and teens (for example, see Blumstein and Cohen, 1979; Farrington, 1986; Laub and Sampson, 2003; Sampson and Laub, 1992, 1993, 2003). To explain persistence in and desistance from offending, however, theory and research had to expand to include not just adolescence but childhood and adulthood. Attempts to describe life span patterns of criminal offending extending through adulthood can be divided into two approaches. Those approaches often called „developmental‰ emphasize population heterogeneity and stability in offending among a small group of the population. Other approaches, such as age-graded social control, allow for change in social control, activities, and agency over time. Developmental Life Course Criminology Developmental approaches to life course criminality posit that certain types of offenders and specific offender groups follow particular patterns of criminal offending over their life course. Using longitudinal data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (Silva and Stanton, 1996), Terrie Moffitt (1990, 1993) constructed a developmental taxonomy of antisocial behavior. The initial Moffitt taxonomy (1990, 1993) described two types of offenders: high-risk children with early evidence of antisocial behavior (called „life course persistent offenders)‰, and adolescents who engage in crime and delinquency only during their „role-less‰ teenage years navigating the „maturity gap‰ (called „adolescent limited offenders‰). More recently, researchers using more extensive longitudinal data sets have posited additional trajectory (life course pathway) types, including childhood limited (Moffitt et al., 2001; Raine et al., 2005) and adult onset (Eggleston and Laub, 2002; Farrington et al., 2006).

Age and Women’s Offending

| 103

Recent research looking at gender differences in the developmental life course suggests that the assumption of population heterogeneity fits the adult offending population. Looking at an urban, African American sample from the United States, White and Piquero (2004) confirm similarities in late-onset boys and girls, although they suggest that early-onset girls may differ from either late-onset groups. Using the Dunedin data, however, Piquero, Brame, and Moffitt (2005) found stability in offending that was shaped in adolescence, and they reason that differences in adult offending patterns are likely shaped before adulthood. Furthermore, this stability was similar for males and females and extended into young adulthood (through age 26). Based on these results, they argue that criminological theories should „transcend sex‰ in the effort to develop more parsimonious explanations (239). Age-graded Social Control In contrast to theories premised on personality characteristics or traits that persist over the life span, Greenberg (1985); Sampson and Laub (1993, 2003), and Laub and Sampson (2003) offer an approach that allows for individual change within the developmental life course framework. Their theory of age-graded informal social control incorporates structural context and informal social control (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1983; Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1995). More recently, Laub, Sampson, and Sweeten (2006) included elements of social bonding theory, routine activities theory, and human agency in the age-graded social control model. The model proposes that individuals are imbedded in a structural context that conditions the kinds of informal social control they experience. While an individual may have weak social bonds or other risk factors correlated with problem behavior, if she or he is situated within a family structure of rules, consistent discipline, and support for conventional behavior, informal social control exercised in this setting may mitigate deviance. Likewise, a shift from a disorganized family setting to the military or a stable marriage can provide the kinds of controls necessary to alter a previously delinquent path. Gender in the Life Course Perspective Although researchers have not specified a gendered life course perspective theory to date, gender differences in the importance of various positive and negative control factors are likely (akin to the normative differences postulated by Steffensmeier and Allan [1996]). This is a fruitful area for theoretical development. Broidy and Cauffman (2006) provide evidence of gendered patterns in desistance. Benda (2005) presents findings that support gender differences in life course factors associated with nonrecidivism, suggesting that childbearing with a caring partner reduces womenÊs odds of recidivating, while years of education and job satisfaction reduce offending for men. Analyzing the GlueckÊs WomenÊs Reformatory Study

104 |

Women Criminals

dataset, Broidy and Cauffman (2006) find support for age-graded transitions in historical context. For this group of offenders in the 1920s, transitions such as marriage and motherhood increased desistance from crime. They point out that the importance of life course transitions depends on social context. As the social importance of particular statuses shifts, their contribution to explanations of offending may also change. Given the gender differences just discussed, the study of adult onset offending should also incorporate gendered theory and analysis. Eggleston and Laub (2002) examine adult onset offending using the Racine Wisconsin data (Shannon, 1991), which followed 889 women and men from birth in 1942 or 1949 through 1976; they found that the predictors of adult onset offending and persistent offending are similar, regardless of past delinquency. Continual employment is associated with adult onset offending for late onset offenders but not for juvenile onset offenders. Their research suggests that the processes underlying offending may remain stable for all adult offenders, regardless of prior crime or delinquency. However, Block et al. (2007), looking at Dutch longitudinal offender data through age 80, found „significant‰ gender difference in adult onset offending. Even controlling for the number of life span offenses and for violent offenses, „there are still significant gender differences in age of onset,‰ with women being consistently older at the age of onset and the mean age of onset well into adulthood. These findings call for refining the definition of late onset offending and for developmental researchers to extend the offending trajectory well past adolescence. There is evidence supporting both approaches to life course theory, developmental and age-graded social control. Daigle, Cullen, and Wright (2007) examine gender differences in juvenile delinquency and call for increased attention to comparing the explanatory power of general versus gender-specific theories of youthful offending. They highlight the mixed support for feminist, traditional criminological, and life course approaches to gender differences in delinquency. This echoes Daly and Chesney-Lind (1988) who argue that whether criminological theory can be generalized across gender is one of the key questions facing the field. Our expanding repertoire of longitudinal data and methodological techniques provides us with many of the tools we need to begin addressing these issues.

CHANGES IN DATA AND RESEARCH METHODS The tension between the assumption of individual stability over the life course versus the allowance for change has shaped both the theoretical elaborations in criminology and the methodological and analytical tools for testing theory. Both Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) and Sampson and Laub (1993, 2003) use Sheldon and Eleanor GlueckÊs data and findings (1950, 1934) to support their arguments.

Age and Women’s Offending

| 105

These studies began a recent flurry of longitudinal research on age and offending patterns (Farrington, 1986, 2003, 2007; Farrington et al., 2003, 2006; Farrington, Lambert, and West, 1998; Farrington, Ohlin, and Wilson, 1986; Farrington and Painter, 2004; Farrington, Snyder, and Finnegan, 1988). However, until very recently, researchers in this area still focused on men and boys, and the conclusions they reached often were based on data on male offenders. The omission of girls and women in theory and data began to receive attention in the past several years. Block et al. (2007) document empirical studies that include males and females (Ayers et al., 1999; Bardone et al., 1996; DÊUnger, 2000; Eggleston and Laub, 2002; Ensminger, Kellam, and Rubin, 1983; Farrington et al., 2003; Giordano, Cernkovich, and Holland, 2003; Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph, 2002; Gomez-Smith and Piquero, 2005; Haynie et al., 2005; Juon, Doherty, and Ensminger, 2006; Massoglia and Uggen, 2007; Moffitt and Caspi, 2001; Moffitt et al., 2001; Piquero and Buka, 2002; Shannon, 1988, 1991; Uggen and Massolgia, 2003). Many of these studies, however, are limited by a scarcity of data that extends through adulthood. Several of the above studies follow girls only into young adulthood (roughly age 21 or 22), and only a few follow women into their 30s or 40s. These include the National Collaborative Perinatal Project (Denno, 1994; Gomez-Smith and Piquero, 2005; Niswander and Gordon, 1972; Piquero and Buka, 2002) and the Racine cohort studies (DÊUnger, 2000; Eggleston and Laub, 2002; Shannon, 1988, 1991). Most recently, the Criminal Career and Life Course Study (Werff, 1981, 1986, 1989; Block et al. 2007; Block and Werff, 1991; Blokland and Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Blokland, Nagin, and Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Nieuwbeerta and Blokland, 2003) follows men and women from age 12 to 80. Consistent empirical evidence shows gender disparity in the types of offenses committed. For example, men and boys in the United States are arrested for more serious offenses, and they are far more likely to be charged with a violent crime (Belknap, 2007; Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004; Daly, 1994; Steffensmeier and Broidy, 2001; U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], 2007). Of the offenses committed by U.S. girls and women in 2006, 80 percent were committed by women aged 18 and over, and these arrests were concentrated in a handful of categories: larceny-theft, other assaults, drug abuse violations, driving under the influence, and all „other offenses.‰ Less commonly, women were arrested for aggravated assault, burglary, forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, vandalism, prostitution, offenses against family and children, liquor laws, and drunkenness. Both women and girls were primarily arrested for nonviolent property offenses, and they were seldom arrested for highlevel white-collar crime (Daly, 1989). Studies looking at age of onset or desistance for children and adolescents often conclude that girls commit the same crimes as boys, although in general girls commit fewer and less violent offenses (Steffensmeier and Allan, 1996). GirlsÊ offenses are concentrated in the less serious property offenses and offenses that would not be a crime if the girl were an adult. Although

106 |

Women Criminals

most arrests of young girls for serious offenses are for property crimes, specifically larceny-theft and burglary (DOJ, 2007), they are also arrested for serious violent crime, most commonly aggravated assault. Between the age ranges of 10ă12 and 13ă14, arrests of girls for aggravated assault and burglary increase dramatically (DOJ, 2007). Many research studies using U.S. data draw their information on age and offending from the FBIÊs annual summary reports, Crime in the United States (DOJ, 2007) or the more recent National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This information is based on crimes known to the police which are a product of social interaction and negotiation by law enforcement officers (Black, 1970; Block and Block, 1980; Steffensmeier et al. 2006). Whether an incident becomes officially known to the police depends upon a series of decisions from the decision of a victim or witness to notify the police, to the decision of the responding officer to report the incident as a crime (Block and Block, 1980). In addition, some reported offenses (curfew violation, running away, underage drinking or smoking, truancy, incorrigibility, or unruliness in school) are „status offenses,‰ acts prohibited if the individual is a juvenile but legal if the individual is an adult. In 2006, a very small number of girls under age 10 were arrested for committing crime (DOJ, 2007), and these girls were generally arrested for status offenses. Status offenses have traditionally been legal tools for detaining young girls, increasing early entry into the juvenile justice system for minor transgressions. Young girls are more often charged and sanctioned for status offenses than are young boys (Belknap, 2007; Carr, et al., 2008; ChesneyLind and Sheldon, 1998; Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004). This gender difference persisted despite formal changes in the juvenile justice system in the early 1970s (Calahan, 1986; Costello and Worthington, 1981: 42). A related issue is the up-charging or „up-crime-ing‰ of young girls (Acoca, 1998; Belknap, 2007; Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004). Although secure commitment for status offenses became more difficult under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93ă415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.), parents still relied on the juvenile court for help disciplining their daughters. The result was a re-labeling of offenses. For example, physical altercations between siblings or a daughter shoving her mother out of the way during a fight were once just family problems. Police now label these incidents domestic violence or assault, not status offenses but charges for which a girls may be committed to a secure facility. During an evaluation of an aftercare program affiliated with a residential program for girls, one of the studies (Flynn, Hanks, and Gurley, 2007) noticed an increase in domestic violence charges for girls. Conversation with the case managers of the program and the girls in the program revealed that family fights are now considered domestic violence and charged accordingly, resulting in an increase in the proportion of domestic violence charges among the offenses of girls in the aftercare program. Similarly, Davis (2007) described the involvement of the police in

Age and Women’s Offending

| 107

family discipline struggles, using evidence from interviews with girls in the justice system. Her findings provide additional support for the practice of up-charging and call attention to the difficulty in adhering to the spirit of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Thus, young girls may receive more than their fair share of attention from the justice system. Not only are girls more often sanctioned and institutionalized for less serious offenses and for status offenses than are boys, they are more likely to be treated negatively compared to adults (Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998; Farrington and Morris, 1983; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer, 1998). In a careful look at the sentencing of women and men for similar offenses, Kathleen Daly (1994) concluded that gender disparities at that stage of the criminal justice system are „negligible‰ and as likely to benefit men as women. Minority women and girls also receive less generous treatment by the justice system, compared to majority women and girls (Leiber and Mack, 2003; Seitz, 2005; Steffensmeier et al., 1998). This disproportionate attention to young girls could be a remnant from the early justice systemÊs attention to morality and sexuality which considered young and single females and minority women to be more dangerous and potentially criminal than older, married, or white women (Odem, 1995). WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WOMEN’S OFFENDING OVER THE LIFE COURSE Recent attention to gender and deviance over the life course began with RobinsÊ (1966) work, Deviant Children Grown Up. This early effort began when clinic records were available for each young child, and a follow-up survey was done with the adults formerly treated at the clinic. While the research methods used were somewhat limiting, current scholarship is strengthened with the availability of rich data and appropriate methods. Using the tools available now, gender differences in crime are studied over the life course with more rigor, and the findings are focused in specific areas of offending. The use of longitudinal data sets that follow women through adulthood is crucial in this effort. With such rich data sets, we can consider evidence on age and offending in four general areas (Blumstein et al., 1986): participation, frequency, crime mix, and duration. Participation Participation is the proportion of a sample who commit at least one offense over a given period. Many researchers, using data from areas around the world, have found participation to be lower for women than men (Farrington, 1986; Moffitt, 1983, 1994; Steffensmeier et al., 2006; Werff, 1981, 1986, 1989), and lower for girls than boys (Belknap, 2007; Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004; Junger-Tas, Ribeaud, and

108 |

Women Criminals

Cruyff, 2004). Although participation levels change over the life span, the gender gap does not. In the National Youth Survey, Elliott (1994) found that the decline in involvement as the young people grew older was steeper for girls than for boys. At age 12, the involvement ratio it was 2:1 (male to female), but by age 21, it was 4:1 (Elliott, 1994: 6). Using data from the Netherlands, Block and her colleagues (2007) also confirmed a gender gap in participation across the life span. The Criminal Careers and Life Course Study (Nieuwbeerta and Blokland, 2003) includes a random sample of women and men arrested in 1986 and followed to their death or to age 80. Many more (13%) of the women than the men (3%) were never convicted in their life span. Of women and men convicted at least once, 62 percent of women versus 86 percent of men were convicted at least twice; of women and men convicted at least twice, 66 percent of women versus 87 percent of men were convicted at least three times. Frequency Frequency refers to the number of known offenses for people who are offending during a given time period. Recent research suggests men and women differ in the frequency of crimes committed (Brame et al., 2004; Carrington et al., 2005). For example, Carrington and colleagues (2005) found that among Canadian youth, girls were more often one-time offenders, and boys were more likely to have five or more offenses. Again, age appeared to matter in the frequency gender gap. While the frequency of boysÊ and girlsÊ offending was near parity for juveniles, the gender gap increased for individuals in their late teens (4:1) and was even more dramatic (11:1) among adult offenders (Graham and Bowling, 1995). Elliott (1994) also confirmed this finding using the National Youth Survey data. English (1993) found gender differences in specific offense types (assault, theft, and forgery) but not in others (burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft, fraud, and drug offenses). Additional evidence suggests that the average number of offenses over the life span is much greater for men than women. Block and colleagues (2007) found that women had on average 4.6 offenses over their life span, while men had roughly 13. Crime Mix In addition to participation and frequency, research on offending also considers variation over the life span in types of offending and the seriousness of offenses (Blumstein et al., 1986). Girls and women commit different offenses than boys and men with girls and women underrepresented in serious offenses and girls overrepresented in status offenses (Moffitt et al., 2001). Using longitudinal data from the National Youth Survey, Elliott (1994: 6) found that the age-specific prevalence of serious violence for juveniles was much lower for non-Hispanic white or black girls than for their male counterparts. For example, the largest percentage of serious

Age and Women’s Offending

| 109

offenses committed by non-Hispanic white girls in the National Youth Survey data was 11 percent and occurred for girls age 15. The percentage for black girls peaked at age 16, with 18 percent serious offenses. Boys peaked later, at age 17, and posted a larger percentage of serious offenses: 25 percent for non-Hispanic white males and 36 percent for black males. In the Netherlands, Block and colleagues (2007) found that property crimes (burglary and theft) constituted a higher proportion of the life span offenses of women than men, and violent crimes (assault, sexual offenses, and robbery) constituted a lower proportion of life span offenses for women, regardless of the number of offenses. Are girls and women more or less likely than boys and men to specialize in particular types of criminal offense, such as violence versus property? Evidence on criminal careers suggests that crime type versatility is more common than crime type specialization for most offenders (Farrington, 2003; Piquero, et al., 2003) but that specialization varies by age. Among juveniles, research suggests that any specialization differences between girls and boys are found for status offenses (Farrington et al., 1988; Kempf-Leonard, Tracy, and Howell, 2001; Rojek and Erickson, 1982; Tracy and Kempf-Leonard, 1996). For example, Farrington and his colleagues (1988) report no differences between girls and boys in offense specialization, except that girls who were persistent offenders were more likely to specialize in running away (a status offense that is often gendered; see Acoca, 1998; Belknap, 2007; Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2004). On the other hand, Soothill, Francis, and Fligelstone (2000) found that women did specialize, with higher levels of shoplifting and trust violations. Although Mazerolle and his colleagues found (2000) fewer differences in specialization among offenders up to age 26, they did report that women and older onset offenders were most likely to specialize in property crimes. Duration To consider duration, researchers need some understanding of both age at the beginning of criminal involvement and age at the end of offending. Generally, studies that examine age at onset (the earliest known offense in an individualÊs life span) focus on juveniles. Farrington (2003) and others (Block et al., 2007; Piquero et al., 2007; Robins, 1966; Silverthorn and Frick, 2004) found gender differences in age at onset, with girls beginning involvement in crime at later ages than boys. However, other evidence suggests that both boy and girl offenders have an early onset group (Fergusson and Horwood, 2002; Piquero, 2004). According to Fergusson and Horwood, „what distinguished males and females trajectory models was not the presence or absence of an early onset pathway, but rather the fact the far fewer females followed this pathway‰ (2002: 174). Adult onset is less commonly studied. Research suggests that as many as onefourth (Blumstein et al., 1986; Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, 1987) to one-half

110

|

Women Criminals

(Blumstein et al., 1986: 88, Carrington et al., 2005: 6; Eggleston and Laub, 2002; Farrington et al., 1998; Kratzer and Hodgins, 1999) of offenders begin their involvement in crime in adulthood. In addition, there is some evidence that adult onset is more common among women than men (Block et al., 2007; Gomez-Smith, 2004; Kratzer and Hodgins, 1999). For example, Block and her colleagues found that, while half of men began their involvement in crime at age 20 or older and 25 percent at age 25 or older, half of women were age 28 or older when they started offending and 25 percent of women were age 37 or older (Block et al., 2007). Although the gender gap in age at conviction remained, Block and her colleagues did find that age of onset was conditioned by offense type. Specifically, they found that offenders who committed at least one violent crime had an earlier age of onset than those who were not involved in violent offenses. Adult onset offending is not only documented in quantitative research but also in qualitative investigations (Carr and Hanks, 2007; Richie, 1996). For example, Carr and Hanks (2007), in life history interviews with women in jail, found a substantial number of women who did not become involved with the criminal justice system until they were adults. Like Lola, whose words we quote at the beginning of this essay, 8 of the 30 interviewed women fit a pattern of criminal activity that some (Eggleston and Laub, 2002; Gomez-Smith, 2004, Gomez-Smith and Piquero, 2005) call „adult onset.‰ Seven of the eight were over 30 when they were first charged with a crime. Carr and Hanks (2007) were interested in finding patterns among this group of women so that they could better understand how the women had become involved in offending after leading conventional lives through adolescence and early adulthood. Patterns emerged through coding and developed into conceptual categories as they analyzed womenÊs life histories. Three categories were specifically linked to offending: addiction, caretaking, and presence of children. In addition to age at onset, researchers who study the duration of criminal careers need to know when involvement in crime ends. Methodologically, measuring the cessation of crime is challenging. The problems include the limits of available data, with different researchers finding different results depending on the data (Massoglia and Uggen, 2007; Piquero et al., 2004), as well as the problem of defining „cessation‰ of crime. Weitekamp and Kerner (1994) and others (Laub and Sampson, 2001) make a distinction between desistance and termination·desistence may be temporary, but termination is permanent. Termination can be assessed with certainty only after the end of an individualÊs life (Piquero et al., 2003). When data are available for analysis across the entire life span, previously undiscovered patterns of criminal career termination may emerge. For example, Block and colleagues (2007) found that, even controlling for age at onset, women were more likely than men to have a 25-year conviction-free period before death or age 80. Research on the life span suggests that desistance is a nuanced process which depends on a variety of factors, including local life circumstances (Horney, Osgood,

Age and Women’s Offending

| 111

and Marshal, 1995), changes in status (Laub and Sampson, 2003; Sampson and Laub, 199;), and events or situations that alter interactions (Agnew, 2006). Evidence also suggests that there are differences between women and men in the process of desistence (Giordano et al., 2002; Uggen and Kruttschnitt, 1998). For example, women who appear to conform more closely to traditional norms may be less threatening and require less legal control than those who are less normative (Uggen and Kruttschnitt, 1998). Evidence of gender differences in trajectories over the life course is mixed. In the tradition of Moffitt and her colleagues, some researchers found an early onset group of offenders for boys and girls (DÊUnger, Land, and McCall, 2002; Mazerolle et al., 2000; Moffitt et al., 2001; Piquero and Chung, 2001) while others reported that MoffittÊs taxonomy better described boys than girls (Kratzer and Hodgins, 1999: 57). Land and colleagues found gender differences in types of trajectories. When they considered girls and women in the Second Philadelphia Cohort, they found three patterns of life span offending: non-offenders, high-rate adolescent peak offenders, and low-rate adolescent peak offenders (DÊUnger et al., 2002). In another data set, the Racine Birth Cohort, Land (2002) found three patterns (latent classes) of offending for women and girls·chronic, peaked, and non-offending·but five latent classes for men. Likewise, Block and her colleagues found four conviction trajectories in their data·sporadic, chronic, low-rate desisters, and moderate rate desisters (Block et al., 2007). The moderate-rate desister trajectory most closely resembled the classic age-crime curve, but less than 1 percent of women and only 4.5 percent of men fit this pattern of convictions. Women were more prominent among the sporadic offender group and had very few convictions during adulthood. More men than women were represented among the low- and moderate-rate desisters and among the chronic offenders. Thus, gender differences persist in the Dutch data.

CONCLUSION Though, with a few exceptions, criminological theory and research has only recently begun to pay attention to girls and women, the amount of information on age and womenÊs offending as been building rapidly. Taken together, the findings of this research suggest that gender differences in criminal involvement and offending over the life span do exist. Despite variations across data sources, generally speaking, it appears that girls and boys and women and men follow different pathways to crime. Even when they do follow similar routes, girls are a smaller proportion of offenders (see the evidence for early onset in DÊUnger et al., 2002; Mazerolle et al., 2000; Moffitt et al., 2001; Piquero and Chung, 2001). Longitudinal data over the life span support differences in participation, frequency, crime mix, and criminal careers (Block et al., 2007).

112

|

Women Criminals

The work discussed in this essay reveals a wide variation in data sets and methodological techniques as well as differences in theoretical approaches. It is evident that the old adage „add women and stir‰ (Smith, 1974) is inadequate and that current research anticipates gender differences and is willing to posit different processes for girls and boys. Additionally, the wide range of findings documented here confirms the importance of this line of research for the future.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH One of the important directions for future research is a gender-integrated theory that would allow for and explain gender differences (Hoyt and Scherer, 1998; Lanctôt and LeBlanc, 2002; Junger-Tas et al., 2004). As a foundation for such integrated theory, more information is needed on pathways to crime as well as the broader context of the patterns seen in longitudinal data. First, we need to continue our research with longitudinal sources of data. Extending the observation period to include the entire life span allows researchers to address crime duration, including the actual termination of criminal careers. Additionally, data collection efforts should be expanded to include a wide range of covariates and more diverse samples. Finally, collaborative work should be done to increase the similarity between research efforts. Because most research efforts do not collect the same data over the life course, it is currently difficult to summarize findings across studies. Increasing our understanding of gender differences in age and crime also requires additional qualitative research. Researchers should make an effort to gather stories of girls and boys and women and men who have committed crimes with attention paid to differences in offending over their lives. So that qualitative research findings can be summarized across studies and can inform qualitative research, clear and detailed definitions of offending, circumstances precipitating criminal involvement, and life context should be published with qualitative research efforts. In addition, mixed methods can provide more sophisticated understandings of why and how gender and age shape involvement in crime and deviance. Large quantitative data sets, especially those that incorporate the voices of individuals, allow researchers to speak to differences over time. Future research should attempt to tease out the influence of gendered life events, such as victimization, childbearing, marriage, and caretaking, on womenÊs involvement in crime. Traditional roles and responsibilities appear to influence desistence (Broidy and Cauffman, 2006; Giordano et al., 2002), but as gender norms shift, the protective effect of traditional roles may decline. As Broidy and Cauffman (2006) point out, historical context should be an important consideration in our explanations and our approaches to addressing offending. Nontraditional experiences that conflict with dominant gender norms may precipitate involvement in crime and

Age and Women’s Offending

| 113

deviance. The inability to „fit‰ the model of conventional womanhood may influence involvement in a wide range of non-normative activities, including crime. Another area that needs more research is adult onset offending. Given the evidence in the literature reviewed here, we know that some women do not become involved in crime until later in life. Research needs to address what events or conditions lead to adult onset criminality. For example, do changes in marital status loosen conventional ties and leave some women more free to deviate? Does the exit of children from the home remove a protective factor and increase womenÊs risk of offending? Does caretaking motivate a woman to do whatever she can to protect and provide for those who are her responsibility? While research suggests that victimization seems related to early onset offending (Kruttschnitt and Carbone-Lopez, 2006) and that caretaking responsibilities appear to be more salient for adult onset offending (Carr and Hanks, 2007; Feraro and Moe, 2003), more evidence needs to be gathered to explain gender differences in adult onset criminality. Carr and Hanks (2007) begin to address these issues, but much more research needs to be done, both quantitative and qualitative. Our increasing knowledge about gender differences in criminal involvement and offending also challenges policy makers and practitioners to address traditional ideas about gender differences and crime. For example, attention to offending over time mandates policy and treatment approaches that consider the life span. Currently, the juvenile and adult justice systems in most countries remain very distinct entities with separate purposes. In the future, more connections may be made between these different organizations to strengthen crime prevention and treatment throughout the life course. Given the changing ideas about developmental age and adolescence, the age of 18 may no longer be a useful point for differentiating between juveniles and adults. Our increasing cognizance of developmental differences and the importance of structural conditions in offending may result in blurred boundaries between the separate justice systems and may spur more collaboration in addressing problems that develop at various stages of life. Likewise, evidence of adult onset offending may offer unique challenges to practitioners. The standard package of drug treatment programs and educational interventions may not be sufficient to address the issues behind womenÊs adult onset offending. High demand for these programs currently results in lengthy waiting lists for incarcerated women. Certainly, drug treatment programs are important and need to be expanded. However, this „new‰ group of offenders may also need additional assistance with job training for good-paying positions, availability of college courses, and an updated life skills class that addresses shifting womenÊs roles and the challenges and opportunities that come with age and changes in social positions. Taken together, the research examined in this essay and the implications the findings discussed have for the future should foretell an exciting period for those who study women, men, and offending. Our methodological techniques and theoretical

114 |

Women Criminals

developments have the potential to generate critical discourse for years to come. The challenge is maintain the interest in these debates and to increase the audience and field of participants. Rapid developments in the area of gender and crime underscore the importance of maintaining active interdisciplinary associations, increasing the availability of resources devoted to these areas of research, and promoting collaborations between those working to better understand the complex relationship between gender, age, and criminal offending. References Acoca, Leslie. 1998. Outside/inside: The violation of American girls at home, on the streets, and in the juvenile justice system. Crime and Delinquency 44: 561. Adler, Freda. 1975. Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill. Agnew, Robert. 2006. Storylines as a neglected cause of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 43: 119ă147. Ayers, Charles D., James Herbert Williams, J. David Hawkins, Peggy L. Peterson, Richard F. Catalano, and Robert D. Abbott. 1999. Assessing correlates of onset, escalation, de-escalation, and desistance of delinquent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15: 277ă306. Bardone, Anna M., Terrie E. Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, Nigel Dickson, and Phil A. Silva. 1996. Adult mental health and social outcomes of adolescent girls with depression and conduct disorder. Developmental Psychopathology 8: 811ă829. Belknap, Joanne. 2001, 2007. The Invisible Woman: Gender Crime and Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth. Benda, Brent B. 2005. Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49(3): 325ă242. Black, Donald J. 1970. Production of crime rates. American Sociological Review 35: 733ă748. Block, Carolyn Rebecca, Arjan A. J. Blokland, Paul Nieuwbeerta, and Cornelia van der Werff. 2007. Long-term patterns of offending in adult women. Presented at the American Society of Criminology meetings, November 15, 2007. Block, Carolyn R., and Cornelia van der Werff. 1991. Initiation and continuation of a criminal career: Who are the most active and dangerous offenders in the Netherlands. WODC, Ministerie van Justitie, Nederland, Arnhem: Gouda Quint. Block, Richard L., and Carolyn R. Block. 1980. Decisions and data: The transformation of robbery incidents into official robbery statistics. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 71(4): 622ă636. Blokland, Arjan, A. J., Daniel S. Nagin, and Paul Nieuwbeerta. 2005. Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction cohort. Criminology 43(4): 919ă954. Blokland, Arjan, and Paul Nieuwbeerta. 2005. The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology 43(4): 1203ă1240. Blumstein, Alfred, and Jacqueline Cohen. 1979. Estimation of individual crime rates from arrest records. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 70: 561ă585. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher. 1986. Criminal Careers and Career Criminals Volume 1. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Brame, Robert, Jeffrey Fagan, Alex R. Piquero, Carol A. Schubert, and Laurence Steinberg. 2004. Criminal careers of serious delinquents in two cities. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2: 256ă272.

Age and Women’s Offending

| 115

Broidy, Lisa M., and Elizabeth E. Cauffman. 2006. Understanding the Female Offender. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, December, 2006. NCJRS 2001-IJ-CX-0034. U.S Department of Justice, NCJRS 216615. Calahan, M. 1986. Historical Corrections Statistics in the United States: 1850ă1984. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Carr, Nicole T., and Roma S. Hanks. 2007. Like a kid again: Analysis of life histories of women in jail and late onset criminality. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. Carr, Nicole T., Kenneth Hudson, Roma S. Hanks, and Andrea N. Hunt. 2008. Gender effects along the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology 3: 25ă43. Carrington, Peter J., Anthony Matarazzo, and Paul deSouza. 2005. Court careers of a Canadian birth cohort. Crime and Justice Research Paper Series, no. 85ă561-MIE·No. 006, November 2005. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Lisa Pasko. 2004. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Randall G. Shelden. 1998. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice, 2nd edition. Belmont, CA: West Wadsworth. Costello, Jan C., and Nancy. L. Worthington. 1981. Incarcerating status offenders·Attempts to circumvent the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 16: 41ă81. Daigle, Leah, Francis T. Cullen, and John Paul Wright. 2007. Gender differences in the predictors of juvenile misconduct: Assessing the generality-specificity debate. Journal of Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5:254ă286. Daly, K., and M. Chesney-Lind. 1988. Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly 5(4): 497ă538. Daly, Kathleen. 1989. Gender and varieties of white-collar crime. Criminology 27: 769ă794. Daly, Kathleen. 1994. Gender, Crime and Punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Davis, Carla P. 2007. At-risk girls and delinquency: Career pathways. Crime and Delinquency 53: 408ă435. DÊUnger, Amy V. 2000. Influence of neighborhood, peer, and family context: Trajectories of delinquent/criminal offending across the life course. PhD dissertation, sociology, Duke University. DÊUnger, Amy V., Kenneth Land, and Patricia McCall. 2002. Sex differences in age patterns of delinquent/criminal careers: Results from Poisson Latent Class Analyses of the Philadelphia Cohort Study. Quantitative Criminology 18: 349ă375. Denno, Deborah. 1994. Gender, crime, and the criminal law defenses. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85: 80ă180. Eggleston, Elaine P., and John H. Laub. 2002. The onset of adult offending: A neglected dimension of the criminal career. Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 603ă622. Elder, Glen H. 1974/1999. Children of the Great Depression: Social Change and Life Experience. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Elder, Glen H. 1985. Life Course Dynamics: Trajectories and Transitions, 1968ă1980. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Elder, Glen H. 1994. Time, human agency, and social change: Perspective on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly 57(1): 4ă15. Elliott, Delbert S. 1994. Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination· the American Society of 1993 presidential address. Criminology 32: 1ă21. English, Kim. 1993. Self-reported crime rates of women prisoners. Quantitative Criminology 9: 357ă382.

116

|

Women Criminals

Ensminger, Margaret E., Sheppard G. Kellam, and Barnett R. Rubin. 1983. School and family origins of delinquency: Comparisons by sex. In Katherine T. Van Dusen and Sarnoff A. Mednick (eds.), Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency (73ă97). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Farrington, David P. 1986. Age and crime. In Michael Tonry and Norvil Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 7 (189ă250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Farrington, David P. 2003. Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. The 2002 Sutherland Award address. Criminology 41: 221ă225. Farrington, David P. 2007. Advancing knowledge about desistance. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23: 125ă134. Farrington, David P., and A. Morris. 1983. Sex, sentencing and reconviction. British Journal of Criminology 23: 229ă248. Farrington, David P., and Kate A. Painter. 2004. Gender Differences in Offending: Implications for Risk-Focused Prevention. London: Home Office Online Report 09/04. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/onlinepubs1.html. Farrington, David P., Darrick Jolliffe, J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, Karl G. Hill, and Rick Kosterman. 2003. Comparing delinquency careers in court records and self-reports. Criminology 41: 933ă958. Farrington, David P., Howard Snyder, and Terrence A. Finnegan. 1988. Specialization in juvenile court careers. Criminology 26: 461ă487. Farrington, David P., Jeremy Coid, Louise M. Harnett, Darrick Jolliffe, Nadine Soteriou, Richard E. Turner, and Donald J. West. 2006. Criminal careers up to age 50 and life success up to age 48: New findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Home Office Research Study 299 (September 2006). London: Home Office. Farrington, David P., L. E. Ohlin, and James Q. Wilson. 1986. Understanding & Controlling Crime· Toward a New Research Strategy. New York: Springer-Verlag. Farrington, David P., Sandra Lambert, and Donald J. West. 1998. Criminal careers of two generations of family members in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 7: 85ă106. Feraro, Kathleen J., and Angela M. Moe. 2003. Mothering, crime and incarceration. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 32(1): 9ă40. Fergusson, David M., and L. John Horwood. 2002. Male and female offending trajectories. Developmental Psychopathology 14: 159ă177. Flynn, Nicole T., Roma S. Hanks, and Lindsey Gurley. 2007. Stirred, shaken, or blended? Gender differences in processing and treatment of juvenile offenders. Women and Criminal Justice 18(4): 17ă36. Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Donna D. Holland. 2003. Changes in friendship relations over the life course: Implications for desistance from crime. Criminology 41: 293ă327. Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Jennifer L. Rudolph. 2002. Gender, crime and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology 107: 990ă1064. Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. 1934. 500 Delinquent Women. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. Gomez-Smith, Zenta. 2004. An Examination of Adult Onset Offending. MA thesis, University of Florida, Department of Criminology and Law. Gomez-Smith, Zenta, and Alex R. Piquero. 2005. An examination of adult onset offending. Journal of Criminal Justice 33: 515ă525.

Age and Women’s Offending

| 117

Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1986. The true value of lambda would appear to be zero: An essay on career criminals, criminal careers, selective incapacitation, cohort studies, and related topics. Criminology 24: 213ă234. Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1989. Event Theory of Crime. In Freda Adler and William S. Laufer (eds.), Advances in Criminological Theory, v. 1 (57ă67). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Graham, John, and Benjamin Bowling. 1995. Young People and Crime. Home Office Research Study # 145. November. London: Home office. Greenberg, David F. 1985. Age, crime, and social explanation. American Journal of Sociology 91: 1ă21. Haynie, Dana L., Peggy C. Giordano, Wendy D. Manning, and Monica A. Longmore. 2005. Adolescent romantic relationships and delinquency involvement. Criminology 43: 177ă210. Hirschi, Travis and Michael Gottfredson. 1983. Age and the explanation of time. American Journal of Sociology 89: 552ă584. Hirschi, Travis, and Michael R. Gottfredson. 1995. Control theory and the life course perspective. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 4: 131ă143. Horney, Julie, D. Wayne Osgood, and Ineke Haen Marshall. 1995. Criminal careers in the short term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review 60: 655ă673. Hoyt, Stephanie, and David G. Scherer. 1998. Female juvenile delinquency: Misunderstood by the juvenile justice system, neglected by social science. Law and Human Behavior 22: 81ă107. Junger-Tas, Josine, Denis Ribeaud, and Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff. 2004. Juvenile delinquency and gender. European Journal of Criminology 1(3): 333ă375. Juon, Hee-Soon, Elaine Eggleston Doherty, and Margaret E. Ensminger. 2006. Childhood behavior and adult criminality: Cluster analysis in a prospective study of African Americans. Quantitative Criminology 22: 193ă214. Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly, Paul E. Tracy, and James C. Howell. 2001. Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: The relationship of delinquency career types to adult criminality. Justice Quarterly 18: 449ă478. Kratzer, Lynn, and Sheilagh Hodgins. 1999. A typology of offenders: A test of MoffittÊs theory among males and females from childhood to age 30. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 9: 57ă73. Kruttschnitt, Candace, and Kristin Carbone-Lopez. 2006. Moving beyond the stereotypes: WomenÊs subjective accounts of their violent crime. Criminology 44(2): 321ă352. Lanctôt, Nadine, and Marc LeBlanc. 2002. Explaining deviance by adolescent females. In Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 29 (113ă202). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Land, Kenneth C. 2000. Influence of Neighborhood, Peer, and Family Context: Trajectories of Delinquent/Criminal Offending Across the Life Course. (Data and research by Amy DÊUnger.) Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, 99-IJ-CX-0035. U.S. Department of Justice: NIJ 184551. Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 1993. Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology 31: 301ă325. Laub, John, and Robert Sampson. 2001. Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

118

|

Women Criminals

Laub, John, and Robert Sampson. 2003. Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Lessons from life course criminology. Presented paper, American Sociological Association, 2003 Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. Laub, John H., Robert J. Sampson, and Gary A. Sweeten. 2006. Assessing Sampson and LaubÊs lifecourse theory of crime. In Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, and Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (313ă333). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Leiber, Michael J., and Kristin Y. Mack. 2003. The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40: 34ă70. Massoglia, Michael, and Christopher Uggen. 2007. Subjective desistance and transition to adulthood. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23: 90ă103. Mazerolle, Paul, Robert Brame, Ray Paternoster, Alex Piquero, and Charles Dean. 2000. Onset age, persistence, and offending versatility: Comparisons across gender. Criminology 38: 1143ă1172. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1983. Learning theory model of punishment·Implications for delinquency deterrence. Criminal Justice & Behavior 2: 131ă158. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1990. Juvenile delinquency and attention-deficit disorder: Developmental trajectories from age three to fifteen. Child Development 61: 893ă910. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100: 674ă701. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1994. Natural histories of delinquency. In Elmar G. M. Weitekamp and HansJürgen Kerner (eds.). Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behaviour (3ă61). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Moffitt, Terrie E., and Avshalom Caspi. 2001. Childhood predictors differentiate lifeăcourse persistent and adolescence-limited pathways, among males and females. Development and Psychopathology 13: 355ă375. Moffitt, Terrie E., Avshalom Caspi, Michael Rutter, and Phil A. Silva. 2001. Sex Differences in Antisocial Behaviour: Conduct Disorder, Delinquency, and Violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nieuwbeerta, Paul, and Arjan A. J. Blokland. 2003. Criminal Careers of Adult Dutch Offenders. Codebook and Documentation. Leiden: NSCR. Niswander, Kenneth R., and Myron Gordon. 1972. The Women and their Pregnancies. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Odem, Mary E. 1995. Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885ă1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Piquero, Alex R. 2000. Assessing the relationships between gender, chronicity, seriousness, and skewness in criminal offending. Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 103ă116. Piquero, Alex R. 2004. Somewhere between persistence and desistance: The intermittency of criminal careers. In Shadd Maruna and Russ Immarigeon (eds.), After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (102ă125). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Piquero, Alex R., and He Len Chung. 2001. On the relationships between gender, early onset, and the seriousness of offending. Journal of Criminal Justice 29: 189ă206. Piquero, Alex R., and Stephen L. Buka. 2002. Linking juvenile and adult patterns of criminal activity in the Providence cohort of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 259ă272. Piquero, Alex R., and Timothy Brezina. 2001. Testing MoffittÊs account of adolescence-limited delinquency. Criminology 39: 353ă370.

Age and Women’s Offending

| 119

Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2003. The criminal career paradigm: Background and recent developments. In Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 30 (359ă506). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2007. Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Cambridge: University Press. Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, and Donald Lynam. 2004. Studying criminal career length through early adulthood among serious offenders. Crime and Delinquency 50: 412ă435. Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, and Rudy Haapanen. 2002. Crime in emerging adulthood. Criminology 40: 137ă170. Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2005. Extending the study of continuity and change: Gender differences in the linkage between adolescent and adult offending. Quantitative Criminology 21: 127ă243. Pollack, Otto. 1950. The Criminality of Women. New York: Barnes. Raine, A, Terrie E. Moffitt, A Caspi, R Loeber, M. Stouthamer-Loeber, and D. Lyman. 2005. Neurocognitive deficits and psychosocial deficits and life-course persistent offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114: 38ă41. Richie, Beth E. 1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New York: Routledge. Robbins, Lee N. 1966. Deviant Children Grown Up: A Sociological and Psychiatric Study of Sociopathic Personality. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Rojek, Dean G., and M. L. Erickson. 1982. Delinquent careers: A test of the career escalation model. Criminology 20: 5ă28. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1992. Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology 18: 63ă84. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2003. Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology 41: 555ă592. Seitz, Trina N. 2005. The wounds of savagery: Negro primitivism, gender parity, and the execution of Rosanna Lightner Phillips. Women & Criminal Justice 16: 29ă64. Shannon, Lyle W. 1988. Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context. New York: Human Sciences Press. Shannon, Lyle W. 1991. Changing Patterns of Delinquency and Crime: A Longitudinal Study in Racine. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Silva, Phil A., and Warren R. Stanton. 1996. From Child to Adult: The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Auckland: Oxford University Press. Silverthorn, Persephanie, and Paul J. Frick. 1999. Developmental pathways to antisocial behavior: The delayed-onset pathway in girls. Development and Psychopathology 11: 101ă126. Soothill, Keith, Brian Francis, and Rachel Fligelstone. 2000. Patterns of Offending Behavior: A New Approach. London: Home Office. Smith, Dorothy. 1974. WomenÊs perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry 44: 7ă13. Steffensmeier, Darrell, and Cathy Streifel. 1991. Age, gender, and crime across three historical periods: 1935, 1960, and 1985. Social Forces 69: 209ă234. Steffensmeier, Darrell J., and Emilie A. Allan. 1988. Sex disparities in arrests by residence, race and age: An assessment of the gender convergence/crime hypothesis. Justice Quarterly 5(1): 5 3ă80.

120

|

Women Criminals

Steffensmeier, Darrell J., and Emilie A. Allan. 1996. Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 459ă487. Steffensmeier, Darrell J., and Dana Haynie. 2000. Gender, structural disadvantage, and urban crime: Do macrosocial variables also explain female offending rates? Criminology 38: 403ă438. Steffensmeier, Darrell J., and Lisa Broidy. 2001. Explaining female offending. In Claire Renzetti and Lynne Goodstein (eds.), Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Original Feminist Readings (111ă132). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Hua Zhong, Jeff Ackerman, Jennifer Schwartz, and Suzanne Agha. 2006. Gender gap trends for violent crimes, 1980 to 2003: A UCR-NCVS comparison. Feminist Criminology 1: 72ă98. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jeffery Ulmer, and John Kramer. 1998. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36: 763ă797. Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jennifer Schwartz, Hua Zhong, and Jeff Ackerman. 2005. An assessment of recent trends in girlsÊ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology 43: 355ă406. Tracy, Paul E., and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard. 1996. Continuity and Discontinuity in Criminal Careers. New York: Plenum. Uggen, Christopher, and Candace Kruttschnitt. 1998. Crime in the breaking: Gender differences in desistance. Law and Society Review 32: 339ă366. Uggen, Christopher, and Michael Massoglia. 2003. Desistance from crime and deviance as a turning point in the life course. In Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan (eds.), Handbook of the Life Course (311ă329). New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2007. Crime in the United States, 2006. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/. Weitekamp, Elmar G. M., and Hans-Jürgen Kerner (eds.). 1994. Epilogue: Workshop and Plenary Discussions, and Future Directions. In Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behavior (439ă449). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Werff, Cornelia van der. 1981. Recidivism and special deterrence. British Journal of Criminology 21(2): 136ă147. Werff, Cornelia van der. 1986. Recidive 1977; Recidivecijfers van in 1977 wegens misdrijf veroordeelden en niet-vervolgden. Den Haag: WODC, Ministerie van Justitie. Werff, Cornelia van der. 1989. Recidivism 1977: Rates of Recidivism for Persons Convicted and Persons Whose Case was Dropped in 1977 (Indictable Offenses). Den Haag: WODC, Ministerie van Justitie. White, Norman A., and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. A preliminary empirical test of Silverthorn and FrickÊs delayed-onset pathway in girls, using an urban, African-American, U.S.-based sample. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 14: 291ă309. Wolfgang, Martin E., Terrence P. Thornberry, and Robert M. Figlio. 1987. From Boy to Man, From Delinquency to Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DIVERSITY AND WOMEN’S CRIMINAL OFFENDING Vickie Jensen, Yasmin Serrato, Nayla Huq, and Crystal Kelly

INTRODUCTION Understanding womenÊs criminality and the ways in which women have been defined as criminals is a task that requires us to see women as existing in complex worlds, occupying different kinds of social space. No one perspective can address womenÊs crime just as there is no one kind of woman. Perhaps nowhere else do we more strongly see the need for multiple perspectives on womenÊs crime than with a consideration of diversity and womenÊs offending. Since the 1960s and 1970s, criminology has been confronted with its lack of or superficial inclusion of womenÊs lives in its research and theories. When womenÊs lives and experiences are juxtaposed against what is taken for granted in traditional criminology, we find that general theories of crime do not always fare as well or work the same for explaining womenÊs versus menÊs criminality. Furthermore, the field has demonstrated well that women criminals differ in many substantial and meaningful ways from their male counterparts. This challenge to criminology was from a point of view of a presumed common and consistent experience of women in general. After speaking from what was assumed as a common experience, women of color and working-class women began to speak up and challenge these assumptions that women shared the same kinds of experience purely based on the status of being a „woman‰ in society. The first wave of feminist critique of criminology had, like the womenÊs movement of the early 1970s, been heavily representative of the lived experience of white, European, middle-class women (Belknap, 2007). The challenge was that women of color and working- and lower-class women confronted a different reality, one in which the experiences of race, class, and gender intersect to create multiple forms of inequality in society. OneÊs race/ethnicity or class status brings a different kind of experience with lack of power than what had been being represented on the single dimension of gender. The lives of women of color had been excluded from both white feminism and the male-dominated ethnic studies arenas (Dill and Zambrano, 2009). Experiences of diverse groups of women with regard to victimization, opportunities, and quality of life created different experiences with crime than those experienced by 121

122 |

Women Criminals

white, middle-class women, who neither had to deal with the disadvantages of class nor the impact of racism both directly from the world and indirectly through the effects of racism on the men of color in their lives. In fact, the experience of prejudice is an integral part of the experiences of women of color, and this affects their experience with crime and the criminal justice system (Belknap, 2007). DIVERSITY: DEFINITIONS In order to understand how diversity impacts women and how this relates to crime, it is important to quickly address some basic themes that pervade the work in this field. The first is that we live in a society characterized by inequality in terms of power, privilege, and property. Gender provides one dimension of inequality. Early sociologists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber described societal inequality in terms of class status, though in slightly different ways. Race and ethnicity is another dimension of societal inequality with definitions of „whiteness‰ in U.S. history gate keeping who was privy to racial privilege and who was not. One only needs to examine the history of immigration to see the struggles of some non-Anglo European immigrant groups (e.g., Italians, Irish, Jews) to see that „whiteness‰ is a definition of power regardless of skin color, though ultimate passage into the privilege of „whiteness‰ came to many, if not most, European immigrant groups over time while other groups were not as fortunate. Dill and Zambrano (2009) define inequality as occurring at a level beyond that of the individual. They argue that it is found in institutional patterns of unequal control over valued goods and services. One group experiences privilege with respect to other groups in the form of unearned benefits. The authors identify multiple dimensions of inequality that result in individuals occupying multiple positions with respect to power, depending on which system of inequality is examined. The result of these inequalities is the unique positioning of individuals with respect to different experiences of privilege and powerlessness. With respect to gender, class, and race/ethnicity, we see the impact of societal position on all three, including the arena of criminal definitions, criminal justice processing, and motivations. WOMEN’S DIVERSITY AND CRIME: PATTERNS AND TRENDS Data that break down women and crime by race/ethnicity are rare and nearly nonexistent for the breakdown of class. Additionally, getting data that identify Latino crime separate from African American/black or white crime is extremely difficult. For example, the FBIÊs Uniform Crime Reports regularly report data by race and by gender, but not both, and Latinos are subsumed into other categories including

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 123

white, black, and American Indian. Extant literature that reports gender, race, and crime arrests must come from individual agencies and is scarce. Because of criminal justice categorization, most studies report differences in terms of African American and white; this dichotomous approach gives us a very one-sided view of diversity when we know that the experiences of other minority groups are distinct and highly important and have an impact on their experiences with regard to crime as well as living in our society in general. We know nearly nothing about race or ethnicity with regard to any crimes that do not come to the attention of the criminal justice system. When examining any data regarding crime, but particularly data reflecting race/ethnicity differences, one must be sure to look at the way the datagatherers defined race and ethnicity categories as well as at what stage of the crime process they measured the data: that is, at crime occurrence, arrest, prosecution, sentencing, or incarceration. What is known from available data and other literature with respect to the criminal justice system is that, overall, women of color receive more severe responses by the criminal justice system than their white counterparts (Belknap, 2007). The picture of minority women and crime can become more differentiated, though, when we examine different categories of minority status and different dimensions of the criminal justice system. Available data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) show that African American women are overrepresented among violent women. While white women comprise the majority of women violent offenders (55%), this is far below their representation in the general population of women (73.8%). On the other hand, African American women make up 35 percent of women violent offenders, but they only comprise 12.1 percent of the general population of women. Data for „other races‰ are unclear because of the mingling of multiple groups into one overly broad category. An examination of New York City arrest data from 1987 to 1992 reveals some interesting cross-gender and within gender variations. Overall, with respect to homicide, womenÊs rates of arrest were much lower than that of men: 8.47 per 100,000 compared to 155.39 per 100,000 for men. When we look at race and homicide for women, we see that the rate of arrest for Latinas committing homicide is comparable to the overall rate of womenÊs arrests for homicide at 8.10 per 100,000. African American women, however, are arrested at more than twice the rate of women overall with a rate of 20.3 per 100,000. White women were arrested at less than 25 percent of the overall rate, at 1.54 per 100,000. Of course, these rates are low compared to men, particularly African American men (347.79 per 100,000), but it does indicate that, at least for African American women, their race makes them more vulnerable to arrest for homicide. The story is virtually the same for robbery and aggravated assault. White womenÊs arrest rates are around 25 percent of the womenÊs total rate while Latinas are slightly above the womenÊs total rate. African American women, however, have rates of arrest for robbery and aggravated assault

124 |

Women Criminals

that are roughly 250 percent higher than the overall rate for women. When compared to African American men, African American women certainly have a much lower rate of arrest for violent crimes. The patterns of arrest for African American women are most comparable to that of white males with ratios that hover around a 1:1 ratio (Baskin and Sommers, 1998). There are some important differences when it comes to age patterns and race in arrest for violent crimes. Again, looking at data from New York City, the pattern for males is quite consistent for whites, African Americans, and Latinos with respect to arrest for homicide and robbery. The highest arrest rates for all three menÊs racial groups occur between ages 15 and 19. Aggravated assault rates of arrest peaked at the 20ă24 age category for African American and Latino men. What we see, by and large, is that violence is most prevalent for men in their late teens and early twenties, regardless of race. These data are offered as a contrast to what we see for women. For women, the pattern is much more mixed. With respect to robbery, there are no racial differences with regard to peak rate of arrest for women; all peak arrest rates occurred in the 20ă24 age group. This is still slightly older than men arrested for robbery. Assault for white and Latina women peaked in the age group of 20ă24 while for African American women it peaked at 25ă29. Without further examination, it is difficult to see why this might be the case, though the rate for assault arrest African American women in the 20ă24 age category was nearly as high (Baskin and Sommers, 1998). Homicide arrest rates for women show a very different trend. The peak age grouping for white women is in the 30ă39 range, quite possibly reflecting patterns in intimate partner killing. For Latinas, the peak age group for homicide arrest appears to be 25ă29 with the 20ă24 age group coming in a close second. African American women have the youngest peak homicide arrest age with the height coming at age 20ă24 with both 15ă19 and 25ă29 age groups coming in second. It is clear that there are differences by race in the rates of womenÊs arrest when it comes to homicide. The younger peak ages of minority women may reflect different attitudes toward violence, differential strains created by minority status, or perhaps an escalation of domestic violence that occurs at an earlier age than it does for whites. As there are no class data presented, it is difficult to sort out what role lower- or working-class status may have on these differences. Another area in which there appear to be differences by race is in the granting of bail and release prior to trial. We know that court outcomes are significantly improved when the defendant is allowed to leave jail prior to the trial. The amount of bail issued can play into that process. Research has indicated that there are differences between white and African American women with respect to bail. White women may be given excessive bail, but it tends to be less than is provided for in the guidelines. African American women are, on the other hand, more often given the maximum bail allowable (Gilbert, 2001).

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 125

Release prior to trial is also differentially granted by gender and race. Women of any race tend to be granted pretrial release more often than men. African American women, for example, are more likely to be released than African American men held on less serious crimes. African American women receive pretrial release less often than their white counterparts. Being married and having children or other dependents may significantly help African American women with respect to release before trial (Gilbert, 2001). Gender and race also appear to play a role in reduction of charges as well. Women generally are more likely than men to have charges reduced during the court process. As would be predicted, there is evidence to show that white women enjoy a greater likelihood of charge reduction than African American women. The research with respect to sentencing is somewhat mixed with respect to the race/ethnic influence on womenÊs sentencing. Doerner and Demuth (2010) find that 69 percent of Latinas, 59 percent African American women, and 62 percent of white women in their study received a sentence of incarceration. Clearly, the proportion of Latinas stands out, but the rates for African American and white women in their study do not seem greatly different. They found that the sentence length for African American women tended to be 4ă5 months longer than white women who were sentenced. The authors found much smaller differences between racial groups for women, however, than they did for men. Other research has found that African American women enjoy more lenient sentencing than African American men but more harsh sentencing than white women. They state that African American women were more comparable in sentencing to white men. Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer (1998) also found that the effect of race is much stronger for males than for females. In general, women received more lenient sentences when compared with men, with the possible exception of young Latinas who received sentences more similar to those received by male defendants. One area that has received a great deal of attention is drug sentencing. The socalled War on Drugs resulted in the imposition of mandatory sentencing for a variety of drug offenses, from selling to possession. The result of the war on drugs policies was a sharp increase in incarceration rates that was felt most sharply by women and minorities (Owen, 1999). Some research has examined sentencing with regard to race and ethnicity within womenÊs offending to explore differences that may exist between white women and different groups of minority women. One recent study examined race and ethnicity within women with regard to decisions to incarcerate and sentence length decisions for drug offenses, examining whites, African Americans, and Latinas. The data were drawn from only one state but are suggestive of a larger pattern. In general, they found that minority women drug offenders were disadvantaged vis-à-vis white in both areas: incarceration and sentence length decisions. Both Latinas and African American drug offenders were much more likely to be given prison sentences for their crimes, particularly those

126 |

Women Criminals

crimes for which there was a good deal of judicial discretion (Crow and Kunselman, 2009). Crow and Kunselman (2009) reported specifically that the odds of incarceration for an African American woman convicted of a drug offense were found to be 27 percent higher than for whites convicted of a comparable offense under stricter sentencing guidelines and 38 percent higher under more discretionary sentencing. Similar results were found with respect to Latinas whose odds were 24 percent greater under stricter guidelines and 38 percent higher under more discretionary guidelines. Comparisons between African American women and Latinas revealed that African American women convicted of drug offenses faced greater odds of incarceration than Latinas for several drug offenses. Prior record, particularly of drug and violence offenses, increased the odds of incarceration for all women. There were significant differences with respect to sentence length as well under more discretionary sentencing guidelines. In this case, African American and Latina women received significantly longer sentences than similarly situated white women (Crow and Kunselman, 2009). This research suggests that there exist racial disparities that make some women fare worse than others in the way they are treated by the law. Data from the Bureau of Justice Studies regarding sentencing of prisoners reveal, in 2008, the estimated rates (per 100,000 population) of sentenced prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction included a higher representation of African American women and Latinas than white women (see Table C.4 in Appendix C). In 2008, an estimated 50 per 100,000 white women were sentenced prisoners while 75 per 100,000 Latinas and 149 per 100,000 African American women were sentenced prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction. These are in comparison to a rate of 952 per 100,000 men. Looking at these rates over time, from 2000 to 2008, reveals that the rates for white women and Latinas have increased (from 34 to 50 and 60 to 75 respectively). The rate for African American women declined from 205 per 100,000 to 149 per 100,000 but still remained approximately two times higher than that of Latinas and three times that of white women. There are some differences in the age profiles of women who are sentenced prisoners, according to these 2008 data. Among African American and white sentenced prisoners, the highest number of women are in the 35ă39 year old category. Among Latinas, the categories of 30ă34 and 35ă39 are the highest, suggesting that Latinas may become engaged in or, at least, sentenced for criminal behavior at a slightly earlier age than white or African American women. In comparison with men, sentenced white men prisoners peak in age at around 35ă39, which is not much different from their white counterparts. On the other hand, the peak for African American and Latino men is ages 25ă29, indicating something different is happening between men and women of color with respect to sentenced prisoners and, perhaps, with respect to crime itself. When rates are calculated, and population is

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 127

taken into account, the peak rate of sentenced prisoners for all groups of women was 35ă39. When age rates are considered, it is clear that the rate of sentenced prisoners for all racial groups of women is later than that of men. The peak age with respect to rate of sentenced prisoners for men in total, white men, and African American men is 30ă34. Incarceration is another dimension of the criminal justice system in which we see disparities in how women are treated depending on their race. Incarceration data are reflective of several different steps in the chain of crime and criminal justice processing that include the amount of crime, detection, arrest, prosecution, conviction of plea, and by choice or by mandatory sentencing guidelines, sentences requiring incarceration. All of those steps must be in place in order for one to show up in incarceration data. The most disproportionate womenÊs representation in prisons can be found among African American women and Latinas (Owen, 1999). African American women appear to be most impacted by incarceration. According to Skiffer (2008), 1 in 100 African American women and 1 in 297 Latinas are incarcerated in the United States. In states with a significant American Indian population and in federal prisons, which hold many offenders from reservations, we find American Indian women particularly overrepresented. Disproportionate representation of some minority groups in prisons may be further amplified by disparities in drug sentencing. African American women are reported to be the largest group of women represented among incarcerated women drug offenders. A final question about women, crime, and racial/ethnic differences is that of recidivism. In other words, are there racial/ethnic differences in the rate at which women reoffend after release from correctional institutions? Recent research indicates that around 50 percent (47%) of women in general recidivate, the majority of them within the first two years. Drug use significantly increases recidivism among women overall but has an even stronger effect for minority women. The conviction for drug offenses serves as a major barrier with respect to accessing vital economic assistance with bans placed on convicted drug offendersÊ participation in most public assistance programs. A disproportionate number of minority women are poor, and they are disproportionately represented among women drug offenders. Minority women drug offenders, banned from many public assistance programs, experience great challenges to leading law-abiding lives. Among those women banned from public assistance programs, around 48 percent are African American or Latina. Differences were found with respect to protective factors against recidivism for women of different races. Living with an intimate partner directly decreased the risk of recidivism for white women but only delayed recidivism for nonwhite women. Having a high school diploma was a protective factor against recidivism for all women, but it was even more so for minority women. Experiences of diversity certainly have an impact on outcomes once a woman is released from the criminal justice system (Huebner, de Jong, and Cobbina, 2009).

128 |

Women Criminals

Women have constituted a very small percentage of all death row inmates throughout history with women as a whole comprising around 2.8 percent of all executions. As of mid-2009, there were 53 women on death row. White women predominate at 64 percent of those women on death row, a figure representative of their proportion of the female population. African American women are disproportionately represented at 23 percent, and Latinas at that time were underrepresented at 11 percent (see Appendix D, „Death Penalty for Female Offenders.‰ by Victor Streib). What can we say about the pattern of race, ethnicity, and gender in crime? We can definitely say women as minorities are disproportionately represented at virtually all phases of the process. Where discretion exists, the discrepancy is higher even after legally relevant variables are taken into account, leading to the conclusion that attitudes, beliefs, or other goals are influencing those who are working in the criminal justice system.

DEFINING CRIME AND ISSUES OF WOMEN’S DIVERSITY: THE CASE EXAMPLE OF DRUGS A conflict-based perspective of the law points to the ways in which laws are used to control populations that potentially threaten the existing power structure. This kind of perspective is the one most often used within feminist and ethnic studies scholarship to describe the relationship between the law and women as well as the law and minorities. While an exhaustive examination of all the applications of this understanding is outside the scope of this essay, the example of drug laws and enforcement is a prime example of a legal and law enforcement arena in which women, particularly minorities, have been highly affected. The so-called War on Drugs, as it was named in the 1980s, was a reinvigoration of a movement to treat the issue of drugs as a moral issue with punitive consequences. As a result, discretion in sentencing guidelines was minimized or eliminated, mandating incarceration for most drug offenses. Incarceration rates for all groups increased dramatically, but the increase among women of color was among the highest (Belknap, 2007). This increased punitiveness with respect to drugs was not applied evenly across kinds of drugs. Two primary forms of cocaine were in use in the 1980s·powder and „crack.‰ The use of the two types fell (and still falls) largely along class and racial lines. Powder cocaine is a highly expensive form of the drug that is mostly used by upper- and middle-class whites. „Crack‰ cocaine, a crystallized form of cocaine usually smoked, is a cheaper form of the drug that is highly prevalent in the lower class communities of color. Up until recently, the amounts of the drug required to invoke mandatory federal sentencing were vastly different between the two forms with the threshold for powder cocaine being significantly higher than for crack: 100 times higher. In other words, it took 1/100 the amount of crack to elicit

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 129

the same mandatory sentencing that powder cocaine did. Crack became a demonized drug with such claims that addiction was immediate and that it was a road to immoral behavior, particularly by pregnant mothers who could not get away from the crack, destroying their babies in utero (Logan, 2004). These arguments have never been fully substantiated. It was only in 2010, under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, that the penalties for crack and powder cocaine were addressed and made more equal. However, despite this recent change, the legacy of differential sentencing with respect to cocaine has taken a heavy toll on poor and minority communities in the United States. The differential sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine is one criminal justice issue that disproportionately affected minority women, particularly African Americans. An even larger issue was the growth of punitive sentiment directed toward the so-called crack mothers who were said to have chosen the drug over the welfare of their babies. The image of the crack mother was usually portrayed as a single African American woman who violated idealized notions of motherhood. These African American crack mothers were blamed for the harm that was sure to come to their babies. A movement began and continues that is revolved around the „rights‰ of the fetus. In other words, we have return to arguments about when life begins and what can be done about someone who harms that life. Women who became pregnant while they were addicted to crack were to be punished, severely, if their babies had any trace of drugs when they were born. Statutes used to justify punishment of a mother with a drug-positive baby usually involved the delivery of a controlled substance to a minor or child abuse. While this argument could be made for any drug, it has been heavily and disproportionately enforced against women of color who use crack. Pregnant women addicted to crack may be afraid to seek treatment for addictions, if available, for fear of social services and law enforcement intervention. As of 1992, nearly half of the states provided for criminal charges for drug use while pregnant. The prosecutions that have resulted have been primarily of poor minority women (Logan, 2004). Regina McKnight, a poor black woman from South Carolina, was tried and convicted of murder after her stillborn child tested positive for cocaine. Despite medical testimony that could not definitively link the cocaine to the stillbirth, McKnight was still convicted and served more than a decade in prison before her case was overturned.

EXPERIENCES AND PERSPECTIVES ON DIVERSITY AND RELATIONSHIP TO CRIME Research focusing on diverse groups of women and their experiences with crime has been slowly forthcoming. Much of the research is directly linked to specific groups with less covering more overarching themes between them. Little has dealt

130

|

Women Criminals

with the issue of class alone. What follows are some brief examples of scholarship that links perspectives of diversity, women, and criminal offending. Diversity Perspectives: African American Women Probably the most has been written in the area of African American women and crime. From a data perspective, this has been heavily influenced by the ways in which law enforcement categorize individuals by race·with an emphasis on black versus white. It is also true that the experience of the United States with Africans and African Americans (and their relationship with and within the United States) has a long and very documented history as well as the unique history among racial/ ethnic groups of enslavement. The core of understanding African American women and crime from a culturally rooted perspective needs to encompass black feminism. Black feminism is a response to the suppression of African American womenÊs ideas and experiences by white feminist scholars. Black feminists focus on gender as well as racial and class issues that shape the African American womanÊs experience. Scholars such as Patricia Hill-Collins (1991) point out that when attention is paid to race by white researchers, they tend to impose erroneous identities or stereotypes about African American women. These stereotypes, historically and currently, have been used to justify the mistreatment of African American women. Stereotypes such as the „mammy,‰ the „matriarch,‰ the „welfare mother,‰ and the „hoochie‰ have been prevalent in many arenas of life, including experiences with the criminal justice system. The stereotype of the „mammy‰ is that some African American women are good black mothers by being obedient and faithful servants in the domestic sphere. There is still an expectation that the „good‰ African American should be quiet, submissive, and do whatever is asked of them without question. Other African American women are thought of as being asexual and willing to place their duties to other people come before their own needs (Hill-Collins, 1991). Some aspects of this prevalent stereotype is rooted in the history of slavery, in which the slave woman could not challenge the white master or any of the white family and was, instead, forced into domestic servitude (hooks, 1984). The image of the matriarch became prominent beginning in the latter half of the 20th century and continues to the present. Matriarchs are dominant and powerful, heading households and playing providers and other roles that men are supposed to play. They are seen as emasculating, chasing away husbands and lovers. The matriarch perpetuates the idea that some African American women are bad black mothers by spending too much time away from home, not supervising their children, and contributing to their childrenÊs failure in school (Hill-Collins, 1991). The impact of racism and its disadvantage to men may also have fueled a resentment from African American women who came to resent African American man

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 131

for not being able to support the family without the aid of African American womenÊs wage-earning employment. A need for self-sufficiency and ability to support the family may have contributed to single mother households headed by African American women, which then has fueled the matriarchy myth (hooks, 1984) The „welfare mother‰ is a stereotype that perpetuates the idea that most African American mothers are dependent upon the state and take advantage of welfare assistance. Lastly, the „hoochie‰ or Jezebel, is a sexually aggressive black woman. These images portray images of African American women as domestic servants, masculine (i.e., overly assertiveness), lazy, and promiscuous (Hill-Collins, 1991). Scholar bell hooks (1984) connects these stereotypical images to the sexual dominance and victimization that slave women experienced at the hands of white slave owners. The experience of victimization was portrayed as seduction and immorality, as compared to the highly moral image of the white woman. Research into African American women rarely finds real women that resemble these images. Instead, they find women who are complex, managing both their gender and their race in our society. These kinds of stereotypes and their role in racial disadvantage as well as gender disadvantage have been neglected in white feminist scholarship (HillCollins, 1991). Diversity Perspectives: Latinas and Other Women of Color Perspectives emanating out of the experiences and concerns of other women of color have drawn a great deal from the scholarship produced by African American feminists. There are several differences in experience that other scholars of color draw attention to that are not necessarily shared by African Americans but which are highly influential with respect to their particular experiences in a racist society, and these differences have unique impacts on women. For example, Spanish-speaking cultures appear to share in the concept of „machismo,‰ a myth and social reality relating to menÊs attitudes toward masculinity and women. The myth of machismo includes an image of Puerto Rican and Latino men as being extremely dominating, violent, promiscuous, and domestically violent (Baca Zinn, 1982a; Torres, 2007). The flip side of this is the myth that women in these cultures are more submissive and are more willing to accept mistreatment and domination than are white women. Of course, the reality does not match up to the stereotype as machismo has been used as a way to devalue and delegitimize both Latino men and women who are thought to accept men who act according to the myth. The reality is that Chicano families, for example, do not uniformly accept patriarchal marital roles and that in many families spouses share power (Baca Zinn, 1982b). The myth of a uniform cultural acceptance of this highly violent, patriarchal machismo interferes with women who do need help with regard to battering, for example. Judges and others seeing

132 |

Women Criminals

a so-called cultural context to a battering of a Latino woman may be less likely to take it as seriously as they would a battering of a white women because wife abuse is seen as „part of the culture.‰ This is even more the case with immigrant Latinas (Das Dasgupta, 2005). Asian-American men and women are both viewed as weak with Asian women being seen as submissive and willing to put up with lower pay and dead-end jobs, for example (Espiritu, 2004). Impacts of Stereotypes and Experiences of Diversity These stereotypes find their way into multiple areas of criminal justice processing of African American women and other women of color. Most of the research has addressed African American women, but other groups will be discussed albeit with limited research. For example, Manatu-Rupert (2000) identifies a current myth of African American female promiscuity fueled by the media that discredits rape and sexual assault women victims who are suffering in silence and further discouraged from divulging their victimization. Police and other players in the criminal justice system have been found to be influenced by the myth of African American womenÊs promiscuity, the myth of being „oversexed,‰ resulting in more questioning and disbelieving the victim than is generally found with whites. (See essay „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending‰ for further discussion of victimization and its effect on womenÊs crime.) Battered African American women have been described in terms of „gender entrapment‰ which refers to the process of interaction within and outside the family that simultaneously instills a sense of devaluing and frustration when dealing with racism outside the household while encouraging more investment and more compliance within the household. This results in the formation of particular gender identity development that increases the chance of being trapped and in engaging in violence and other crimes for which she is judged (Richie, 2003). Battering is experienced by African American women both in terms of race and gender. The inequalities of gender give more power to men vis-à-vis women, and it is power and control that fuels battering. African American men, while enjoying some of the privileges of being men, are disadvantaged in the public sphere because of race, increasing frustration and feelings of emasculation. These two factors combine into African American woman battering that is both impacted by race and gender. The case of Gladys Kelly encompasses both victimization and offending as a battered African American woman. Kelly ultimately killed her husband after years of brutal abuse. When she saw him coming at her, she grabbed a pair of scissors and defended herself, stabbing her husband in the chest. There is some question about whether he would have died if he had received proper care, thus making an assault into a murder. More important, even though she was granted a retrial on the grounds that battered womenÊs testimony should have been included, she was reconvicted, because, according to Lenore Walker (1989), she presented as an assertive

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 133

and angry African American woman who had been mistreated by both a husband and by the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is infused with multiple areas in which gendered racial stereotypes may be infused. Visher (1983) found that preferential treatment for women with regard to arrest was highly linked to traditional womenÊs expectations around submissiveness and nonassertiveness, and those who showed these toward the officer were less likely to be arrested. African American women were significantly less likely to show that demeanor and, as such, were more likely to be arrested because they did not fit into these stereotypes. While demeanor accounted for much of the difference between African American women and white women, there was still a distinctive influence of a reaction to African American women that lay outside demeanor. Gurevich (2009) found that minority parents on trial for child abuse and homicide were frequently subjected to an imposition of white, middle-class parenting and life standards that were applied to the very different lives of these defendants. The argument is made that the practices of the criminal justice system appear to be less about protecting children and more about control of populations that are seen as problematic. The interjection of parenting, race, and gender was clearly in the trial of Yvonne Wanrow, an American Indian woman who was convicted of killing a man who had allegedly sexually abused her son. In the trial, her cultural heritage of being American Indian was used along with statements about her being on welfare, being a single mother, and using alcohol, thus invoking several stereotypes about minorities, including American Indians. Gender was specifically used in the instructions to the jury. Appealing this use of culture and stereotype was successful, but the success of the appeal indicates the systemÊs lack of reflexivity in examining the ways in which it may use gender and race. One important aspect to the impact of stereotypes on African American and Latina womenÊs experience with crime is the belief in minority womenÊs dangerousness. While some scholars have argued that the traditional images of women as nonviolent and passive would apply to minority women as well, some scholars have found this assumption to be in doubt. Crow and Kunselman (2009) found that perceptions of dangerousness did impact sentencing decisions with respect to minority women with African American and Latina women drug offenders being seen as more dangerous than white women drug offenders. The minority women who are seen as most dangerous are those who challenge the system of racism and/or patriarchy in some way. There are some who claim that Assata Shakur, an African American woman, was pursued as a criminal because of her involvement in the Black Liberation Army, an auxiliary of the Black Panthers. She visibly struggled against racial oppression in the United States and was convicted of shooting a state trooper, despite some controversial evidence. It is argued that her challenge to the system of white supremacy fueled not only her trial

134

|

Women Criminals

and conviction but her later placement on the FBIÊs „domestic terrorist‰ list. Angela Davis, a civil rights activist and former Communist Party member, was charged with conspiracy, kidnapping, and murder for a crime at which she was not present. While ultimately acquitted, Davis was clearly seen as a threat. Dylcia Pagan, a member of the Armed Forces of National Liberation of Puerto Rico (FALN), was convicted of sedition and conspiracy in FALNÊs attempts to force the United States to liberate Puerto Rico, though she was never actually convicted of participating in any of FALNÊs bombings. Dolores Huerta, a Chicana farm workers activist, has been arrested multiple times in the context of protesting treatment of farm workers. Wanda Jean Allen was, perhaps, seen as the most dangerous of them all: a multiply convicted offender, an African American woman, and a lesbian. Questions about her capacity to kill as well as the circumstances were not given serious consideration, and she was ultimately executed. The experience of living in a racially unequal society has a direct impact on members of minority groups. In some cases, resentment and other reactions to discrimination (real and/or perceived) can have an influence on criminal behavior. Research analyzing juvenile delinquency, including boys and girls, found that perceived racial discrimination was a highly significant predictor of delinquency for both boys and girls. In other words, the more the juveniles saw society as being discriminatory against themselves as racial minorities, the more both boys and girls engaged in delinquent acts (Unnever et al., 2009). While this research was limited to African American youth, the message may in fact be applicable to other groups. Clearly, some of the cases identified above also serve as examples of women who reacted to discrimination in ways that were either criminal or defined criminal. The experience of minority women and their particular interactions between status as women and as members of their minority group has gained some scientific attention but not nearly enough. Discovering why African American juvenile girls respond more poorly to probation programs, for example, requires more depth of understanding of how African American women experience their place in society. Looking at interviews with African American women incarcerated offenders, Skiffer (2008) examined specific pathways into crime that were experienced by African American women. She found four primary pathways that applied to the women in her study. There were „riders,‰ who were described as being influenced by loved ones including boyfriends/partners and siblings. There were „clubbers,‰ who found their way into crime through addictions and/or selling drugs. „Scrappers‰ were those women whose criminality was highly influenced by abuse and neglect, and „busters‰ were described as having low self-esteem. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and many women self-identified with more than one category. What was particularly noteworthy was that none of the women attributed their crime to involvement with peers or gangs as is commonly believed in public opinion.

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 135

It has been argued that crime by women cannot be understood outside of a cultural context. Violence, for example, may be seen differently in minority contexts, particularly those that involve neighborhood disadvantage. DeCoster and Heimer (2006) describe disadvantaged African American women as constructing a femininity that is based in self-sufficiency and independence. Violence may be a necessary part of living in disadvantaged situations, and toughness and projecting a willingness to use violence can be an important part of self-protection. It is a response to environmental conditions that do not necessarily carry status or identity. In addition to self-protection, violence may be used to protect a womanÊs or her friendsÊ sexual reputations with respect to other women. Being „respectable‰ or „decent‰ is important and, to many African American girls and women, is worth defending with violence if necessary. The authors state that motives or justifications for violence may, in fact, be a separate issue from gender identity for women. Jones (2009) also describes African American negotiation of toughness and aggression on the streets as being highly rooted in the struggle for survival, and African American women will often employ aggression when necessary. This research has focused on African American girls and women but may hold validity for other minority women who face the same need to negotiate environments of disadvantage in which being „tough‰ may serve them as well. PERSPECTIVES ON DIVERSITY AND WOMEN’S CRIME: THE NEED FOR “INTERSECTIONALITY” The research on class and womenÊs offending is scant, but the effects of class clearly intersect with race and gender to create differential life experiences and opportunities for women. The focus that is needed is one of intersectionality, that is, the interaction between race, gender, and class position relative to societal power (HillCollins, 1991). Intersectionality recognizes that race, class, and gender inequalities are not merely additive but have effects far beyond just those three categories. Applying an intersectionality perspective means to see women in a complex set of social statuses and positions that are all within the context of inequality. The direction proposed for criminological research is to examine the construction of identity in this complex form to understand the meanings and motives associated with particular kinds of criminal activity (De Coster and Heimer, 2006). CONCLUSION A full understanding of the impact of diversity on womenÊs offending involves a multidimensional understanding of intersecting positions of race, class, and other

136

|

Women Criminals

forms of diversity. The research that will address this complexity of womenÊs lives will come from the fullest exploration of womenÊs lives relative to race, ethnicity, class, and gender and the influence of multiple forms of power and powerlessness upon them. Further research will provide a more textured picture of womenÊs offending, much more than statistics and broad overviews do. The research is laden with concerns about African American crime, and when the research does address women specifically, it is almost always about African American women. Statistics demonstrate that minorities are at a disadvantage with regard to the criminal justice system, but the ways in which that disadvantage comes about and is experienced has yet to be fully researched, particularly for other racial and ethnic groups. References Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1982a. „Chicano Men and Masculinity.‰ Journal of Ethnic Studies 10: 20ă44. Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1982b. „Qualitative Methods in Family Research: A Look Inside Chicano Families.‰ California Sociologist 5: 58ă79. Baskin, Deborah, and Ira Sommers. 1998. Casualties of Community Disorder: WomenÊs Careers in Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview. Belknap, Joanne. 2007. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. „Special Report: Women Offenders.‰ Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Crow, Matthew S., and Julie C. Kunselman. 2009. „Sentencing Female Drug Offenders: Reexamining Racial and Ethnic Disparities.‰ Women and Criminal Justice 19: 191ă216. Das Dasgupta, Shamita. 2005. „WomenÊs Realities: Defining Violence Against Women by Immigration, Race, and Class.‰ In Natalie Sokoloff (ed.), Domestic Violence at the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender, and Culture (56ă70). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. De Coster, Stacy, and Karen Heimer. 2006. „Crime at the Intersections: Race, Class, Gender, and Violent Offending.‰ In Ruth Peterson, Lauren Krivo, and John Hagan (eds.), The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America (138ă156). New York: New York University Press. Dill, Bonnie Thornton, and Ruth Enid Zambrano. 2009. „Critical Thinking About Inequality: An Emerging Lens.‰ In Bonnie Thornton Dill and Ruth Enid Zambrano (eds.), Emerging Intersections: Race, Class, and Gender in Theory, Policy, and Practice (1ă21). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Doerner, Jill K., and Stephen Demuth. 2010. „The Independent and Joint Effects of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts.‰ Justice Quarterly 27: 1ă27. Espiritu, Yen Le. 2007. „All Men are Not Created Equal: Asian Men in U.S. History.‰ In Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner (eds.), MenÊs Lives, 7th edition (21ă29). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Section 8. http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Federal_Register_No tices/20100908_Proposed_Amendment_Fair_Sentencing.pdf Farrow, Kathryn, Gill Kelly, and Bernadette Wilkinson. 2007. Offenders in Focus: Risk, Responsivity, and Diversity. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Gilbert, Evelyn. 2001. „Women, Race, and Criminal Justice Processing.‰ In Claire M. Renzetti and Lynne Goodstein (eds.), Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Original Feminist Readings (222ă231). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Grunewald, Jeff, Jesenia Pizarro, and Steven M. Chermak. 2009. „Race, Gender, and the Newsworthiness of Homicide Incidents.‰ Journal of Criminal Justice 37: 262ă272.

Diversity and Women’s Criminal Offending | 137

Gurevich, Liena. 2009. „The Reproduction of Race/Class/Gender Discrimination by Legal Discourses: Trials of Parents for Child Abuse and Homicide.‰ International Review of Modern Sociology 35: 63ă94. Hill-Collins, Patricia. 1991. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press. Huebner, Beth M., Christina DeJong, and Jennifer Cobbina. 2009. „Women Coming Home: LongTerm Patterns of Recidivism.‰ Justice Quarterly 27: 225ă254. Jones, Nikki. 2009. „I Was Aggressive for the Streets, Pretty for the Pictures: Gender, Difference, and the Inner City Girl.‰ Gender and Society 23: 89ă93. Logan, Enid. 2004. „The Wrong Race, Committing Crime, Doing Drugs, and Maladjusted for Motherhood: The NationÊs Fury over Crack Babies.‰ In Pamela Schram and Barbara Koons-Witt (eds.), Gender and (In)Justice: Theory and Practice in Feminist Criminology (245ă269). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Manatu-Rupert, Norma. 2000. „Media Images and the Victimization of Black Women: Exploring the Impact of Sexual Stereotyping on Prosecutorial Decision Making.‰ In Michael Markowitz and Delores D. Jones-Brown (eds.), The System in Black and White: Exploring the Connections Between Race, Crime and Justice (181ă196). Westport, CT: Praeger. Owen, Barbara. 1999. „Women and Imprisonment in the United States: The Gendered Consequences of the U.S. Imprisonment Binge.‰ In Sandy Cook and Suzanne Davies (eds.), Harsh Punishment: International Experiences of WomenÊs Imprisonment (81ă98). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Richie, Beth. 2003. „Gender Entrapment and African American Women: An Analysis of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Intimate Violence.‰ In Darnell F. Hawkins (ed.), Violent Crime: Assessing Race and Ethnic Differences (198ă210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sabol, William J., Heather C. West, and Matthew Cooper. 2008. „Prisoners in 2008.‰ NCJ 228417. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Skiffer, LaTanya. 2008. How Black Female Offenders Explain Their Crimes and Describe Their Hopes: A Case Study of Inmates in a California Prison. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press. Spohn, C. C., S. Welch, and J. Gruhl. 1985. „Women Defendants in Court: The Interaction Between Sex and Race in Convicting and Sentencing.‰ Social Science Quarterly 66: 178ă185. Steffensmeier, D., J. Ulmer, and J. Kramer. 1998. „The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment of Being Young, Black, and Male.‰ Criminology 36: 763ă797. Torres, Jose. 2007. „Masculinity and Gender Roles among Puerto Rican Men: Machismo on the U.S. Mainland.‰ In Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner (eds.), MenÊs Lives, 7th edition (30ă40). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, Scott. A. Mathers, Timothy E. McClure, and Marisa C. Allison. 2009. „Racial Discrimination and HirschiÊs Criminological Classic: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge. Justice Quarterly 26: 377ă409. Van Wormer, Katherine Stuart, and Clemes Bartollas. 2007. Women and the Criminal Justice System, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Visher, Christy. 1983. „Gender, Police Decisions, and Notions of Chivalry.‰ Criminology 21: 5ă28. Walker, Lenore. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: HarperCollins. Wolf, Angela M., Juliette Graziano, and Christopher Hartney. 2009. „The Provision and Completion of Gender-Specific Services for Girls on Probation: Variation by Race and Ethnicity.‰ Crime and Delinquency 55: 294ă312.

This page intentionally left blank

VICTIMIZATION AND WOMEN’S OFFENDING Vickie Jensen and Venessa Garcia

INTRODUCTION Over the last several decades, our knowledge about the ways in which victimization is linked to criminal behavior has increased drastically. The connection between victimization and offending has been noted particularly in the case of girls and women who are identified as offenders by the criminal justice system. Both girl and woman violent and nonviolent offenders are more likely to have experienced some form of victimization than their male counterparts (Belknap, 2007). This relationship between victimization and criminalization, especially for females, did not truly come to the forefront of research until the 1970s with the emergence of feminist criminology and victimology, the study of the characteristics, causes, and effects of victimization. Before victimology was developed as a discipline in social sciences, girls and women, victims or criminals, were virtually ignored. Early victimology engaged in a high level of victim-blaming, particularly in the cases of sexual assault/rape and intimate partner battering. However, the field did recognize girls and women as frequent victims of interpersonal violence. This does not deny male victimization, the study of which is still underdeveloped. It has been found that girls and women are more likely to be victims of male violence of a sexual nature or within an intimate relationship (familial) than are boys and men (Simkins and Katz, 2002). Feminist criminology studies borrowed from early victimology and from developing social scientific understandings of gender relations, power, and womenÊs disadvantage to give focus to understanding the process by which the victimization of girls and women leads to criminalization. What feminist criminologists tried to do was not simply to add gender as another variable but to make girls and women the central focus of the research. In this way, the experiences specific to females in victimization and criminal behavior could be explained without the limitation of a „malestream‰ approach, that is, an approach that is centered in the experiences and perspectives of men only (Daly and Chesney-Lind, 1988). A feminist approach allows us to understand, for example, the differential socialization of girls and boys that result in very different patterns of behavior, including criminal behavior

139

140 |

Women Criminals

(Garcia, 2003; West and Zimmermann, 1987). One outcome of differential socialization can be found in differential response to victimization. Researchers have found that girls and women are more likely to internalize the stresses of their victimization whereas men and boys tend to externalize in response to victimization, leading to more acting-out behavior (Dobash, Dobash, and Gutteridge, 1986). So, for example, females are more likely to turn to drugs and alcohol as a form of selfmedication or to engage in self-mutilation (cutting), while males are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior aimed externally toward property or persons in response to their distress. Feminist criminology has also brought to the forefront the importance of understanding victimization on the life course (Gilfus, 1992). Seeing female victimization in the life course means seeing the connections between abuse in childhood and later criminality and vulnerability to more abuse in adulthood. Childhood victimization has been found to be an important factor in understanding adult criminal behavior, and the development of a disproportionate number of women criminals includes sexual and/or physical abuse primarily in the home. The critical nature of the victim-offender relationship for females is that it is circular. Abuse creates a very real need to escape, which results in coping mechanisms and behaviors that carry with them their own problems. Running away is a common form of escape for girls, but it is also defined as a crime because they are minors. Drug and alcohol use can lead to criminal offenses but also serve as an escape from abuse. These coping mechanisms can lead to environments with higher risk for crime through necessity and/or further victimization (Belknap, 2007). A feminist approach also provides an examination of the structural systems of male power and privilege that have an impact on the lives of women through the disadvantages they experience and the lack of structural and cultural supports they receive to help them with these disadvantages. When it comes to victimization, feminists would argue that females are more vulnerable than males and that society does not value providing adequate means to address the victimization women and girls experience as children and as adults. The lack of support for victimized girls and women can increase their need for escape and other means of surviving abuse, which then has its effect on increasing both victimization and criminal risk.

VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION HISTORY AMONG FEMALE OFFENDERS A common background factor for women and girls engaged in crime is victimization, the extent of which exceeds that for boys and men. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize data drawn from Harlow (1999) with respect to percentage of convicts who have experienced abuse.

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 141

Convicted Men’s and Women’s Experiences with Abuse in General TABLE 1

Correctional placement

Women

Men

Federal prison

40%

7%

State prison

57%

16%

Jails

47%

13%

Probationers

40%

9%

Source: Adapted from Harlow, Caroline W. 1999. Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Convicted Men’s and Women’s Experiences with Physical Abuse TABLE 2

Correctional placement

Women

Men

Federal prison

32%

6%

State prison

47%

13%

Jails

37%

11%

Probationers

34%

7%

Source: Adapted from Harlow, Caroline W. 1999. Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Convicted Men’s and Women’s Experiences with Sexual Abuse TABLE 3

Correctional placement

Women

Men

Federal prison

23%

2%

State prison

39%

6%

Jails

37%

6%

Probationers

25%

4%

Source: Adapted from Harlow, Caroline W. 1999. Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

It is easy to see that abuse, physical and sexual, plays a significant role in the lives of women who are later convicted of crimes. It is also quite clear that this role is stronger and more profound with regard to the larger picture of girlsÊ and womenÊs offending than it is for men. Around a quarter or more of convicted women had experiences with sexual abuse alone. The percentages of abuse experience for

142

|

Women Criminals

women in state prisons is the highest. State prisons are where one finds the highest proportion of the most serious felonies we think about·murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and the like. The fact that there is high prevalence of women offenders with victimization histories is amplified by the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the women knew the abuser in an intimate relationship. While both men and women knew their abusers in over 85 percent of these cases, women were more often abused by intimate partners while men were more likely to be abused by other family members (James, 2004). The prevalence of intimate partner battering victimization among incarcerated women is around a third, and a little less than a quarter have been abused by a family member. Victimization across the life span of women who are incarcerated is spread over a great deal of their lives and is most often quite severe. Revictimization rates are also very high (Girshick, 2003). One of the most common characteristics of girls in juvenile correctional facilities is physical or sexual abuse (Chesney-Lind, 1995). Violent victimization is much more prevalent in the lives of female offenders than it is among male offenders. Girshick (2003) reports that women may be as much as four times more likely than men to have been physically or sexually abused prior to entering prison. There are far-reaching implications of this difference in victimization for both causes of female crime and addressing their needs in the correctional system. The fact that girlsÊ and womenÊs victimization is primarily at the hands of intimate partners and/or close family members also has implications for criminal development and institutional programming. The connections between close relationships, abuse, and girlsÊ and womenÊs engagement in crime suggests a dimension to female criminality that is more complicated than making „poor choices‰ or being willfully criminal, as the prevailing views of the causes of crime suggest. Child Abuse and Neglect For centuries, parents were allowed to discipline their children via any physical means they wished. Since the head of the household, being the father, was legally responsible for his childrenÊs behavior as well as their productivity in society, he was given the power to chastise his children, as well as his wife. Legislative and common law enabled parents, particularly fathers, to beat their children as they saw fit, in the name of imposing discipline. Only in cases of permanent injury or death was a parent possibly held responsible for cruelty to their children. This hands-off policy also extended to ignoring the needs of the children as well (Mason, 1994). It was not until the 1800s, when the House of Refuge intervened on behalf of beaten and neglected children, that changes began to happen (Mason, 1994). In the late 1800s, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children created the ability to place abused and neglected children in institutions away from violent homes. In

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 143

the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Child Savers Movement resulted in the creation of a juvenile court system and reform schools. By the 1960s, pediatric radiologists identified what is known as the battered child syndrome (Kempe et al., 1962). It was during this era that the implications of extreme physical punishment by parents began to come to light. Between 1962 and 1966, all 50 states within the United States criminalized child abuse. In 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which prohibited maltreatment of children. This included neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and abandonment. Having laws, however, does not mean that enforcement or punishments are adequate as we still see too many cases of abused and neglected children who have not been protected by the child welfare or criminal justice system, resulting in great injury and death. Nearly 1 million children annually suffer from child abuse and neglect, and close to 1,000 children die annually from severe beatings or neglect (Karmen, 2007). Children are most likely to be abused in the home by parents. One study found that children between the ages of 7 and 13 are more likely to be sexually abused, and girls are likely than boys to be abused. In this study, parents are the abusers in 80 percent of cases overall and even more frequently when it comes to girlsÊ victimization (Finkelhor, 1994). Children who are directly victimized by family violence often exhibit behavioral and psychological problems as a consequence. Some of these behavioral problems include hostility and aggressive acting-out behaviors, tantrums, drug and alcohol use and abuse, eating disorders, withdrawal, abusive behaviors, and delinquency (Feerick and Snow, 2005). Psychological consequences of abuse can include guilt, shame, anxiety, fear, depression, anger, low self-esteem, concern about secrecy, feelings of helplessness, and an extreme need to please others. Criminologists, including those who study victimization, have determined that any or all of these behaviors and psychological problems can be precursors to criminal behavior (Karmen, 2007). The research in this area has been very general, though, and less discussion has taken place about the specific role gender and gender-specified context has played in the abuse-crime connection for girls with specific comparison to boys. What is known is that the ways our society has demonstrated inequality with respect to gender have serious impacts on attitudes, procedures, laws, and resources related to the victimization of girls and women. A diminished access to help for abused girls has serious consequences in terms of their ability to survive, and behavior defined as delinquency may be the only choice they see as available to them (Chesney-Lind, 1995). It is not uncommon for abused and neglected children to run away from abusive homes (McCormack, Janus, and Burgess, 1986). Research, as well as cases wellknown in popular media (such as Aileen Wuornos), have shown us many instances of offenders, adult or juvenile, who started committing crimes after running away from home. The FBIÊs Uniform Crime Reports consistently show that „runaway‰ is a common arrest charge for juveniles. Running away is a status offense, a crime

144 |

Women Criminals

based on the fact that the offender is not yet 18. The majority of runaways being arrested are female. In 2008, girls were 56.1 percent of runaways. The vast majority of these girls (95%) were 13ă17 years old. These arrests for running away represented 2 percent of the total arrests for girls for all crimes and ranked 11th among the 29 arrest categories. In comparison, a negligible number of boysÊ arrests are for running away (.005%) (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2008). It is clear that there is something different represented here for girls that is not seen as frequently for boys. The systemÊs overall lack of protective response to abuse, especially sexual abuse, is largely implicated. This is especially true when examining the cases of juvenile girls who have been arrested (Chesney-Lind, 1995). Institutional responses to child victims are lacking, often leaving running away as the only viable alternative that they see. For girls, this becomes more acute as girls are less likely to be believed when they disclose abuse. Running away for juveniles is a crime. To adults, these behaviors are often seen as the actions of misbehaved and unruly kids who have problems with discipline rather than as victims who are desperately trying to cope however they can. As a result, our society engages in what Chesney-Lind (1995) has called „criminalizing girlsÊ survival.‰ It is here that the line between victim and offender becomes so blurred as to be indistinguishable. Further, if these children who have left home are not identified by the justice system and remain runaways, they are often forced into prostitution or other forms of crime in order to survive (Gilfus, 1992; Simkins and Katz, 2002). Many studies that examine the life course of female prostitutes have identified family abuse and running away as precursors to their engagement in prostitution. Salisbury and Voorhis (2009) find that victimization lay at the beginning of the criminal careers of many women criminals and that crime pathways come through adaptations used to cope with initial and continuing victimization experiences. One well-known example of potential effects of child abuse and neglect is the case of Aileen Wuornos, who was abandoned as a child to be raised by her grandparents. In turn, her grandparents were abusive, physically and sexually, and neglectful. By the age of 11, she smoked cigarettes and sold sex for cigarettes and loose change. She was a frequent runaway and, by the age of 15, traveled across the country prostituting on highways. Aileen WuornosÊ crimes escalated to armed robbery and finally to serial killing but began with her attempts to escape profound abuse. Fortunately, this is an extreme and rare case of the effects of abuse on criminality, but it gives us pause to think about how significant child abuse and neglect impact victims. Comparing Aileen Wuornos to other serial killers who are men only accentuates the different pathways to crime between them. Men who are serial killers have not usually experienced this level of abuse in childhood. Sexual abuse is an area in which girls are particularly vulnerable. Girls are more frequently victims of sexual abuse, being more than two times as likely to be sexually abused as boys (Putman, 2003). Child sexual abuse tends to be qualitatively

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 145

different than that of boys with the abuse occurring more frequently over a longer period of time and by those much closer in relation. The psychological, emotional, and financial dependency of children tends to inhibit their power to report these crimes (Alaggia, 2005). This inhibition for girls is increased because of the tendency not to believe girls or to buy into myths about girls and women related to sexual victimization. As a result, most child sexual victims do not report these crimes until they are adults. The secret nature of this kind of victimization is connected to anxiety, depression, fear, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, low selfesteem, and high rates of chemical dependency. These have all been found to be precursors to criminal behavior (Browne, Miller, and Maguin, 1999). Chesney-Lind (1995) has found a strong connection between early sexual abuse and later engagement in prostitution. In the case of Guin Garcia, early sexual abuse committed by her uncle was blatantly ignored by her grandmother. From that point, Garcia became enmeshed in a life of alternating abuse and crime including being gang raped at 14 and physically and sexually abused by her husband. She engaged in prostitution early, while still a teenager, in part to help support her addiction to drugs. In this case, GarciaÊs victimization was not considered at trial, and she was sentenced to death for killing her husband. Even with the sentence commuted, the depth and breadth of the impact of her victimization as a child did not fully come to light. Girshick (2003) suggests that an important component of the connection between female sexual victimization and crime is not the victimization itself but the societal response or lack thereof that is disempowering and that leads to greater exposure to the environment of the streets and other high-risk environments that lead to crime. This is not to conclude that all victims of sexual abuse become offenders. However, it is true that these victims have a higher risk of offending or becoming revictimized if safety and the impact of the trauma are not attended to. The longer and the more extreme the sexual victimization experienced, the more likely a victim is to experience later problems. Close to half of children who experience sexual victimization display externalizing problems such as aggression and delinquency (Alaggia, 2005). It is misguided to ignore the impact of sexual abuse victimization on girls. Sexual victimization of girls is a key component of the life course of many adult women criminals. The criminalization of girlsÊ survival strategies increases the risk of their exposure to an environment where they may commit crimes to survive and increases the risk of developing relationships with abusive men, who revictimize girls, and sometimes force girls into crimes such as prostitution. There are also cases in which girls will leave home very early in order to marry or to move in with men who are later abusive. Women such as Velma Barfield, Debbie Gindorf, and Betty Beets married early or took up with men in order to get away from such abuse. Debbie Gindorf found herself married to an abuser and a mother at a very early age, leading to a suicide/homicide attempt on herself and her

146 |

Women Criminals

children; that attempt left her children dead and her sick, but alive. Betty Beets, on the other hand, killed her husband, who she stated had been abusing her, although the court at the time would not allow testimony on the battering. Velma Barfield found herself ultimately addicted to pain killers, the abuse of which contributed to her homicides. Escape from abusive parents and family through marriage or relationships with men can often lead to additional victimization and an increased likelihood of crime. Either through running away or through early exit from the family and new victimization, physical and sexual abuse of girls has serious implications for later criminal behavior. Intimate Partner Violence Intimate partner violence refers to the physical, sexual, psychological, and other forms of abuse one intimate partner (e.g., spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, ex-spouse) inflicts on the other in an attempt to exert power and control. While men and women can both engage in abuse, it is most frequently women who experience the most severe, life-controlling, and potentially deadly abuse. WomenÊs victimization at the hands of intimate partners is also much more strongly and clearly linked to some forms of womenÊs offending, particularly intimate partner homicide. Intimate partner violence is the most frequent cause for serious injury for women aged 15ă44 (Washington Crime News Service, 2003). Murray Straus (1990), one of the earliest and most prolific family violence researchers, estimated that around 6 million women are physically assaulted at the hands of intimate or formerly intimate partners. Other researchers have estimated that violence against women occurs in 20 percent of dating couples. Intimate partner violence is not limited to married couples or older couples. An estimated one quarter of intimate partner violence occurs among high school and college students (Rennison and Welchans, 2000). WomenÊs experiences with battering at the hands of intimate partners, much like the case of abused girls, have been met with a societal response that has ranged from ignorant to neglectful, from inadequate to hostile. While the victims of an intimate partner abuse can experience the same range of injuries from the same assaultive actions used by strangers, the criminal justice system has historically viewed and treated domestic and stranger assault differently. Prior to mandatory arrest policies, it was left to the victim to press charges against the abuser. Considering the degree of control and fear of retribution experienced by victims, it is not surprising that the vast majority of victims never pursued this course of action. Even the most injurious assaults by intimates requiring criminal justice intervention did not receive due or equal care to stranger assaults. Prior to pro-arrest policies, while 75 percent of all stranger assaults resulted in arrest, less than 20 percent of family assaults resulted in arrest (Eigenberg, Scarborough, and Kappeler, 1996).

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 147

Historically, the road toward consideration of women victims of battering has been a long one and only recently has turned toward some validation of womenÊs victimization experiences. The criminal justice system and public opinion have been slow to change, and the need for more improvement continues. It wasnÊt until 1977 that mandatory arrest was legislated for the first time, occurring first in Oregon. President Carter established the Office of Domestic Violence in 1979 (Karmen, 2007). Despite these early gains, police still did not take domestic violence seriously overall. The case of Tracy Thurman is an illustration in point. Tracy Thurman was a battered woman who lived in the city of Torrington, Connecticut. ThurmanÊs husband had physically battered and harassed her on multiple occasions as well as threatened her life. Each of these incidences had been officially noted by police who considered the issue to be mostly domestic quarreling and not serious. During the last incident, Thurman received a telephone call from her husband threatening her life. The police were slow to respond to her because, once again, they did not take the situation seriously. ThurmanÊs husband stabbed her multiple times several minutes after she called, and when the police did arrive nearly 15 minutes after that, they found that Thurman was nearly dead. Tracy Thurman was permanently disabled and sued the City of Torrington for violation of her civil rights. She was ultimately awarded $2.3 million (Tracy Thurman et al. v. City of Torrington, 1984, as cited in Buzawa and Buzawa, 2003). Since the Thurman case, the use of domestic violence protective orders has increased substantially. What began with laws passed by Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia in the 1970s resulted in all states passing legislation to establish some form of protective or restraining order to assist victims and help to stop battering. These orders can include such provisions as requiring no contact or moving out, prohibiting stalking and harassment, as well as addressing needs of children. In many places there are multiple forms of protective or restraining orders that can be used depending on whether it originates from police, family court, or criminal court. In the early days of domestic violence protective orders, enforcement was low especially if the victim left the jurisdiction that issued the order. The 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act required that protective orders be enforced regardless of jurisdiction (otherwise known as „full faith and credit‰). Despite this federal law, as of 2004, only 31 states required that the police arrest an offender who violates a protective order. In many cases, police do little or nothing at all in response to protective order violations, and we see battered women becoming homeless or killed by their batterers as the result. This is despite overwhelming evidence that, although not perfect, victims are much safer with protective or restraining orders against violent abusers (Drew, 2005). Currently, arrests for domestic violence have increased, largely due to mandatory arrest policies that require an arrest if there is evidence at the scene that a domestic assault occurred. However, despite OregonÊs lead, the majority of states did not

148

|

Women Criminals

implement these policies until the late 1980s into the 1990s. The last 20 years have seen the majority of states legislating either pro-arrest or mandatory arrest policies for law enforcement responding to domestic violence. However, as of 2007, 21 states had not implemented these changes to the law and still left domestic violence arrests to officer discretion in the field (American Bar Association, 2007). The states have been slow to change their procedures regarding domestic violence despite federal provisions in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that provided, among other domestic violence supports, financial grants to states and other jurisdictions to put arrest policies in place that would treat domestic violence like any other assault (Drew, 2005). Despite some improvements in arrest policies to arrest batterers, problems persist in relation to filing charges, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing domestic abuse; such problems are not found with stranger assaults. Implementation of mandatory arrest policies have been wrought with controversy. There are mixed reports from the field concerning individual police officer response to restraining orders as well as to arrest decisions in the field, even if policies indicate arrest shall be made. Sinder and Stephens (1999) found that law enforcement has begun to see domestic violence enforcement as a central part of policing but feel challenged by victim ambivalence about having their partner arrested. The mixed feelings between a victimÊs wanting to be free from abuse and wanting to stay with a perpetrator contribute to officer uncertainty about how best to handle the case. This uncertainty is largely a result of not fully understanding the dynamics of domestic violence for victims. Phillips and Sobol (2010) report that the era of so-called underenforcement of domestic violence has given way to a greater likelihood of arrest by police officers, but arrest is still heavily influenced by such factors as visible injury, violations of protective orders, and disrespectful suspects. Even if arrest is more likely, arrest is no guarantee of charges being filed, court proceedings, conviction, and incarceration of offenders for any length of time. Police are more likely now to make an arrest in domestic violence cases than before pro-arrest or mandatory arrest statutes. That much is true. However, there has been a serious downside to policies requiring arrest. The emphasis on legally defined evidence on the scene, usually including evidence of physical injury to victims, has resulted in legalistic application of the law. This has resulted in dual arrests occurring when an arrest is mandated but both individuals have physical signs of violence. That is, the real abuser and the victim are both arrested. Even more, because of this emphasis in mandatory arrest policies on physical evidence of injury, many victims are arrested because of self-defensive wounds on batterers. Batterers often do violence to areas that donÊt show injury or that are embarrassing for the victim to show, thus often avoiding the creation of evidence by not leaving obvious physical injury. Thus, there may not be any legally usable, physical substantiation of the victimÊs allegations of violence. Victims, on the other hand, may inflict scratches or other obvious injury on a batterer in desperation to escape or stop the

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 149

violence that is occurring, and this obvious injury can become the basis for arresting the real victim (Miller, 2005). Some police policies require an attempt to identify a primary or dominant aggressor. This move began around 2001 with Montana, Nevada, and North Dakota passing statutes that use „primary,‰ „predominant,‰ or „principal‰ aggressor language with respect to domestic violence arrest. By 2008, 34 states had passed some statute requiring officers to try to determine who the dominant abuser is, even if he or she did not strike first. These statutes are relatively new in the history of domestic violence legislation, and we have yet to see how much or how little the laws are being practiced in the field. Additionally, there were 16 states as of 2008 who had no such statutes (Battered WomenÊs Justice Project, 2008). Even within the mandate to identify the one actually holding the abusive power in the relationship, women victims are still inappropriately arrested. The results of inappropriate arrests of victims range from the detrimental effects of having an arrest record to loss of children in family court to conviction/plea and sentencing. Batterer classes are often required for those arrested, mixing victims with perpetrators. It is clear that responding to domestic violence victims has improved since the 1970s and 1980s, when public awareness of the issue of intimate partner violence was dramatically introduced to the public in the movie The Burning Bed, describing the case of Francine Hughes. It is also clear that there is still a long way to go. We need to understand intimate partner victimization not only because of what happens to the victims but also to see the effects on women who have few, if any, options for escaping abuse. To understand a good deal of womenÊs perpetration of homicide, we need only look at the experiences of victims and the failures of societal systems to protect them. Intimate Partner Violence and Women’s Homicide Offending Women differ from men in the amount of homicide they commit as well as the kinds of victims that they kill. Women have consistently made up around 10 percent of homicide offenders since before 1970. While acquaintances and strangers predominate as victims for men who kill, intimate partners and family predominate as victims for women who kill. In fact, the largest proportion of womenÊs victims are intimate partners. The reasons why women kill are very seldom connected to the commission of another crime. They are much more likely to be classified as „conflict‰ based, although researchers in the field who have studied women homicide offenders state that the vast majority of these conflicts are actually in response to intimate partner violence. When female victims of intimate partner violence cannot access necessary resources, one of the unfortunate responses is homicide. Most often, in the most extreme circumstances, female victims of intimate partner

150

|

Women Criminals

violence will be killed by the batterer, though some will kill in self-defense. When rates of menÊs intimate partner violence are high, rates of womenÊs intimate partner homicide are also high (Jensen, 2001). Nearly half of all femicides (killings of females) are committed by an intimate partner (Belknap, 2007). Access to the means to help women victims, in particular, escape intimate battering has an important role in helping victims leave these relationships before they become lethal. When resources, such as viable employment options, as a whole are more available, rates of homicide offending against intimate partners decline because women have more economic means to help escape abuse and support themselves and children (Jensen, 2001). The more access to battered womenÊs shelters, the lower the rate of intimate partner homicide committed by women (Browne and Williams, 1989). Changes in policing and the courts have resulted in general declines in womenÊs homicide offending against intimate partners over the years after implementation of these changes. What does all this say? In order to understand a good deal of womenÊs homicide offending, we must understand the dynamics of intimate partner battering, resource availability, and how victimization influences options and actions of battered women. The question of what turns a battered woman into a battered woman who kills is still being contemplated. However, we see some differences that have emerged from interview research with battered women who kill. In comparison to their non-homicidal counterparts, battered women who kill have suffered the most severe violence and also had the fewest ways out of the relationship. They are less likely to have a supportive circle of friends and family. Battered women who kill also have the least extensive criminal record of any female offenders. At the moment of the homicide, these women describe the moment as being like a flash of reality that either she would die or he would die (Browne, 1987). The reality is that these women do assess the situation correctly, but a self-defense argument runs into problems with myths about why women stay in these relationships (for example, it isnÊt so bad) as well as definitions of law that are centered around assumptions of menÊs self-defense situations. Women tend to be facing partners; men tend to be facing strangers or acquaintances, equally matched, and in a situation of literally not being able to physically escape (Gillespie, 1989). Courts and the law have changed in many places to better reflect the battering victimÊs experience, but it is still far from perfect. Women such as Velma Barfield and Betty Beets did not benefit from these changes in the law. The history of understanding and defending battered women who kill is a history that demonstrates problems with a biased court system as well as a tendency to turn womenÊs real needs to defend themselves into a psychological diagnosis. One of the first to discuss the connections between the experiences of battering and battered women who kill was Lenore Walker (1989), who first described what came to be known as „battered womenÊs syndrome‰ in 1979. She then connected

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 151

this syndrome to a defense for women who had killed abusive partners. Battered womenÊs syndrome was offered as a justification for battered womenÊs homicides committed with the reasonable belief that their lives were in jeopardy. Three components of battered womenÊs syndrome that were crucial were the cycle of violence, learned helplessness, and post-traumatic stress responses. These experiences only intensify with increased levels of repeat violence. Walker (2001) described battered womenÊs syndrome as a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder that results from the trauma of repeated physical violence by partners. When trauma occurs, an individualÊs mind, emotions, and body respond in a way that enhances survival. Part of these responses include trying to shut down feelings while the trauma is occurring. This does not work in the long run, and the victim of trauma frequently experiences feelings of being revictimized or reexperiencing the trauma, avoidance of any reminders that could trigger memories of the trauma, and increased arousal symptoms·inability to sleep, irritability, anger, hypervigilance, for example. The symptoms last more than a month. Cognitive and memory changes, avoidance symptoms, and increased arousal symptoms have been identified with a „fight‰ (as opposed to „flight‰) response to intimate partner violence. The definition of battered womenÊs syndrome was fine-tuned to explain why a battered woman would stay in an abusive relationship rather than leave. Walker identified the presence of a „learned helplessness‰ that results from repeated attempts to leave that have been thwarted or met with increased violence. Eventually, she argued, the woman may give up trying to leave despite the escalation of the abuse she is experiencing. When the violence reaches a point at which the victim begins to see that she is likely to be killed, she will have to fight back in order to make the violence stop, particularly if she tries to leave for the last time. The only way out of the trapped situation is the use of force by the victim. Unfortunately, the only force that will stop a batterer at this point is usually lethal. This dynamic is only intensified by the experience of intrusive thoughts (flashbacks) that lead to reexperiencing initial traumas and contribute to seeing the situation as hopeless. She may see the threat of another attack as imminent (Walker, 1989). Descriptions of the cycle of violence were WalkerÊs second contribution to understanding not only the experiences of battered women but battered women who kill abusers. According to Walker (1999), the cycle of violence has three phases: the tension-building phase, the acute battering phase, and the honeymoon phase. In the tension-building phase, power and control more often take the form of verbal, psychological, and financial abuse although less severe physical abuse may also occur. This is a time when the victim anticipates another battering attack and must „walk on eggshells,‰ meaning she is careful to try not to upset the batterer. It is also at this time that she blames herself for the violence of her partner, excusing or justifying his behavior. As the tension builds, the victim withdraws, and the

152 |

Women Criminals

batterer becomes more oppressive. As the tension comes to a peak, the relationship moves into the acute battering phase, in which the batterer explodes in abuse, including physical abuse that is injurious or potentially injurious. While this phase is the shortest of the cycle, it is the phase that receives the most attention. Following an acute battering event is a period called the „honeymoon‰ phase, in which the batterer apologizes, promises never to hurt the victim again, and may even shower her with gifts or special treatment (which is why it is sometimes called the „hearts and flowers‰ phase). During this phase, the victim, who only wants the abuse to stop, is inclined to believe the promises of the batterer and stay with him in the hope that he will change and the relationship will improve. This phase, unfortunately, gives way to the beginning of tension-building again when the batterer begins denying or minimizing the abuse and blaming the victim for it. As the abusive relationship continues, the tension-building and acute battering phases become more prolonged and more frequent, and the honeymoon phases become shorter and shorter. At some point, the honeymoon phase may be completely eliminated, and if so, the abuser immediately blames the victim at the end of the battering. It is at this time in the relationship that the victim is most likely to be in grave danger if she tries to leave while the batterer has worn down all sense of the victimÊs self, replacing her selfprotective instincts with his reasons for his behavior (Walker, 1999). WalkerÊs work was among the first scholarly work to directly address the experiences of battered women, and she became one of the first expert witnesses in cases of battered women who kill. The use of battered womenÊs syndrome to explain why battered women stay and how they may come to see killing their partners as reasonable and necessary became the standard for legal defenses for battered women who kill for a decade or more after Walker began offering expert testimony in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Walker directly provided testimony on battered womenÊs syndrome in the homicide cases of Gladys Cannon Kelly, Donna Yaklich, and Debbie Gindorf, with varying success. Gladys Cannon Kelly was convicted at her second trial. Debbie Gindorf was found guilty but insane and was sent to a mental institution for the criminally insane until her recovery, when she was sent to prison. Donna Yaklich was convicted not of homicide but of conspiracy to commit homicide and received a sentence of 40 years in prison (Walker, 1989). WalkerÊs descriptions of battered womenÊs syndrome have been criticized on many grounds. First, those who work with batterers and victims describe the „honeymoon phase‰ of the battering cycle as an illusion. Instead, what is happening is that the batterer is using the apologies and niceties as manipulation. Indeed, all the battererÊs actions toward the victim are tactics of power and control. The Duluth Domestic Violence Intervention programs (www.theduluthmodel.org), drawing from the experiences of hundreds of victims, developed the concept of power and control wheels; these wheels graphically illustrate the central role power and control play in all the tactics used by batterers. Included in these tactics are forms of coercion, minimizing, and mind games as emotional abuse; all these tactics underlie what

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 153

appears to be contrition and apology (see www.theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery. php for detailed discussion of the wheels). Battered womenÊs syndrome, despite its later critics, became the basis for expert testimony to explain why the killing of a battered womanÊs partner was, in fact, consistent with self-defense law. The legal systems of the United States and Canada, since their common law origins from before colonization, have recognized that some killing may be justified when an individual is under attack. While the exact language of the law varies between individual U.S. states and the United States and Canada, self-defense requires some combination of a reasonable belief that an attack will cause death or significant bodily injury, an attack that is imminent, and that the use of only the required amount of force would dispel the attack. In the case of self-defensive homicide, it must be shown that killing was the only way to defend oneself. In many cases, there is also a duty to retreat, if such retreat is possible. The standard given is called the „reasonable man‰ standard, and this language still exists in some of the law today. The law was created with the kinds of attacks so-called reasonable men would encounter·the barroom brawl out of hand or the ambush by a stranger. When applied to battered women, the prevailing myths society holds about domestic abuse make traditional application difficult. Retreat would appear possible to a lay person because, after all, a battered woman has survived numerous attacks. Sometimes battered women cannot fight back until the man is drunk, asleep, or has his back turned, a fact that also raises doubts about the „reasonable belief‰ that she was about to be killed. Self-defense law, as written, clearly does not consider the dynamics of battering and the experiences of the women who kill those batterers (Gillespie, 1989). In the late 1970s into the 1980s, expert witnesses such as Lenore Walker offered expert testimony about battered womenÊs syndrome to the court to help explain why a battering victim would feel the need to kill her batterer. Courts were slow to accept the syndrome as a legitimate defense, claiming that battered womenÊs syndrome was not established in the scientific community and that the average person could understand the experiences of battered women. Unfortunately, battered women who killed continued to be convicted of much greater offenses than men were. It wasnÊt until around 1984 when the appeal of Gladys Kelly reached the Supreme Court of New Jersey that the courts overall began to see that expert testimony about battered womenÊs syndrome was needed for juries to better understand how battered women may have an honest and reasonable belief that they will be killed if they do not kill the batterer first. State of New Jersey v. Kelly (1984) was also significant because the state-level appeal included a friend of the court brief (amicus curiae) from the American Psychological Association attesting to and describing the scientific validity of battered womenÊs syndrome (Kinsports et al., 1982). The appeals court overturned KellyÊs conviction and remanded it for a new trial. After that, many courts began to allow testimony about a womanÊs battering and the psychological problems from it (Walker, 1989).

154 |

Women Criminals

The introduction of battered womenÊs syndrome as a support to self-defense claims served a crucial role early on in educating courts as to how battered women could see their abusive situation as posing an imminent danger to their lives and health. However, more recently, the use of battered womenÊs syndrome per se has come under fire. In many cases, it was used to establish more the reasons why the woman did not leave rather than the experiences leading up to her reasonable belief that she needed to kill to survive (Schneider, 2000). Additionally, as expert testimony in battered womenÊs syndrome became more prevalent, the door opened to weaknesses that could be exploited by prosecutors and an image that did not match the reality of battered women. Biggers (2005) describes the use of psychological syndrome language as problematic because of the rigid criteria that are invoked. If a checklist of diagnostic criteria are presented, the prosecution can scrutinize the diagnosis to the point that the testimony is weakened. In fact, the battering experiences of some women who do not fit all the criteria may be considered largely irrelevant. Ferraro (2003) argues that the use of battered womenÊs syndrome reinforces conventional notions of femininity and actually disadvantages battered women. Gordon (1996) adds that the word „syndrome‰ implies a pathology or impairment that doesnÊt reflect the reality of battered womenÊs lives. In general, the call is for a more case-specific discussion of womenÊs reactions to battering that reflects the range of experiences of battered women and that serves to support the claim of self-defense. Statutes in some states (e.g., California) have evolved away from „battered syndrome‰ language but still do not allow for a perfect self-defense argument to be presented in the case of battered women. In other words, a self-defense plea based on the status of battering victim cannot result in a complete exoneration of the victim. In the case of California, it results in a reduction of the conviction to manslaughter. The direct effects of battering on womenÊs criminality are most clearly seen in cases when battered women feel the need to kill batterers in an attempt to defend their own lives. Battering also has additional effects on womenÊs criminality in sometimes less obvious ways. The Duluth Domestic Violence Intervention programs, in their compilation of hundreds of battered womenÊs experiences, clearly forced criminality as a power-and-control tactic that batterers use. Girshick (2003) reports that many women who are incarcerated have been battered by partners to force them into committing crimes.

VICTIMIZATION AND FEMALE ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE AND CRIME Alcohol and substance abuse are related to crime in two ways. The first involves the criminalizing of using alcohol and drugs, and the second is in the criminal acts

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 155

a person may do in order to ensure money for alcohol or drugs. Research has indicated that those women lawbreakers who have been incarcerated are somewhat more likely than incarcerated men to use more serious drugs and to use them more frequently. According to one study, around 30 percent of women who committed crimes were under the influence of a drug (Pollack, 1998). While men are more likely to start using drugs out of curiosity, girls and women are more likely to start using drugs out of a desire to escape (Belknap, 2007). There are, of course, multiple reasons why a woman would abuse alcohol or drugs, but research clearly indicates that victimization in childhood sets the path for alcohol and drug addiction for many, if not most, women criminals. The connections between the victimization of girls and their subsequent use of drugs and alcohol are demonstrated in multiple studies. These connections appear to be stronger for girls and women than for men. One study found that childhood sexual and emotional abuse and maltreatment were much more associated with a high severity of alcohol and substance abuse for women than for men. Cocaine use was only associated with early use of alcohol. Sexual victimization, thus, contributed to cocaine use by lowering the age of the first use of alcohol by girls. Girls may be seeking comfort and escape through initial use of alcohol, which often starts the path toward deeper use of drugs. This pathway, interestingly enough, was not found as strongly for men (Hyman, Garcia, and Sinha, 2006). Salisbury and Voorhis (2009) found that sexual abuse played a significant role in adult women who have been incarcerated for crimes related to substance abuse. Pollack (1998) also underscores the connection between drug use by girls and women and families with high levels of violence and abuse of children, sexually and physically. Girls in such families are much more likely to have been under partial or total control of state welfare agencies with the corresponding lack of stability and vulnerability to abuse that accompanies this status. Drug and alcohol use is often used as a coping mechanism to deal with the trauma of violence in which escapism may only be possible mentally. This applies to girls abused in the home and to adult battering and rape victims. Self-medication may be the only means of psychic survival in those circumstances, especially with repeated victimization. Self-medicating is, itself, defined as a crime when prescription drugs are used illegally or illegal drugs are used. Unfortunately, it also has an impact on increasing the likelihood of women dealing drugs and committing economic crimes for money to live and to buy drugs. An additional factor is the high likelihood than a man introduced the girl or woman to drugs in the first place, sometimes as a coercion tactic and sometimes as an incentive to join in a criminal lifestyle. Either way, victimization and vulnerability play an important role in the path to crime through substance abuse for many women (Girshick, 2003). Velma BarfieldÊs addiction to tranquilizers was a significant factor in the theft from her mother and other individuals she worked for, many of whom she ultimately killed.

156

|

Women Criminals

Regina McKnight was prosecuted and convicted of murder of her stillborn fetus because there was a trace of cocaine in the babyÊs system. As an addict, she was blamed for the death of her baby, though there was no clear evidence that cocaine was the cause. She was unable to receive help for her addiction because of the risk of disclosing the pregnancy. The labeling of the problems of addiction as criminal directly and indirectly also impact women and their relationship to crime. Female Victimization and Prostitution Prostitution has been called the oldest profession. Unfortunately, engaging in prostitution almost always involves either the threat or the reality of coercion and violence. Whether prostitutes are controlled by pimps or other individuals (almost always men) or whether they are at risk of being attacked and harmed by those purchasing sexual services, prostitution is a dangerous crime. Prostitutes are also most at risk for arrest, although in most cases, both the prostitute and the client are engaged in illegal acts, as both selling and purchasing sex are illegal in most states. In 2008, 69.4 percent of arrests for prostitution were of girls and women versus 30.6 percent for boys and men. The high disproportion of females in prostitution is only found in one other crime: runaway. All other crimes are either relatively even (embezzlement) or show a disproportionate number of men arrested. Thus, we find women particularly vulnerable to prostitution arrests compared to men (FBI, 2008). Adult women prostitutes are highly victimized both prior to and while engaging in prostitution. Some possible victimization pathways for adult women include coercion and threats from partners or other men who are dominating and controlling. Involvement with criminal men can bring a girl into a criminal lifestyle, which can include prostitution, as is seen in the case of Rosemary West who left home at 15. Loss of home as a result of domestic violence may leave a woman homeless and, as a result, leave her vulnerable to criminal affiliates who lead her into prostitution. She may also be kidnapped and held against her will, being forced to prostitute. Addictions developed prior or while on the streets can increase the likelihood of prostitution, as in the case of Guin Garcia. While engaging in prostitution, a defined crime, prostitutes may be victimized by johns; ongoing coercion continues the cycle of victimization (DeHart, 2008). Another extremely troubling and increasing form of adult and child prostitution is trafficking, internationally and intranationally. Some women, particularly those from overseas, may be lured by promises of goodpaying jobs and other financial opportunities to come to another country, including the United States. For women who unknowingly enter into the international sex trade, once they are in the new country, they are held captive and forced to work in prostitution to „pay off‰ a debt that will never be repaid. Other women, including women within this country, are captured, taken to a new and isolated place, and

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 157

forced to work as prostitutes (Farr, 2005). Many adult prostitutes began as runaways running from abuse in the home and from coercion early in their lives to engage in sex acts for money or goods in order to survive. Further examination into the prostitution of girls shows the many ways in which childhood abuse plays into arrests of girls for selling sex. Several pathways have been identified by DeHart (2008), all of them involving adult exploitation and victimization. Parents and guardians can provide direct entry into prostitution. In the case of Mary Bell, she was subjected to severe abuse in the home where, among other things, her mother used her for prostitution. There may be the parent or guardian who pimps the children to dealers for drugs. A parent or guardian may introduce a girl to drugs, increasing her likelihood of addiction and a need to earn money for more drugs. Abuse in the home can lead to either addictions, which may lead to prostitution or to running away, which can lead to trading sex for goods or money and/or addictions that need to be supplied. The commercial sexual exploitation of children is a growing and significant problem. Estes and Weiner (2001) identified prior histories of child abuse and child sexual abuse as playing a significant role in childrenÊs vulnerabilities to being sold as prostitutes. They also noted that the majority of exploited children are girls, and the proportion of exploited girls to boys increases with age. The greatest age of risk is 14 years old. Overall, it is estimated that over 200,000 or more of the youth on the streets are at risk for sexual exploitation. Child abuse and child sexual abuse play many roles. One, the lack of institutional support for children who are victimized does increase the risk of running away as a last resort. Institutions tend to disbelieve reports of abuse from children. Girls on the street are most likely immature, often dependent on drugs, and have few marketable resources. Survival sex for money may ensue as they are forced to support themselves. They are also the most at risk for being prey to adult men who take them in, give them gifts and kindness interspersed with violence and threat, and then force them into prostitution. It is estimated that sex traffickers or pimps control from 50 to 90 percent of the girls who are prostituting in the United States. Simultaneously, negative attitudes toward children in prostitution often means that a typical criminal justice response arrests children who are prostituting but does not further investigate the childrenÊs circumstances. Federal legislation has identified all minors involved in commercial sex acts as victims of trafficking regardless of citizenship or origins. Despite this, significant barriers still exist in proper identification of girl prostitutes as victims rather than offenders. This is hampered by both a systemic problem with training and identification as well as the children and teens not being able to self-identify. They may not understand what is going on or may minimize or deny what is going on because of confusion or because of fear of retaliation. The trauma of what they have gone through may make them less willing to talk to anyone. Much needs to be

158

|

Women Criminals

done to appropriately enforce laws against pimps and other victimizers rather than against the girls (Reid, 2010). To make matters worse, there are few, if any, victim services appropriate for these girls who are being victimized into prostitution, and virtually none exist that specifically identify the target population of domestically trafficked minors. Runaway shelters and other state-run homes are not appropriate for this kind of victim. The juvenile justice system is the recipient of most of these victims who are encouraged to plead guilty to make things quicker. However, a guilty plea denies them access to victim compensation assistance funding while placing upon them the label of juvenile delinquent. Even with the label of delinquent, the child prostitution victim is not automatically held in juvenile custody if they are not determined to be a risk to the community or at risk for flight. Release often comes after only a few hours, and many girls are released to the adult who may, in fact, be the trafficker. The trafficker, then, is given support in the threats to his victims that the system really will not do anything to protect them (Reid, 2010). Victims in Correctional Institutions The experience of women in correctional institutions has been described as yet another victimization for a group of women already disproportionately victimized. The experiences of trauma and lack of effective coping skills for that trauma are rarely addressed in womenÊs prison. Prison involves many experiences that may produce triggers to traumatic experiences such as yelling, physical confinement to small spaces, unwanted touching through strip searches and other searches, and other situations that recreate the experiences of being powerless, devalued, and unable to trust in anyone. As part of a total institution, prisons and other correctional facilities dehumanize individuals for the purposes of control and do so through intimidation, isolation, and constantly watching inmates; these methods degrade and humiliate women who have been victimized outside. Prison guards are often male, and this can allow for direct sexual victimization to take place in the face of imprisoned womenÊs complete lack of power. Joan Little, for example, killed a prison guard who sexually abused her while in prison. Short of victimization, male guards are allowed to do pat searches and supervise strip searches in some instances, providing revictimization to women who have been sexually abused and objectified. Negative reactions to such triggering experiences can result in disciplinary action, which provides more punishment within the institution. Prisoners are not likely to be believed, and having no recourse increases their sense of powerlessness. Correctional institutions, in a general failure to understand the dynamics of abuse and crime, contribute to victimizing criminal woman further, which adds to the stigma women criminals already feel and can have implications for further criminality (Girshick, 2003).

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 159

CONCLUSION The connection between victimization and the offending of girls and women is strong, stronger than it is for men. Physical and sexual abuse of girls and women can lead to techniques of survival and coping that may involve crimes like drug/ alcohol offenses to mentally escape and crimes like running away, prostitution, and homicide in the course of physical escape. It would play into the hands of the very entities that have ignored women offendersÊ victimization to state that all women and girls who offend are victims. There are those females who are fully capable of engaging in crimes who are not victims. Nor is it an exoneration of all women offenders to recognize this link. When we see the connection between many girlsÊ and womenÊs criminal offending and victimization, we begin to see not only the effects of ignoring the safety needs of girls and women but also an important target of intervention to prevent initial or recurring offending. What is particularly striking is the role of long-term, repeated victimization from multiple offenders in the lives of imprisoned women. For these women, fully engaged in a criminal career, the effects of victimization are both direct and indirect. They are direct insofar as early in life, these women have often been misused and abused by adults who sexually victimized them, forced them to commit crimes, provided them with alcohol and drugs, and/or forced them to prostitute at a young age. Direct effects of abuse involve defensive or retaliatory efforts to end the abuse either as children or adults. These women may have also experienced abuse in the form of battering, being forced to commit crime, and being forced to take criminal blame for abusers. Indirect effects include the means used to escape the traumas of victimization, including the abuse of alcohol and/or drugs, which can lead to other crimes, such as running away from abuse in the home and trading sex for survival needs. Incarcerated women are most likely to report that many, if not most, of these victimizations occurred to them over the course of their lifetime, starting when they were young girls and ending at the point they entered prison (DeHart, 2008). And as Girshick (2003) points out, the victimization of women may not even end in prison as the system continues to batter them and deny them the help they really need. References Alaggia, Ramona. 2005. Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma 10: 453ă470. American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. 2007. Domestic Violence Arrest Policies by State. http://www.abanet.org/domviol/docs/Domestic_Violence_Arrest_Policies_ by_State_11_07.pdf. Battered WomenÊs Justice Project. 2008. Primary Aggressor Statutes. http://www.bwjp.org/files/ bwjp/articles/Primary_Aggressor_Chart_Final.pdf. Belknap, Joanne. 2007. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

160

|

Women Criminals

Biggers, J. R. 2005. The utility of diagnostic language as expert witness testimony: Should syndrome terminology be used in battering cases? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 5, 43ă61. Browne, Angela. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press. Browne, Angela, Brenda Miller, and Eugene Maguin. 1999. Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(3ă4): 301ă322. Browne, Angela, and Kirk Williams. 1989. Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides. Law and Society Review 23: 75ă94. Buzawa, Eve S., and Carl G. Buzawa. 2003. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chesney-Lind, Meda. 1995. Girls, delinquency and juvenile justice: Toward a feminist theory of young womenÊs crime. In The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Victims, and Workers, 2nd ed., edited by Barbara R. Price and Nancy J. Sokoloff (71ă88). New York: McGraw Hill. Daly, Kathleen, and Meda Chesney-Lind. 1988. Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly 5: 497ă538. DeHart, Dana D. 2008. Pathways to prison: Impact of victimization in the lives of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women 14: 1362ă1381. Dobash, Russell P., Emerson Dobash, and Sue Gutteridge. 1986. The Imprisonment of Women. Oxford. England: Basil Blackwell. Drew, Margaret (chair). 2005. American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence #114 Report to the House of Delegates. http://www.abanet.org/adminlaw/annual2005/council_ agenda/114resolution.pdf. Eigenberg, Helen M., Kathryn E. Scarborough, and Victor E. Kappeler. 1996. Contributory factors affecting arrest in domestic and non-domestic assaults. American Journal of Police 15: 27ă54. Estes, Richard J., and Neil Alan Weiner. 2001. The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico·Full Report (of the U.S. National Study). September 18, 2001 (revised February 20, 2002). http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/½restes/CSEC_files/Complete_ CSEC_020220.pdf. Farr, Kathryn. 2005. Sex Trafficking: The Global Market in Women and Children. New York: Worth. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2008. Crime in the United States, 2008. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ cius2008/. Feerick, Margaret M., and Kyle L. Snow. 2005. The relationships between childhood sexual abuse, social anxiety, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in women. Journal of Family Violence 20: 409ă419. Ferraro, K. 2003. The words change, but the melody lingers: The persistence of the battered woman syndrome in criminal cases involving battered women. Violence Against Women 9: 110ă129. Finkelhor, David. 1994. Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. The Future of Children 4: 31ă53. Garcia, Venessa. 2003. „Difference‰ in the police department: Women, policing and „doing gender.‰ Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 19: 330ă344. Gilfus, Mary E. 1992. From victims to survivors to offenders: WomenÊs routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women and Criminal Justice 4: 63ă89. Gillespie, Cynthia. 1989. Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-defense, and the Law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Girshick, Lori B. 2003. Abused women and incarceration. In Women in Prison: Gender and Social Control, edited by Barbara Zaitzow and Jim Thomas (95ă117). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Victimization and Women’s Offending | 161

Gordon, M. 1996. The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report Responding to Section 40507 of the Violence Against WomenÊs Act. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Harlow, Caroline W. 1999. Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Heimer, Karen, and Candace Kruttschnitt, eds. 2006. Gender and Crime: Patterns in Victimization and Offending. New York: New York University Press. Herbert, Martine, Caroline Tremblay, Nathalie Parent, Isabelle V. Daignault, and Christiane Piche. 2006. Correlates of behavioral outcomes in sexually abused children. Journal of Family Violence 21: 287ă299. Hyman, Scott M., Miguel Garcia, and Rajita Sinha. 2006. Gender specific associations between types of childhood maltreatment and the onset, escalation and severity of substance use in cocaine dependent adults. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse 32: 655ă664. James, Doris J. 2004. Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Jensen, Vickie. 2001. Why Women Kill: Homicide and Gender Equality. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Karmen, A. 2007. Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kempe, Henry C., Frederic N. Silverman, Brandt F. Steele, William Droegemueller, and Henry K. Silver. 1962. The battered-child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association 181: 7ă24. Kinsports, Kit, Donald Bersoff, Bruce Ennis, and Nadine Taub (for American Psychological Association). 1983. Brief of Amicus Curiae, American Psychological Association, in support of Defendant-Petitioner, in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, September Term, 1982. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. Gladys Kelly, Defendant-Petitioner. On Petition for Certification from the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (Judges Bother and Forman). Mason, Mary A. 1994. From FatherÊs Property to ChildrenÊs Rights: The History of Child Custody in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. McCormack, Arlene, Mark-David Janus, and Ann W. Burgess. 1986. Runaway youths and sexual victimization: Gender differences in an adolescent runaway population. Child Abuse and Neglect 10: 387ă395. Miller, Susan. 2005. Victims as Offenders: The Paradox of WomenÊs Violence in Relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Phillips, Scott W., and James J. Sobol. 2010. Twenty years of mandatory arrest: Police decision making in the face of legal requirements. Criminal Justice Policy Review 21(1): 98ă118. Pollack, Joycelyn M. 1998. Counseling Women in Prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Putnam, Frank W. 2003. Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42: 269ă278. Reid, Joan. 2010. Doors wide shut: Barriers to the successful delivery of victim services for domestically trafficked minors in a Southern U.S. metropolitan area. Women and Criminal Justice 20(1): 147ă166. Rennison, Callie Marie, and Sarah Welchans. 2000. Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Salisbury, Emily J., and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2009. Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationersÊ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior 36: 541ă566. Schneider, Elizabeth M. 2000. Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.

162

|

Women Criminals

Shipley, Stacey L., and Bruce A. Arrigo. 2004. The Female Homicide Offender: Serial Murder and the Case of Aileen Wuornos. Upper River Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Simkins, Sandra, and Sarah Katz. 2002. Criminalizing abused girls. Violence Against Women 8: 1474ă1499. Sinder, Peter G., and B. Joyce Stephens. 1999. Police perceptions of domestic violence: The nexus of victim, perpetrator, event, self, and law. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 22(3): 313ă327. State of New Jersey v. Kelly. 1984. 97 N.J. 178. Straus, Murray A. 1990. Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Walker, Lenore E. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Walker, Lenore E. 1999. The Battered Woman Syndrome, 2nd edition. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Walker, Lenore, E. 2001. The battered women syndrome is a psychological consequence of abuse. In Battered Women and the Law, edited by C. Dalton and E. M. Schneider (117ă121). New York: Foundation Press. Washington Crime News Service. 2003. $200 million in grants to prevent child abuse. Crime Control Digest 37(25): 2. West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. „Doing gender.‰ Gender and Society 1: 125ă151.

POLITICAL WOMEN AND CRIMINALIZATION Karren Baird-Olson and Carlos Moran

[Joan of Arc was tried by a church court which accused her] of being a witch, enchantress, false prophet, thinking evil in our Catholic faith, and inciting to war, cruelly thirsting for human blood . . . having utterly and shamelessly abandoned the modesty befitting her sex, and indecently put on the fill-fitting dress . . . of men of arms. (Thompson, 345) French view of Joan of Arc: Heroine and saint. Church view: Heretic and saint. British view: Terrorist. Criminalization refers to the process whereby criminal law is selectively applied to social behavior. Experiences of women as victims and/or offenders participating in human rights actions, nonviolent or violent, and as the result of politically charged consequences are involved with the criminal justice enterprise provide exemplary opportunities to explore the intersections of gender role expectations, social economic class, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political power. The definitions of political crime, victims, and perpetrators provide significant examples of the social construction of crime and how the social context involving three necessary components·key ideas, social conditions, and key actors·shape the creation of crime categories and what behaviors are defined as legal and illegal violence.

DEFINITIONS AND TYPES Criminalization of women involved in political behavior provides one of the clearest examples of how the definition of deviant behavior depends upon the definition of the situation and who has the power to apply that classification. Labeling of women rests upon gender expectations as well as on political ideologies. The growing research on themes of gender identities, or separate spheres of ideology, demonstrates the deferential impact the making and enforcing of law has on women. For instance, Kathleen BleeÊs 1980s research on women activists as both agents and victims of the Ku Klux Klan (or WomenÊs Ku Klux Klan, WKKK) reveals how womenÊs activities 163

164 |

Women Criminals

were shaped by not only racial identity but also gendered roles. The familiar case of Patty Hearst, seen as both victim and „agent,‰ is another contemporary example of how gender identity and political interests shape the perception of women involved in political advocacy or protest as criminal or activist. Contemporary scenarios, domestic or international, differ little, overall, from the social dynamics influencing the historical gender-based labeling of women involved in political acts. For instance, domestically, one of the most notable female dissenters in early Colonial times was Anne Hutchinson who challenged the male Puritan clergy and Puritan dogma of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and, as a consequence, was banished in 1638. During the Revolutionary Era in the land that was to become the United States, female colonists, both white and black, activists or not, were raped by the British. Both female loyalistsÊ and female patriotsÊ fate „were affected by the extent of their husbandsÊ political activism as well as by the region in which their families lived‰ (Norton, 212). Although patriot female activists organized and raised money for the well-being of George WashingtonÊs troops, highly controversial behavior for women at the time, the primary activism of women fulfilled gender expectations by serving in supportive roles such as sewing shirts or refusing to purchase or consume imported tea. In the mid- to late 1800s, the womenÊs suffrage movement was led by women such as Susan B. Anthony. U.S., the „uppity‰ women who wanted their voices to be heard in the political realms of American life, were insulted, fined, and jailed in response to their so-called non-womanly actions. Two of the most powerful voices against American involvement in the World War I were that of Jeannette Rankin and Emma Goldman. Rankin, the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress (Republican Party, November 6, 1916) voted against U.S. entry into World War I four days after taking office. She was not reelected by Montana voters, but, unlike Goldman, she faced no criminal charges for opposing the war. Although opposing military conscription was not an offense at the time, Goldman was convicted of conspiracy to violate a federal law and imprisoned. Later she was deported to Russia. In the first case, RankinÊs power and influential family protected her. On the other hand, Goldman, an anarchist, was criminalized. Angela Davis, a black woman who is a Marxist, attempted to free the revolutionary Black Panther member George Jackson; in 1970, she was arrested on a fugitive warrant for murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy. She was subsequently imprisoned for 18 months and then acquitted in 1972. Worldwide, over the ages, women have served as political spies and leaders of political dissent; they have also taken part in public demonstrations, both violent and peaceful including civil disobedience. More recently women who have participated in acts defined as violent are labeled „terrorists‰ by those who oppose their political

Political Women and Criminalization

|

stands and „freedom fighters‰ by those who support them. For example, Fusako Shigenobu, a female leader in the Japanese Red Army whose primary goals were to instigate a world revolution and to overthrow the Japanese government, organized numerous attacks worldwide in the 1970s and 1980s. Another international example is Leila Khaled, member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who took part in hijacking of airplanes. She was held by the British, and in 1970, she, along with other Palestinian prisoners, was released in exchange for remaining airline hostages. Khaled sees herself as a freedom fighter rather then a terrorist. In all cases it is essential to recognize that the definition of deviant behavior including crime classifications is shaped by the social construction of those categories. Social conditions including cruelty, brutality, and other human rights violations; social ideas about those conditions such as who are worthy or blameworthy victims (Ryan, 1976); and the influence of key people and groups, both conservative and progressive, determines who is criminalized and what their fate is. Political crime definitions of both the acts and the perpetrators provide no exception to the general rules of the three-part social context model. TYPES OF POLITICAL CRIMES Depending upon the particular social context, behavior defined as political crimes will vary in scope and type of action. The following section uses a three-part schema and provides specific examples of women involved in political action to illustrate each of the three types of political crimes and the social construction of political crimes and perpetrators. Piers Beirne and James Messerschmidt have developed a useful and specific threefold typology of political crime: „Political crime entails not only crimes against the state (violations of law for the purpose of modifying or changing social conditions) but also crimes by the state, both domestic (violations of law and unethical acts by state officials and agencies whose victimization occurs within [a particular nation]) and international (violations of domestic and international law by state officials and agencies whose victimization occurs outside [the nation])‰ (400). Political Crimes against the State Political crimes against the state involve intentional violations of criminal law for political purposes as well as includes various acts criminalized by the state for the purpose of curbing political dissent. Violators of existing law seek to change existing oppression and to achieve protection of human rights and dignity. Women involved in such social movements often see themselves in conflict with a wide range and scope of oppressive social institutions which may include nation states or sexism.

165

166

|

Women Criminals

Political crimes against the state may be violent or nonviolent and, more recently, depending upon who is defining the situation, may be labeled as terrorism. One common thread that runs through most definitions of terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence for political purposes. Another not as common element is the recognition of opposing ideologies and the role of the dominant ideological perspective in labeling the actions of others as terrorist behavior. Perhaps the most scientific and ideologically neutral discussion is found in sociologists Boyns and BallardÊs 2004 article „Developing a Sociological Theory for the Empirical Understanding of Terrorism,‰ which focuses on the definition of „bottom up‰ political violent crime postă9/11. They argue that „terrorism is a powerful response to powerlessness‰ (22). For example, in the history of the United States, from the Revolutionary War onward, various groups, including women who sought prohibition or labor rights, have at times used violence in an attempt to modify or change the social order. Until recently the activities of members of these types of domestic groups have not been labeled as terrorist. Historically and contemporarily, various groups including those who have sought voting rights, the end of wars, or nuclear disarmament have also been engaged in nonviolent actions such as civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful demonstrations, involvement that sometimes has resulted in criminalization of participants, including women. Civil disobedience is a form of action in which protestors deliberately violate a law. Typically, there are six purposes for civil disobedience, goals that are not necessarily mutually exclusive: (1) to publicize an unjust law or a just cause; (2) to appeal to the public conscious; (3) to force official negotiation; (4) to „clog the machine‰ (see Henry David ThoreauÊs writings) with political prisoners; (5) to obtain an hearing in legal courts so one can challenge the constitutionality of a law; and/or (6) to disengage oneself publicly from the injustice in question. Well-known historical figures involved in political acts include Mildred Elizabeth Sisk [Axis Sally] Gillars, the American-born counterpart to Tokyo Rose in the Pacific. Axis Sally made propaganda broadcasts for Radio Berlin in HitlerÊs Germany from 1941 to 1945. Eventually she was convicted of treason. The woman thought to be Tokyo Rose and tried for treason was Iva (Tokyo Rose) dÊAquino, an American Nisei visiting her sick aunt in Japan at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941. DÊAquino, along with several other female broadcasters, needed work and found employment with Radio Tokyo, yet she alone was targeted by journalists as being the only voice of Tokyo Rose. Because of public pressure stirred up by the press, she was eventually tried for treason, found guilty of one charge, fined $10,000, sentenced to 10 years confinement, and deprived of her U.S. citizenship. After her release from prison in 1956, she remained a stateless person until she was pardoned by President Gerald Ford in 1977.

Political Women and Criminalization

| 167

Also during World War II, Sophie Scholl was executed at the age of 21 by the German government for anti-Nazi activities. In the United States, Ethel Rosenberg was executed with her husband on the grounds of treason based upon problematic evidence of her actual involvement. And the American performer Josephine Baker, while living and performing in Europe, did undetected undercover work for the French Resistance. Of course, if the Nazis had discovered her actions, Baker, like Rosenberg, could also have been executed. WomenÊs work in political action was not new in France. The important role of women in the French Revolution is difficult to dispute. For instance, Marie Gouze, who wrote under the pen name Olympe de Gouges, published the Declaration of the Rights of Women. She was sent to the guillotine in 1793. Other women were instrumental in organizing for food and other basic needs during the French Revolution. A number of these female leaders also died at the guillotine along with wives and other relatives of male revolutionary activists as well as female members of the French royal court. Across the Atlantic Ocean, First Nation women have long been involved in the resistance against colonization. Circa 50 years after the Civil War, the three Conley sistersÊ defense of the Huron (Wyandotte) cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas, began in 1907. Initially, they held off city officials by building fences; posting warning signs; and threatening encroachers with signs, broom sticks, and guns. Eventually, Lyda, one of the sisters, was admitted to the Kansas Bar in 1910 and pled the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Lyda, during her years of defending the site, was fined and criminalized·she was sent to jail for 10 days. Recent American Indian exemplars seeking justice include Anna Aquash, an American Indian Movement (AIM) 1970s activist whose murder has never been fully resolved. After AquashÊs death, the FBI cut off her hands, claiming that this mutilation of her body was necessary for evidence. During the last two decades Mary and Carrie Dann, two elderly sisters, defended their right to run their horses on public land that was stolen from the Shoshone although the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley clearly designated the acres in question as tribal property. Bernadette Devlin, Irish member of the IRA, was convicted of minor political offenses in the early 1970s. Antiwar and antiracism, Marilyn Buck was a U.S. citizen who was considered by many a U.S. political prisoner in the federal system. Buck was released in July 2010 after having done time since 1973, but she died of cancer just 19 days after her release. Marilyn Buck also broke gender roles and crossed racial lines, in particular by supporting the black, Native American, and Mexicano liberation movements as well as advocating on behalf of Cuban political activists imprisoned in the United States. Targeted by COINTELPRO, she was first arrested for buying two boxes of bullets, and she was sentenced in 1973. After escaping, she was again sentenced on conspiracy and other political allegations in 1988.

168

|

Women Criminals

In 1981 Nawal El Saadawi, known for her powerful denunciation of patriarchy, was imprisoned by the president of Egypt Anwar Sadat for alleged crimes against the state. In her 1984 book Memoirs from the WomenÊs Prison, Saadawi describes womenÊs resistance to state violence and shares insight into the formation of a womenÊs community and how political prisoners, both secular intellectuals and Islamic revivalists, forged alliances and formed a womanÊs community to protect and to provide for each other. Aung San Suu Kyi, said to be the leading force of the pro-democracy movement and a leader of the National League for Democracy in Myanmar (Burma), was awarded a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her nonviolent political resistance. She was under house arrest from 2003 until her release seven years later, on November 13, 2010. Ngawang SangdrolÊs activism began when she was 10 years old and participated in a proăTibetan independence demonstration and was arrested. When she was 13, she was arrested for her participation in another proăTibetan independence demonstration led by Buddhist nuns in the former Summer Palace of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Lhasa, Tibet, on August 28, 1990. On June 17, 1992, she was again arrested by Chinese officials for attempting to stage another pro-independence demonstration in Lhasa along with other nuns and monks. Ngawang, who was released in 2002 with a total of 18 years behind bars, has been the longest imprisoned female political prisoner in Tibet. During a parallel time period in the United States, journalist Judith Miller of the New York Times was jailed for not revealing her confidential sources about the „outing‰ of a CIA agent. Under the Bush administration, the FBI spent two years, countless manpower hours, and millions of dollars investigating the matter. Eventually after serving 85 days in federal detention, Miller said that she had been given permission to disclose the identity of her source·I. Lewis Scooter Libby of the Bush administration. Perhaps one of the most powerful contemporary demonstrations of gendered activism further influenced by national and religious extremism is ChechnyaÊs Black Widows, women who have been so dependent upon the men in their lives and socialized by their religious beliefs that upon the death of the men they strap bombs to their bodies to kill themselves and others. These women are usually poorly educated and have lost their husbands, brothers, or close relatives in one or both of the Chechen wars that Russia fought against Islamists. The women are recruited and trained by Islamist extremists. A recent incident believed to be the work of the Black Widows was the bombing of the Moscow subway in March 2010 which killed 40 and injured many more. Women who have acted upon their beliefs through political activism may or may not be criminalized. The fate of political dissidents is largely dependent upon their position in ideological conflicts, their personal power base, and the degree of their

Political Women and Criminalization

| 169

gender role violation. If violence as a means of protest is used, the degree and type rarely is a major determinant of punishment. Political Crimes by the State Domestic political crimes by the state, the second type of political crimes, are violations of law by state officials and/or agencies whose victimization occurs inside the boundaries of a nation. Two major types of domestic political crime by the state are corruption (political bribery, political kickbacks, election fraud, and corrupt campaign practices) and political repression (illegal repression of dissent). The two purposes of political prosecutions, whether the state identifies them as political or tries to pass them off as merely criminal, is to drain energy and money from social movements as well as from individual participants and to intimidate activists and potential activists. Political repression has a long history in the United States beginning with violence against peoples of color: the genocide of American Indians and the slavery of blacks. U.S. justice agencies continue to use a wide range of oppressive and often covert types of tactics to accomplish the repression of dissenting voices. During the Civil Rights era, the Black Movement, the Chicano Movement, the American Indian Movement, the feminist movement, and the lesbian movement were all infiltrated by representatives of the state, including FBI, CIA, COINTELPRO, and local law enforcement „intelligence‰ units. Since 9/11, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has joined other agencies in the supra surveillance of those who question political abuses and the status quo. Given that women are still not equitably represented in positions of power, the number of women who commit domestic political crimes as representatives of the state are still limited. However, notable historical examples are not lacking. The dramatic life story of Brunhilde, „the manipulative queen of medieval Austrasia at the center of generations of family rivalries over the throne, ended in three days of torture‰ (Thompson, 65), culminating in her body being tied to horses and dragged to her death (Thompson, 64ă65). Another medieval woman, Byzantine empress Theodora „sanctioned the massacre of tens of thousands of people‰ (Thompson, 710). In 1587, Mary I of Scotland, involved in labyrinth plots concerning her cousin Elizabeth I, was executed. Some social scholars of political crime have pointed out that members of the Bush administration, including Condoleezza Rice, could be found guilty of war crimes in international courts of justice. Another type of political crime committed by the state is the criminalization of female victims of gender-based crimes. Because of gendered perceptions and stereotypes of women, female victims of certain types of crime such as domestic abuse and rape have often been victims of domestic political discrimination carried out under the umbrella of the courtroom and the legal process. Eurocentric perceptions

170 |

Women Criminals

of women have been shaped not only by the Christian church, both Catholic and Protestant, but also by pseudoscience beginning as early as the 1800s when Cesare Lombroso and Guglielmo Ferrero published Criminal Women, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman. Lombroso argued that women have never reached as high and evolutionary state as men. Therefore, according to his reasoning, their regression into criminology is only slight and not as serious as that of men. Not until the 1970s did feminist scholars begin to seriously challenge biological theories about womenÊs inferiority. Internationally as well as domestically, various courts have adopted different criteria for what is considered serious acts of violence against women, have imposed different penalties, and proclaimed various legal rationalizations justifying the punishment of female domestic violence victims who have defended themselves or the demonization of rape victims who are considered blameworthy. In parallel manner, the sexual double standard used against women engaged in prostitution continues through today. Grace Sherwood, of Pungo, Virginia, was branded a witch for her success as a farmer, wearing trousers when working in the field, and refusal to remarry·a custom of the time that turned property rights over to the new husband. When she did not drown by trial by ordeal, she was deemed a witch and sentenced to eight years in prison. The inconsistency of legal treatment of domestic abuse victims who kill their abusers, including husbands, in self-defense has changed little over time. In 1870 Laura Fair, a „virtuous woman wronged by a male,‰ was acquitted. The same fate of non punishment or minimal punishment if the accused is considered a „worthy‰ woman is not uncommon. In 2006, Mary Winkler, a ministerÊs wife. shot and killed her husband and fled with her children. In 2007 she was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter after alleging emotional, sexual, and physical spousal abuse. Mary also claimed that she had shot her husband Mathew accidently. In 2007 she was released after spending seven months in custody: five months in a county jail and two months in a mental health facility. Women are still punished for what is called „gendered sexuality‰ (a widely used concept referring to a traditional or conservative view of how women should behave in conventional morality) which can be seen by the passing of the law called the Mann Act, in 1910, a law that caught in its wide web women not engaged in prostitution. Friedman describes „[a] study of 156 women sent to prison in this way, between 1927 and 1937 found a fair number (23%) who were not prostitutes at all and were totally not connected to commercial vice. Many of them were unmarried women traveling with married men·men they loved and wanted to marry. They ran a afoul of the law when an enraged and scandalized wife complained to authorities‰ (328). Within the last decades, women engaged in sex work have organized to move toward a destigmatized future·calling for the end of punishment for gendered

Political Women and Criminalization

| 171

sexuality, they have held international conferences addressing the double standards in laws that punish women for selling their bodies but fail to punish the men who use the womenÊs services. The bandit Queen of India, Phoolan Devi, was kidnapped by a gang when she was a young teenager. Devi, who saw herself as fighting against caste and sex oppression, eventually led her own gang seeking justice for social wrongs against women and the poor and was reported to be a notorious robber/killer in India. She surrendered to legal authorities in 1983; charges were dropped in 1994. Devi was elected to political office in 1999 and co-wrote a book The Bandit Queen of India: An Indian WomanÊs Amazing Journey from Peasant to International Legend (2003). She was fatally shot in front of her New Delhi resident in July 2001. International Political Crimes by the State The third type of political crime, international political crimes by the state, are violations of domestic and international law by state officials and/or agencies whose victimization occurs outside the boundaries of a nation. U.S. intelligence agencies such as the CIA have been involved in international political crimes·from illegally intervening in the affairs of other nations, such as the acts of internal and external colonial domination including organizing assassinations. Until recently women, for the most part, have played a minor role in international political crimes. An examination of the participation of women in the three types of political crime reveals that the social context, in particular ideas about gender roles, shapes not only the type of female participation in political activities but also the numbers involved. RESEARCH FINDINGS Both the scientific and lay literature on women involved in political crimes examines their roles organizing and participating in social movements dedicated to bringing social change and the movementsÊ successes or failures. There is a paucity of literature on what happens to women who are caught up within the criminal justice enterprise and criminalized as a result of their human rights activism. In the existing literature, four key findings are: (1) the subordinate position of women in the gender division of labor leads to males dominating in political crimes; (2) gender role expectations further shape the criminalization of those women who actually engage in political activities including those activities that are defined as „crimes‰; (3) measuring womenÊs involvement in those activities defined as political crimes is difficult, and as a result, the existing measures are inconclusive; and (4) further research about female criminological theories on economic marginalization, increased social control, and drug use needs to include an analysis to determine to

172

|

Women Criminals

what degree each of these social forces plays a role in shaping womenÊs involvement in political activism. Growing evidence indicates that men still dominate in political acts because of gender role expectations. However, in 1980, the CIA found that internationally women participated at every level in what they defined as terrorist organizations. In right-wing groups, women played more gender-based roles than women in left-wing groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground in which where womenÊs presence was more overt and less gender based. Recent research (see Kathleen BleeÊs work) has demonstrated that women often serve as Bridge Leaders, a role that is behind the scenes but not necessarily gendered. For instance, they may facilitate communication and make important decisions while a man may serve as public spokesperson even if he may not hold as much power as some women in the group. The second type of research finding as seen in the preceding examples of women involved in the three types of political crimes demonstrates gender role expectations as a given in both the criminal or noncriminal definitions of crime and the criminalization of female participants. The third finding, the challenge of measuring womenÊs involvement, is graphically illustrated by the failure to find information. The authors of this piece found one estimate: 25 percent of women in prison in the United States are political prisoners (WomenÊs Economic Agenda Project, May 1994). This percentage, of course, is determined by definitions, and it does not give a clear idea of the number of women who are politically active but not incarcerated. Fourth, economic marginalization, increased social control, and drug use may be causal or correlated social forces in the life trajectories of female political activists. However, more systematic research needs to be conducted to eliminate any spurious relationships between independent and dependent variables. Intersections of Class, Race, Age, Religion, and Sexual Orientation Although criminological studies of class and crime have concentrated on class differences in conventional crimes, white-collar and political crimes have largely been ignored. It is also widely understood that class, gender, and racial inequality also determine who engage in white-collar and political crimes. And in the political arena, the gender division of labor insures that political crime is dominated by men. Conventional crimes tend to be committed more often by the poor and working classes; white-collar and political crimes tend to be committed more often by the professional-managerial class. The women who are involved in right-wing or neoconservative groups are rural, poor, and uneducated women. These traditionally

Political Women and Criminalization

| 173

male-dominated organizations tend to romanticize the past and encourage racism, sexism, and homophobia. Progressive ideologies tend to support equal rights for women, racial minorities, and homosexuals. At least one study found that the women in these groups were well educated, middle or upper class, in their mid-thirties, and often assume leadership roles. Whites still dominate in corporate and political leadership environments where corporate and political crimes are committed. Therefore, although conventional crimes may be committed more often (or at least apprehended and convicted more often) by nonwhites than by whites, the more harmful and economically damaging white-collar and political crimes are disproportionately committed by whites. Steffensmeier and Allan, cited by Beirne and Messerschmidt (472), have reported that people involved in political crimes, as well as corporate crimes, are typically aged 30ă60. However, this statistical research, along with that on race and class, typically does not differ between female and male involvement in political crimes. Given the increasing number of women in professional-managerial and elected positions, there may be a greater number of women involved in political crimes than in the past. However, there appears to be no reliable baseline data at this point of time with which to make a longitudinal comparison. Little is known about lesbian involvement in political crimes other than a womanÊs sexual orientation often plays a role in the criminalization process, increasing differential treatment. As with all other areas of knowledge about womenÊs involvement in political crime, research about the role of religious affiliation and the influence on womenÊs involvement in political activity needs to be expanded. Fate of Political Women within the Criminal Justice Enterprise There was a little girl, Who had a [little] curl,1 Right in the middle of her forehead; When she was good, she was very good indeed, but when she was bad she was horrid. ·childhood rhyme2 Female political prisoners have not only committed „crimes of resistance‰ but have also violated gender norms (i.e., gendered sexuality). Consequently, the law is used as a social control mechanism against such „non-compliant women.‰ In addition to the endemic problems of overcrowding, violence, inadequate medical care, and violations of other basic human rights in womenÊs prisons, female political

174 |

Women Criminals

prisoners may be treated more harshly overall within the criminal justice enterprise, including the prison industry complex, because of gender violation as well as because they are seen as an even greater political threat than men both outside and within prison because of their insights and ability to organize, in particular as bridge leaders. For instance, during the latter decades of the past century, female political prisoners were often placed in special isolation units; for example, Haydee Torres and Lucy Rodriguez were held in a special isolation unit at Alderson Federal Women Penitentiary until a political mobilization of protest forced the prison system to transfer them. Puerto Rican women such as Torres and Rodriguez consider themselves POWs because of their participation in the political struggle for independence for Puerto Rico and consequent criminalization and imprisonment. The length of sentencing for female political prisoners is disproportionate in comparison to the average jail sentence: the average sentence for murder is 22.7 years; for rape, it is 13 years; for kidnapping, 24.1 years, but the average term for Puerto Rican political prisoners has been 70.8 years. CONCLUSION The paucity of systematic research about womenÊs involvement in political crimes is telling. Understanding the social context·social conditions, social ideas, and key actors and groups·is essential to understanding womenÊs participation in political activities. The following 10 findings or propositions about political acts defined as crime and the criminalization of participants could be used as starting points or hypotheses for additional research. 1. Economic status is a necessary but not sufficient social variable to explain womenÊs involvement in political crime. 2. Gender role expectations shape womenÊs participation in political activity as well as the criminalization of their acts. 3. Most women commit political crimes against the state rather than being representatives of the state committing domestic or international crimes against people. 4. The paucity of women in positions as arms of states limits their opportunities to commit domestic and international crimes. 5. Activist women in progressive or leftist organizations and/or social movements more often tend to have postsecondary education and/or have more sophisticated social awareness or political consciousness about the social institutional forces shaping their lives and the well-being of others, and they are likely to assume leadership roles.

Political Women and Criminalization

| 175

6. Political women tend to violate laws not as passive victims but as selfdeterminating protagonists, thereby shattering gender role expectations. 7. Political women tend to be from communities of the oppressed and exploited which includes women as a group. 8. Dependent upon the relevant social contexts, political women are punished as harshly or more harshly than men dependent partially upon class and overall status in community and upon the degree and type of gender role violation. 9. Female victimization as the result of gender-based crimes can lead to criminalization of the victims. 10. The numbers of political prisoners, including women, are increasing as globalization, corporate capitalism, the prison industrial system, and militarized police states expand and gendered role expectations change. An understanding of gender social dynamics is required to understand womenÊs involvement in political acts. Pakistan women often cite a traditional maxim: „The tall flower is cut down.‰ Women from other parts of the world, including the United States, also understand this caveat. Perhaps one of the most interesting questions facing future researchers is what motivates women to find the strength and courage to continue to seek justice, whatever the cost. Notes 1. There is some variation in whether the phrase is „little curl‰ or just „curl‰ as both have been part of the oral culture. 2. There is some controversy as to the source of this poem. Many sources give authorship of this rhyme to Longfellow, though others locate it within Mother Goose rhymes.

References Beirne, Piers, and James Messerschmidt. (2000). Criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bensen, M., M. Evans, and R. Simon. (1982). „Women as Political Terrorists.‰ Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control 4: 121ă130. Blee, Kathleen, ed. (1997). No Middle Ground. New York: New York University Press. Boyns, David, and James David Ballard. (2004). „Developing a Sociological Theory for the Empirical Understanding of Terrorism.‰ American Sociologist. Summer: 5ă25. Friedman, Lawrence M. (1993). Crime and Punishment in American History. New York: Basic Books/HarperCollins Publishers. Handler, J. (1990). „Socioeconomic Profile of an American Terrorist: 1960s and 1970s.‰ Terrorism 13: 195ă213. MacDonald, E. (1991). Shoot the Women First. New York: Random House. Merlo, Alida V., and Joycelyn M. Pollock. (1995). Women, Law, and Social Control. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Norton, Mary Beth. (1980). LibertyÊs Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750ă1800. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

176

|

Women Criminals

Ryan, William. (1976). Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage. Smith, Andrea. (2005). Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Steffensmeiser, Darrell, and Emilie Anderson Allan. (1995). „Age-Inequality and Property Crime: The Effects of Age-linked Stratification and Status-Attainment Processes on Patterns of Criminality Across the Life Course.‰ In Crime and Inequality, edited by John Hagan and Ruth D. Peterson, 95ă115. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Thompson, John M. (2009). The Medieval World: An Illustrated Atlas. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society.

ISSUES IN WOMEN’S CRIME AROUND THE WORLD Rosemary Barberet

INTRODUCTION Cross-national issues in womenÊs offending refers to the rates, causes, and consequences of womenÊs offending as they differ around the world. This entry will cover data sources available for measuring and describing the nature of womenÊs offending around the world; theories that have been advanced to explain global womenÊs offending; cross-national variation in consequences of womenÊs offending; and recommendations to prevent, by either primary, secondary, or tertiary measures, womenÊs offending around the world. As would be expected, the issues that surface in the study of cross-national offending of women are broader and more varied that those that would surface in a study of offending in the United States. This is so because of global diversity. There are many factors that influence the nature of womenÊs offending outside the United States, including a countryÊs level of socioeconomic development and its system of social support; its cultural features, including religion; its level of gender equality; and of course, the laws and philosophy of its criminal justice system. It is a challenge to find scholarly literature or reliable reports on womenÊs offending outside Anglo-American (e.g., U.S., Canadian, U.K., Australian) cultures. In Anglo-American cultures, the feminist movement, coupled with a relatively strong and well-funded criminological research community, have nurtured a body of literature on womenÊs offending. These nurturing forces are not always present in other countries. What we find is that while information on womenÊs offending in Anglo-American cultures is located in the criminological and womenÊs studies literature, the search for literature in other countries features more information from nongovernmental human rights organizations and United NationsÊ sources. This is because many criminal justice and criminological topics are correctly conceptualized outside the United States as human rights issues, for gender equality and the fair treatment of detainees and prisoners are long-standing human rights issues. In many countries, womenÊs offending is simply under-researched. In part, this is due to the fact that most offenders around the globe are men. Women are a small

177

178

|

Women Criminals

minority. But furthermore, in many parts of the globe, especially in strongly patriarchal cultures, womenÊs issues themselves·on any topic·receive relatively little attention. It is obvious, then, that while research on women offenders has blossomed in Anglo-American cultures in recent decades, this cannot be generalized to the rest of the world where there is scant interest in researching women offenders. A solution adopted by many who wish to generalize about women offenders internationally is to assume that what we know can be applicable worldwide. But what we know about women offenders is largely from the developed, Western world and cannot always be applied to the non-Western, developing world. It is important to study cross-national issues in womenÊs offending for the same reasons it is important to study any social issue cross-nationally. First, we are all part of a global community and the sharing of information can help us all to understand as well as ameliorate social problems. Second, crime itself is not confined to national boundaries. Therefore, new modus operandi may spread from one region to the world from another, and some crimes may become transnational (crossing national boundaries in their planning, execution, or consequences, such as trafficking for sexual exploitation). Finally, accumulating information beyond our national boundaries helps us to test and refine criminological theory, in this case theory about womenÊs offending. DATA Sources For many years criminologists have relied on INTERPOL and United Nations Crime Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems data to get a sense of the extent and nature of offending around the world. INTERPOL reports the percentage of arrestees by sex. In 2005, Interpol discontinued its statistics program, and data is no longer available. The United Nations Crime Survey collects data on the sex of offenders arrested, prosecuted, arrested, and imprisoned, since 1970. The survey is now in its 11th wave. For 2004, information on 45 countries was available. However, since neither source provides metadata to explain the often disparate differences in rates among countries, it is difficult to use these two sources for information about cross-national patterns in womenÊs offending. A relatively recent, comparative, and validated source of information on womenÊs offending is the WomenÊs Imprisonment List, published by the International Centre for Prison Studies and conducted by Roy Walmsley, a well-known expert in the area of comparative prison statistics. While this list does not provide us with data on offending, it does provide us with data on the number and proportion of women in prison around the world.

Issues in Women’s Crime around the World | 179

The Council of Europe Prison Statistics (SPACE) also records cross-national trends for women in prison for those countriesÊ members of the Council of Europe, and the European Sourcebook collects data on women offenders. Patterns According to data from the 2006 World Female Imprisonment List, in about 80 percent of prison systems, women comprise between 2 and 9 percent of the total prison population. Twelve systems have a higher proportion than that: Hong Kong-China (22%); Myanmar (18%); Thailand (17%); Kuwait (15%); Qatar and Vietnam (both 12%); Ecuador, Netherlands Antilles, and Singapore (all 11%); Aruba (Netherlands), Bermuda (UK), and Laos (all 10%); and Macau-China (9.2%). The median proportion of women to the total prison population is 4.3 percent. It is important to note that there are continental variations in the proportion of women and girls within the total prison population. In Africa, women comprise a much smaller proportion (the median is 2.65%) than in the Americas and Asia, where the median level is double (5.3% and 5.4% respectively). Europe and Oceania are in the middle with median proportions of 4.4 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively. Offending, of course, occurs before imprisonment, and the proportion of women offenders to all offenders is generally higher than the proportion of women prisoners to all prisoners. The most recent European Sourcebook reveals that for all offenses and countries included, the proportion of female offenders was below 30 percent in 2003. The mean for all offenses was 13.6 percent. The highest proportion of suspected female offenders for completed homicide in 2003 was found in France (17%), Hungary (23%), and Slovenia (20%).The involvement of females offences of violence are higher than in the previous survey (1999) in most countries. Among all offenses, females reach the highest proportions of offenders for intentional homicide (13.5%), total theft (14.6%), and total drug offenses (12.2%). Explanations A variety of explanations or theories for cross-national variation in womenÊs offending have been advanced. These include both individual level theories as well as macro-level theories that seek to explain the difference in crime rates, using nationstates or regions of the world as units of analysis. Individual-level theories include those related to pathways to offending and the particular trajectories of women as they differ from men. A well-documented pathway to offending for women is through victimization (child abuse), and crossnational research also suggests this is a potent explanation. Macro-level theories look at the economic influences on offending and the differential influence of sentencing reform and other legal reforms on women. Economic arguments for womenÊs offending have to do largely with the feminization

180

|

Women Criminals

of poverty and globalization which have had the effect of pushing women toward crime as a way to make ends meet. In developing nations, this is especially true for female-headed households, and in developed nations, for women immigrants. The feminization of poverty results in different life choices for women which can involve embarking on illegal migration, succumbing to human trafficking, or participating in the drug trade. The particularities of womenÊs participation in these offenses is the crossover or blending between offender and victim status. Women who are forced to migrate illegally, to sell themselves to traffickers for labor or sexual exploitation, or to become drug mules can be conceptualized as victims, but many domestic laws define them as offenders. Furthermore, research on migrant housemaids (see Strobl, 2009) in the Middle East and Asia has shown that many of the labor and immigration problems related to their status has become criminalized. As such, the increased punitiveness that has been associated with rises in rates of women detainees and prisoners in the United States due to the war on drugs (Frost, Greene, and Pravis, 2006) is also claimed to exist at the international level where women are also used as low-level traffickers (drug mules) in international drug trafficking. It has been this pattern of use of women in drug trafficking, and their vulnerability to arrest, that has caused a rise in prison populations in many drug destination countries. For example, in the United Kingdom and Spain (wellcommented cases in the literature on female drug mules), the proportion of women in prison for drug trafficking is 15.7 percent and 14.3 percent, respectively. Furthermore, patriarchal domestic laws on incest, adultery, premarital relationships, and sexual assault in some countries mean that prison becomes a „safe place‰ for women who would otherwise suffer „honor‰ crimes at the hands of family or community, or be forced to marry their assaulter. Again, in these instances, there is a crossover between being considered a victim or offender. The use of imprisonment in these circumstances substitutes for what in other jurisdictions might be secure shelters or safe havens for women. Notwithstanding, and adding to the grey area between offending and victimization, women are also partners in crime around the world. The professionalization of human trafficking networks in particular has led to some women holding important positions, where they exploit their femininity to gain advantage and avoid the suspicion of law enforcement. Similarly, women have been suicide bombers in extremist movements. Whether this role for women is the epitome of patriarchy, or evidence of womenÊs agency, is a fruitful topic of current research.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF OFFENDING The consequences of offending for women around the world show some common trends. Internationally, prisons have been designed for and by men. Everything from the architecture, staffing, security levels, programming, and rules caters to the

Issues in Women’s Crime around the World | 181

needs of the majority population (male prisoners), and as such, women are forced to undergo the same prison experience as men. Although the general profile of women prisoners is a less violent prisoner, more often convicted for drug and property offenses, women are generally overclassified in high-security levels. Being a minority in the prison system means that women do not benefit from the range of opportunities available to men, simply because of their numbers. Besides being less violent than men, women who enter prison are likely to be uneducated, unemployed, or underemployed; to have substance abuse problems and high rates of HIV; to have come from backgrounds of abuse and victimization; and to be responsible for children. Recent research has highlighted these criminogenic needs as gender specific, and it has emphasized that prisons need to respond to these needs in order to achieve „equal‰ treatment of men and women in prison. Equal treatment is argued not to mean sameness but, rather, reflecting similar efforts to response to the needs of prisoners, both male and female, where those needs are different. Thus, around the world, there is wide variation in what prison systems do about incarcerated women with small children. In some countries, women are allowed to keep their children with them in prison, up until a certain age. In others, parallel living quarters are available for children, and still in others, women are not allowed to live with their children in prison but have intensive visiting arrangements. In Spain, one prison features a wing of family cells for situations in which both parents are incarcerated and share a small child. After a screening procedure, the child lives with its parents until he or she turns three, at which point the child must leave the prison to live with family or in foster care, and the parents return to single-sex wings of the prison. Because women are in the minority in prison populations, prison systems must often choose between creating a few all-women prisons or creating womenÊs modules or wings in majority-male prisons. The first option may allow for more service provision for womenÊs needs, but all-women prisons make visiting more difficult for womenÊs relatives as they are often few and far between. The latter option may make visiting easier, but womenÊs needs may be overshadowed by menÊs needs in a majority male prison. Reentry into society is also a gendered process and around the world being a woman ex-offender is more stigmatizing than being a male ex-offender. Services are very often lacking, in particular coordinated services. For those women who are in prison for the sake of their own safety, for example, to escape „honor‰ crimes, release may not be feasible for a very long time.

INTERNATIONAL POLICYMAKING AND WOMEN PRISONERS The intergovernmental organization that has been most active in promulgating standards for imprisonment is the United Nations, supported by the advocacy efforts

182

|

Women Criminals

of such important organizations as Penal Reform International and, as concerns women prisoners around the world, the Quakers. Standards regarding how women prisoners should be treated emanate from a variety of human rights instruments, including the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and other prison-specific guidelines. Applicable human rights instruments include: Ć Ć Ć Ć Ć

Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Ć Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and Ć Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. The United NationsÊ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners was adopted by the first UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955, and approved by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1957. This document remains the main reference point for the design and evaluation of prison conditions worldwide, whether for men or for women. Since 1955, more international guidelines concerning imprisonment have been drafted and approved. The most important of these is the 1988 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the 1990 Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, both adopted by the UN General Assembly. These instruments, with the Standard Minimum Rules, affirm that all prisoners must be treated with respect for their human dignity. They emphasize that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, and they establish minimum standards for prisoner classification, prison discipline, contact with the outside world, health care, complaints, work and recreation, and religion and culture. Further provisions have been agreed to address detention of children, namely the 1985 Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice and the 1990 Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. However, these rules and principles contain only a handful of provisions specifically directed to women and girl prisoners. Most relate to womenÊs special biological needs, including maternity. There is growing concern regarding the rights and treatment of women prisoners and regarding the need to draft a set of standards specific to women prisoners. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has developed a Handbook for Prison Managers and Policymakers on Women and Imprisonment. This handbook

Issues in Women’s Crime around the World | 183

sets out the special needs of female prisoners, the management of womenÊs prisons, and measures to reduce the female prison population. The specific problems faced by women are also recognized in the UNODCÊs criminal justice system assessment toolkit. Most recently, the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, at its 19th session in May 2010, adopted the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules). These rules recognize that female prisoners have significantly different needs from male prisoners. They encompass such issues as the implementation of gender-sensitive prisoner classification and security-risk assessments; the provision of gender-specific health care provisions; guidance on the treatment of children living with their mothers in prison; review of safety concerns of women prisoners; the development of alternatives to incarceration; and the development of pre- and post-release programs that take into account the stigmatization and discrimination that women face upon release from prison. These issues do not receive sufficient attention in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted in 1955. Despite the progress toward ensuring rights for women prisoners throughout the world, all of the above documents constitute „soft law,‰ or, in other words, guidelines that permit monitoring but are not binding on states; violation of these soft laws carry few penalties besides being „named and shamed‰ in the UN system. CONCLUSION Much of what is known about cross-national differences in female offending can be used to prevent or reduce its occurrence. Improvements in gender equality, through economic institutions, education, and health care would go far to decrease the numbers of women offenders, as would increasing attention paid towards violence against women in all of its forms. A change in gendered role expectations would increase the reintegration of women prisoners upon release and would decrease recidivism. The implementation of the new Bangkok Rules would also ensure that prison systems around the world play a role in improving the situation for women offenders instead of exacerbating it. References Almeda, E. 2005. WomenÊs imprisonment in Spain. Punishment & Society 7(2), 183ă199. Anderson, T. L., and Bennett, R. R. 1996. Development, gender and crime: The scope of the routine activities approach. Justice Quarterly 13(1), 31ă56. Azaola, E., and Yacaman, C. J. 1996. Las mujeres olvidadas: Un estudio sobre la situación actual de las cárceles de mujeres en la Republica Mexicana. Mexico: Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos-El Colegio de Mexico.

184

|

Women Criminals

Bastick, M., and Townhead, L. 2008. Women in prison: A commentary on the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office. Bertrand, M. A. 1998. Prisons pour femmes. Montreal: Les Editions du Meridien. Blanchette, K., and Brown, S. L. 2006. The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Bloom, B., Owen, B., and Covington, S. 2005. Gender-responsive strategies for women offenders: A summary of research, practice and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Byrne, C. F., and Trew, K. J. 2008. Pathways through crime: The development of crime and desistance in the accounts of men and women offenders. Howard Journal 47(3), 238ă258. Caglar, A., Onay, M., and Ozel, C. 2005. Women prisoners in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 41(6), 953ă974. Carlen, P., and Worrall, A. 2004. Analysing womenÊs imprisonment. Cullompton: Willan. Chernoff, N. W., and Simon, R. J. 2000. Women and crime the world over. Gender Issues 18(3), 5ă20. Chesney-Lind, M., and Pasko, L. J. 2003. The female offender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cunningham, K. J. 2003. Cross-Regional trends in female terrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 26, 171ă195. Erez, E., Hassin, Y., and Rahav, G. 2000. Women, crime and justice in Israel: An update. Gender Issues 18(3), 59ă74. Farrington, D. P., and Painter, K. A. 2004. Gender differences in offending: implications for riskfocused prevention. Home Office Online Report 09/04. London: Home Office. Frost, N., Greene, J., and Pranis, K. 2006. The Punitiveness Report·Hard Hit: The Growth in Imprisonment of Women, 1977ă2004. New York: WomenÊs Prison Association. http://www.wpaon line.org/institute/hardhit/HardHitReport4.pdf GOMEL. 2007. Declaration on the execution of punishments for women. The International Conference on Women in Prison. Gomel, Republic of Belarus, October11ă13, 2007. http://www.penal reform.org/resources/rep-2007-gomel-declaration-en.pdf Grosheva, I. A. 2004. Tendencies of female crime in the Tiumen Region. Sociological Research 43(5), 43ă47. Harper, R. L., Harper, G. C., and Stockdale, J. E. 2002. The role and sentencing of women in drug trafficking crime. Legal and Criminological Psychology 7, 101ă114. International Centre for Prison Studies. 2004. Guidance Note 13. Reforming womenÊs prisons. London: International Centre for Prison Studies, KingÊs College London. International Centre for Prison Studies. 2008. International profile of womenÊs prisons. London: International Centre for Prison Studies, KingÊs College London. Johnson, H. 2004. Drugs and crime: A study of incarcerated female offenders. Research and Public Policy Series No. 63 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Karstedt, S. 2000. Emancipation, crime and problem behavior of women: A perspective from Germany. Gender Issues 18(3), 21ă58. Lee, M. 2007. WomenÊs imprisonment as a mechanism of migration control in Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology 47, 847ă860. Penal Reform International. 2007. Penal reform briefing No.3: Women in prison. London: Penal Reform International. Player, E. 2005. The reduction of womenÊs imprisonment in England and Wales: Will the reform of short prison sentences help? Punishment and Society 7, 419ă439.

Issues in Women’s Crime around the World | 185

Pollock, J. M. 2002. Women, prison, & crime. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Rafter, N. H., and Heidensohn, F. 1995. International feminist perspectives in criminology: Engendering a discipline. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Reckenwald, A., and Parker, K. F. 2008. The influence of gender inequality and marginalization on types of female offending. Homicide Studies 12, 208ă226. Shaw, M. 2002. Gender and crime prevention. Discussion Paper. Montreal: ICPC. Sheehan, R., Mclvor, G., and Trotter, C. 2007. What works with women offenders. Cullompton, UK: Willan. Strobl, S. 2009. Policing housemaids: The criminalization of domestic workers in Bahrain. British Journal of Criminology 49, 165ă183. Sudbury, J. 2005. Global lockdown: Race, gender, and the prison-industrial complex. New York: Routledge. Townhead, L. 2006. Women in prison and children of imprisoned mothers: Recent developments in the United Nations Human Rights Systems. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office. Townhead, L. 2007. Pre-trial detention of women and its impact on their children. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office. Walmsley, R. 2006. World female imprisonment list. http://www.unodc.org/pdf/india/womens_ corner/women_prison_list_2006.pdf

This page intentionally left blank

WOMEN AND POLICING Jennifer C. Gibbs

Crime and law enforcement are, and always have been, primarily a „manÊs game.‰ For this reason, criminology predominantly has studied the interaction of men and police, largely ignoring women and girls until the past few decades. There is growing evidence that womenÊs contact with the police deserves special attention. Women interact with policing in three ways. First, police respond to women who engage in crime. Second, police are tasked with serving victims of crime· both men and women. Third, while policing in the United States continues to be dominated by men, changing demographics of police departments today include the growing prevalence of policewomen. Specifically, women were 4ă15 percent of the sworn state and local police forces in 2008, an increase over the previous 20 years (Langton, 2010). Interestingly, womenÊs offending, crime victimization, and role in law enforcement are all connected·each is affected by the social status afforded to women in American patriarchal social structure. We cannot discuss any of these without examining American society and, specifically, womenÊs place in American social structure. This essay will introduce women and policing by discussing the response of law enforcement to female offenders. Notice, though, that victimization and offending often are connected which provides a segue into police response to female victims of crime. Here, we will pay special attention to crimes against women. Finally, we will look at the other side·police officers who are women. POLICING WOMEN: WOMEN AS OFFENDERS Women do not often come to the attention of police officers as offenders. In fact, with the exception of crimes of prostitution, „runaways,‰ fraud, and embezzlement, the majority of offenders arrested are male. Paralleling victimization surveys, which show 75.6 percent male offenders and 20.1 percent female offenders according to victimsÊ perceptions (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010, Table 38), the most recent arrest statistics at the time of this writing reported in the Federal Bureau of InvestigationÊs (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports show that 75.5 percent of offenders arrested are male, leaving 24.5 percent of arrested offenders female. Indeed, women are arrested for 18.3 percent of violent crime and for 34.8 percent of property crime in the United States (FBI 2009, Table 42). Clearly, police arrest men far more often than they arrest women. 187

188 |

Women Criminals

For this reason, criminologists traditionally have focused their attention on male offenders, typically overlooking the study of crimes committed by women. Many assume that female deviance to be based on womenÊs attempt to garner sexual attention from males, and many think female crimes are limited to minor violations or status offenses. While being male remains arguably the most robust predictor of offending, scholars only recently have identified the need to examine offenses of women and girls·and how female offenders come to the attention of police. Arrest statistics indicate that while crimes of both men and women are decreasing, crimes committed by women are decreasing at a slower rate than those of men·or, in some instances, crimes committed by women and girls are increasing·closing the gender gap in offending. For example, between 1999 and 2008, male arrests decreased by 3.1 percent, while female arrests increased by 11.6 percent (FBI 2009, Table 33). For those under age 18, arrests for male delinquency decreased by 18.7 percent, but arrests for female delinquency decreased by 7.8 percent (FBI 2009, Table 33). Looking at aggravated assault in particular, the Uniform Crime Reports show that male arrests decreased by 11.3 percent, while female arrests decreased only by 2.5 percent; among juveniles, arrests for aggravated assault decreased by 21.8 percent for males and 17.2 percent for females (FBI 2009, Table 33). Five-year trends tell a similar story. Between 2004 and 2008, overall male arrests increased by 0.6 percent, while female arrests increased by 5.1 percent (FBI 2009, Table 35). Clearly, women and girls are coming to the attention of police more often than they did 5 or 10 years ago. This may lead some·especially officers·to believe that women are becoming more criminal or more violent than men. However, Steffensmeier and colleagues (2005) argue this is not the case. They compared several sources of longitudinal data: official police data from the FBIÊs Uniform Crime Reports; victimization reports from the National Crime Victimization Survey; self-report data from Monitoring the Future; and additional self-report data from the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Their analyses show that while female arrests are increasing, there has been little change in actual female offending over the past few decades. Steffensmeier and colleagues posit that policy changes have had a net-widening effect, bringing female crime and delinquency to the attention of police more frequently than in the past. Based on such policy changes focusing on less serious crime (which is more likely to be committed by female offenders) and bringing attention to crimes committed in the home and in schools (where women and girls are more likely to offend), officers may think they are responding to crimes of women more often than in the past. This may affect their responses to female offenders; specifically, this increased attention to female offending may influence police discretion. Traditional Policing Styles A common theme in the literature is that police incorporate extralegal factors into decision making. This becomes problematic when sex and gender drive police

Women and Policing | 189

discretion.1 Scholars have debated whether police are more lenient toward female offenders or whether offenders who are women are treated more harshly than male offenders. Research has shown the relationship between sex and police discretion is complex·and that both leniency and punitive responses may define police interactions with female offenders. While culturally accepted for quite some time, only in the last few decades have scholars begun to examine the differential police treatment between males and females. Two overlapping hypotheses typically are explored when examining police response to female deviance: patriarchy and chivalry. Grana (2002) defines patriarchy as „a social structural arrangement whereby males, just by virtue of being males, have more privilege than women do in society. Moreover, this privilege often leads to greater power, access to opportunity, and better rewards for men‰ (p. 2). Chesney-Lind (2006) adds: patriarchy is a system in which men dominate women and what is considered masculine is more highly valued than what is considered feminine. Patriarchy is a system of social stratification, which means that it uses a wide array of social control policies and practices to ratify male power and to keep girls and women subordinate to men. (p. 9) In a patriarchal society, men are afforded privilege and power because they are men. Chesney-Lind (2006) points out that criminal justice practices often reinforce and „support patriarchal practices and worldviews‰ (p. 9). A patriarchal approach to understanding police response to female delinquency focuses on women and girlsÊ subordinate role in society; here, police attention would be diverted away from women toward men as criminals or police may be more punitive toward women who act outside their „appropriate‰ gender role. Similarly, chivalry mandates men protect women·as long as they are acting within a feminine gender role; male police officers may be more lenient toward female offenders than they would otherwise be toward male offenders. Indeed, interviews with adolescents in St. Louis provided evidence that girls were targeted for less serious status offenses·especially after dark·while males were targeted for criminal involvement, despite actual delinquency (Brunson and Miller 2006). We might posit that the female adolescents in this sample were not recognized as serious offenders (patriarchy) and officers may have been trying to „protect‰ them after nightfall (chivalry). Likewise, self-report surveys indicate police are less likely to use force against women than against men, supporting the notions of patriarchy and chivalry. Some argue that male officers are more lenient toward or less willing to sanction offenders who are women. Looking at police-citizen contact, for example, Durose and colleagues (2007) report that for traffic stops·the most frequent reason for police contact according to citizens interviewed for the 2005 Police-Public Contact Survey·male drivers are stopped by police more often than female drivers.

190 |

Women Criminals

Additionally, male drivers experienced more severe police sanctions than female drivers; men were arrested three times more often than women (Durose et al. 2007). Indeed, Smith and Visher (1981) observe: Women are much less likely to be stopped, interrogated, or arrested than men . . . This may suggest that police view female suspects as less threatening and less dangerous than male suspects. Alternatively, police encounters with female suspects might involve more minor offenses which end in arrest less often. But, when victim reports are compared with official arrest records, female offenders appear over-represented in arrest statistics for serious offenses . . . Thus, the influence of gender on arrest decisions is unclear. (p. 169) This suggests that police are more lenient when women assume „appropriate‰ gender roles, but police may become harsh when women are not deferential. This sentiment was supported throughout interviews with African American girls in St. Louis who claimed the police became physically rough with them when they were not deferential (Brunson and Miller 2006). Overall, though, there is much we do not know about the impact of sex on police discretion, and we know even less about differential police treatment of varying female and male racial groups. While police are mandated to keep reports on criminal incidents and arrests, there are no records on police stops, non-custodial interrogations, or on decisions whether to write a report. Sex may play a role in these police interactions, but without adequate funding and with only few detailed research projects designed to observe police officers throughout their shifts, this question remains largely unanswered. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in recent years, law enforcement officers are more willing to view women as violent or as criminals; however, a gender gap among those arrested remains. Current Trends in Arrests of Women Female arrests have remained relatively stable but have gradually increased in recent years. Chesney-Lind (2006) argues that the behavior of girls is not changing· that is, girls are not becoming more violent or more criminal·but the reactions to female offenders have changed. While arrest rates have increased, self-report data show no substantial changes in girlsÊ involvement in crime (Chesney-Lind 2006; Steffensmeier et al. 2005). As mentioned previously, female offenders represent less than one-quarter of those arrested. Table 4 shows the proportion of women who are arrested for selected crimes. Notice that the crimes for which women are arrested are typically nonviolent (i.e., women comprise 34.8% of those arrested for property crime). For example, women are rarely arrested for murder (10.8% of arrestees), rape (1.2% of arrestees),

Women and Policing | 191

or robbery (11.6% of arrestees), but women are arrested more often than men for embezzlement (women comprise 51.7% of those arrested), prostitution (69.4% of those arrested), and running away (56.1% of those arrested). Looking at violent crime, we see that women were about one-tenth of those arrested for homicide in 2008 (FBI 2009). For most crimes, women are more likely than men to know their victims (Visher 1983). Rarely do women come to the attention of police for engaging in violence against strangers, as men do; women are more likely than men to murder intimate partners. Turning to nonviolent offenses, we see that women are arrested far more often than men for prostitution. Indeed, women who engage in prostitution are more likely than their male „johns‰ (or clients, or, using Schauer and WheatonÊs [2006] term, „fautor‰) to come to the attention of police officers, likely due to the predominantly outdoor nature of their work. Historically, selling sex was criminalized, but purchasing it was not. In their review of literature on human trafficking, Schauer and Wheaton (2006) remind us: TABLE 4

Persons Arrested, by Sex Females arrested (%)

Males arrested (%)

Index crimes (Part I Offenses) Total violent crime Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape

18.3

81.7

10.8

89.2

1.2

98.8

Robbery

11.6

88.4

Aggravated assault

21.5

78.5

34.8

65.2

Burglary

14.6

85.4

Larceny-theft

41.3

58.7

Arson

15.9

84.1

Forgery and counterfeiting

37.9

62.1

Fraud

43.5

56.5

Embezzlement

51.7

48.3

Prostitution and commercialized vice

69.4

30.6

Curfew and loitering law violations

31.2

68.8

Runaways

56.1

43.9

Total property crime

Other crimes (Part II Offenses)

Source: Adapted from Table 42 of the 2008 Uniform Crime Reports (FBI 2009). Note: Only the Part II Offenses for which women comprised more than 30 percent of offenders arrested are listed. For all other Part II Offenses not listed here, the proportion of arrested offenders who were female did not exceed 30 percent.

192

|

Women Criminals

when most laws controlling prostitution were codified, only men held positions that allowed the power of definition . . . It should also be noted that the masculine actors, the purchasers of sexual services . . . and pimps, receive either no or „slap on the wrist‰-type sanctions. Twenty-five states have no statutes that sanction the behavior of those buying sexual services, whereas 9 have none sanctioning the pimp; however, 47 states make prostitution (i.e., women selling sexual favors) a crime. (p. 151) While law enforcement agencies more often target sex workers, arrest is usually seen by prostitutes as an additional cost of doing business. In New York City, for example, shifting policies and a decentralization of vice enforcement led to moving the sex industry indoors, away from the immediate view of the police, which potentially prolonged sex workersÊ careers in prostitution (Murphy and Venkatesh 2006). Some scholars recommend shifting focus from the sex workers to the clients, targeting these „fautors‰ more vigorously, as johns have a lower risk of recidivism (Weitzer 1999). While crime statistics, like these arrest rates, often break down sex and race, they often neglect the interaction between sex and race. In other words, while we can identify the differences between males and females and the differences between different racial groups, we know little about females who identify with varying racial groups. The Interaction of Race and Sex Scholars have devoted much attention to the differential attention of young, African American men by police. However, sex and race interactions tell another part of the story, too. Young, African American girls also disproportionately receive police attention·and, like young women who identify with other racial groups, more likely so for minor offenses. Recent interviews with African American adolescents corroborate research that police are more likely to target young women for truancy or curfew violations, that is, minor offenses. Brunson and Miller (2006) report that it is when young women challenge officersÊ authority that they are subjected to harassment by these officers. When examining the interaction between race and gender in police arrest decisions, Smith and colleagues (1984) found that black women are more likely to be arrested than white women. In fact, their data showed black women were arrested as often as men. Perhaps, as Smith and colleagues (1984) concluded, chivalry is only granted to white female offenders. Indeed, white females were least likely to be arrested in their sample. Using the same data, Visher (1983) elaborates on the notion of police chivalry:

Women and Policing | 193

In encounters with police officers, those female suspects who violate typical middle-class standards of traditional female characteristics and behaviors (i.e., white, older, and submissive) are not afforded any chivalrous treatment during arrest decisions. In these data, young, black, or hostile women receive no preferential treatment, whereas older, white women who are calm and deferential toward the police are granted leniency. (pp. 22ă23) Unfortunately, though, the studies that focus on racial differences in police attention rarely include sex-race interactions; likewise, the fewer studies on sex differences in policing also neglect sex-race interactions. Of those studies that do examine sex and race, the racial groups that tend to be studied are African American and Caucasian; other racial and ethnic groups are often overlooked. So, little is known about police practices toward women and girls identifying with various racial and ethnic groups, such as women and girls who are Native American or Asian Americans or who identify themselves as Hispanic. An additional and significant absence from the literature is police abuse of female offenders. Blurring the Blue Line between Offenders and Victims While police use of force against women is done significantly less often than against men, perhaps most alarming is when suspected female offenders become victims of police misconduct. Although police are tasked with protecting society, there are reported instances of abuse by male police officers. For example, young African American women report being searched by male officers who, they believed, should have called a female officer, even though departmental policy permits a male officer to pat down female suspects for the officerÊs own protection (Brunson and Miller 2006). Disturbingly, Brunson and Miller (2006) report several young women disclosing rape victimization or threat of sexual assault by police officers. They report that the interaction between police and citizens is gendered·young, African American males are more likely to be physically assaulted, while young, African American females are more likely to be sexually threatened by police. Indeed, female offenders are especially subject to victimization by police officers. In Murphy and VenkateshÊs (2006) research, one sex worker reported being assaulted by two police officers on different occasions: I got beat up twice, both times by a cop. Both of them wanted [oral sex] for free, right in the car. I said no, because I really donÊt like being in the cop cars. But, they said I had to and . . . just grabbed my head and pushed me down there. The first time I bit the guy . . . He just screamed and started beating me with his stick. I passed out. I donÊt know for how long. I was just laying there and when I woke up it was almost morning. (p.140)

194

|

Women Criminals

It is important to note that offending and victimization are not mutually exclusive categories; that is, those who offend are at greater risk for victimization, and those who have experienced victimization may be forced into engaging in crime. Thus, contact with police while in one role may not preclude contact with police while in another role. Having an understanding of police interaction with female offenders, we now turn our attention to police interaction with female victims/survivors of crime. POLICING WOMEN: WOMEN AS VICTIMS/SURVIVORS OF CRIME As victims/survivors of crime·especially crimes directed at women, like intimate partner violence and sexual assault·women often fare no better than women offenders. Similar to trends in offending (namely, that crime has been decreasing over the past decade), victimization of men is declining at a faster rate than victimization against women (see Figure 1). Unlike male crime victims, women sometimes are blamed for their victimization, an experience that led many to claim the criminal justice system „re-victimizes‰ female crime victims. This section will discuss police interaction with female victims/survivors of crime.

FIGURE 1. Violent Crime Victimization Rate by Gender, per 1,000 Population

Note: The data for 2006 are not included because the National Crime Victimization Survey methods were different that year and not comparable; the Bureau of Justice Statistics warns against making comparisons with the 2006 data (Rand 2009). Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006, 2010) and Rand (2009).

Women and Policing | 195

There is evidence that police are more likely to file a report upon a crime victimÊs request. However, adhering to the victimÊs request may depend on the sex of the victim. Drawing from direct observations of 1,142 police-citizen encounters and controlling for type of neighborhood (crime level and neighborhood instability), Smith (1986) found police were significantly less likely to record the complaint of a female victim. While he did not focus on this relationship, we could speculate that either women are less likely to request official documentation of an incident or that the police are less likely to record crimes against women. Further, police response may be influenced not only by sex, but also by race. Brunson and Miller (2006) report young African American girls believe the police do not respond to residents· especially women·in poor, minority communities. Other studies confirm this sentiment. African American women who have been victimized, for example, are less likely to receive quality police attention than white women (Robinson and Chandek 2000). Police response to minority women who have been victimized demands increased attention, as people associating with minority racial groups have a greater risk of victimization than white citizens. Recent victimization surveys show that for every 1,000 persons, 25.0 African American women and 18.6 white women are victimized by violent crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010, Table 6).2 Further, while less than half of all crimes are reported to police, women·especially African American and Hispanic women·more often than men notify police of their violent victimization (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010, Table 91b). As such, examining any differential police response based on sex and race is important, albeit lacking in the literature. Violence against women, however, has received increased attention from scholars in recent years. Police Response to Violence against Women Intimate Partner Violence One form of violence against women is intimate partner violence (IPV; also referred to as domestic violence or domestic abuse), which includes violent behavior by boyfriends or husbands against his intimate partner. Victimization surveys report that 23 percent of women who are violently victimized experience violence at the hands of intimate partners, compared to only 3 percent of men who are violently victimized who report an intimate partner as the offender (Rand 2009), which is why the offender here is referred to as male. Indeed, IPV seems to disproportionately affect women. Additionally, IPV·including rape by an intimate partner·is less likely than stranger assault to be reported to the police, except when witnesses are present. It should be noted that the research with regard to IPV reporting is mixed. The criminal justice system in general has been heavily criticized for response to IPV. Historically, IPV was considered a private family matter beyond the scope

196 |

Women Criminals

of police services. Pleck (1989) describes 17th-century Puritan statutes in Massachusetts prohibiting spousal abuse·against both wives and husbands. Laws prohibiting spousal abuse were largely symbolic in nature, as prosecution of an abuser would lead to single-parent families; protection of the nuclear family and the patriarchal hierarchy within the nuclear family with the husband as the head of the household was of utmost importance. The laws were seldom enforced and were lacking outside of New England colonies. When husbands were held accountable for spousal abuse, the wife was often questioned by legal authorities about what she did to provoke the attack. Interest in government intervention in so-called private family matters waned in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The message delivered by the criminal justice system in many states was that wife-beating was permitted and sometimes even regulated. For example, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that, although battery clearly would have been evident if the victim was a stranger, the husband should be able to chastise his wife, as long as he is not malicious or does not inflict serious injury; that is, as long as he does not whip his wife with a switch thicker than his thumb (State v. A.B. Rhodes 1868; but see Pleck 1989). While police had the authority to arrest if an officer or another citizen directly witnessed the offense and if a complaint was filed by the victim, they often saw arrest as detrimental to the family by removing the source of the familyÊs income. While it was relatively easy for women victims to bring a complaint to court, it was much harder to ensure that justice would be meted out. In the police court, on occasion, a brawling husband was fined but his wife was sent to jail! Abused wives who fled their homes, and thereby left their children behind, could be charged with desertion. A wife who decided to drop her complaint against an abusive husband could so enrage a police court judge that he would charge her with contempt of court. (Pleck 1989: 30) Beginning around the 1960s, feminist activists revitalized attention to violence against women, and law enforcement agencies were pressured to arrest in cases. When called, police responses typically included counseling both the offender and the victim; the emphasis was on separation and mediation, and incidents very rarely led to arrest. However, in 1984, Sherman and BerkÊs highly publicized Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment was published. Sponsored by the Police Foundation, Sherman and Berk (1984) found that arrest, when compared with separation and mediation, significantly decreased recidivism. Many law enforcement agencies across the United States adopted policies encouraging or requiring arrest in IPV cases, although this likely was due also to liability concerns stemming from several successful law suits of battered women against police departments (see, e.g., Thurman v.

Women and Policing | 197

City of Torrington 1984). Follow-up studies funded by the National Institute of Justice (termed „SARP‰: the Spousal Assault Replication Program) had mixed results. Sherman and colleagues (1992) interpreted these findings to mean that arrest „works‰ when offenders have a stake in conformity, that is, when offenders have something to lose (e.g., steady employment or a reputation as an upstanding citizen). With this widespread attention of activists, researchers, the media, and law enforcement agencies, the federal government took action. In 1994, President Clinton signed into law Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control Act (Pub. L. 103ă322), commonly known as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Under VAWA, the Office on Violence Against Women was created and funding was established to promote collaborative community responses to violence against women, pro-arrest policies, police training, and research on violence against women. Despite this encouragement of arrest in IPV, many felony and misdemeanor intimate partner assaults do not result in arrest. Indeed, stranger assaults are more likely to result in arrest than intimate partner assaults, despite mandatory and proarrest policies adopted by many jurisdictions. Some have argued that this trend can be explained by the „leniency thesis‰ which posits that police respond more leniently toward male batterers than other violent offenders. Also, victim characteristics seem to have an impact on decision to arrest. Comparing non-spousal assaults to spousal assaults using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, Avakame and Fyfe (2001) found that arrest for IPV is more likely when the victim has a higher socioeconomic status or is white. That is, arrest is less likely in spousal assaults where women who are African American, live in an urban area, or have a lower family income are victimized; also, arrest is more likely when the offender is African American. Some police officers may be resentful of mandatory and pro-arrest policies· especially when they or fellow officers are on the receiving end. For example, law enforcement officers are not exempted from the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Act of 1996 (P.L. 104ă208, section 658, 1997), commonly known as the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits those convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms. So, while police departments adopted anti-violence attitudes· largely as a result from successful law suits by battered women and pressure from advocacy groups·they were at odds with enforcing the mandatory and pro-arrest policies when the offender was an officer. Further, the emphasis placed on arrest as the dominant police response may be ineffective. The SARP studies revealed that arrest may not be effective for all offenders. While arrest may have a deterrent effect for some offenders, it has a brutalization effect (that is, it increases offending) on others. In other words, „arrest may help some victims at the expense of others and . . . arrest may assist the victim in the short term but facilitate further violence in the long term‰ (Schmidt and Sherman 1996: 43). More than half of all offenders in contact with the police during

198

|

Women Criminals

the SARP studies did not recidivate, regardless of the type of intervention (arrest versus non-arrest), while some offenders continued·despite the type of intervention (Maxwell et al. 2001). Mandatory arrest policies, then, may not be the best solution to IPV. Some claim a more effective policing strategy should target repeat offenders. Also, an arrest of IPV offenders with a „stake in conformity‰·those who are employed, college-educated, and have stable residences·will likely be a deterrent. However, longitudinal research using the National Crime Victimization Survey found no evidence of a deterrent effect among IPV offenders with a „stake in conformity‰; simply reporting to the police, though, does have a deterrent effect (Felson et al. 2005). Indeed, recent evidence suggests that the police may be a gateway for other social services; that is, women who contact the police are more likely to use „helping agencies‰ or counselors (Davies et al. 2007). Also, although VAWA made an important step toward ending violence against women, there may have been unintended consequences of this legislation. Because it is often difficult determining the primary aggressor, and because arrest is emphasized, in many instances police arrest both parties, often called „dual arrests.‰ While sometimes the woman is rightly arrested, other times police mistakenly arrest the victim who may have inflicted defensive wounds on her abuser. And police involvement is initiated only when an IPV survivor reaches out to the police for assistance, something the majority of IPV survivors do not do except in cases of severe violence (Davies et al. 2007) or when the abuser calls the police against the victim, which more abusive men are willing to do (Miller 2001). Police response to domestic violence also may be affected by the manipulation of batterers themselves or the lobbying efforts of fathersÊ rights groups who claim there is a bias in the court system against fathers and lobby to change legislation on issues such as allegations of domestic violence. These groups typically minimize IPV, claiming that the problem is exaggerated by domestic violence advocates and that many reports of female victimization are fabricated. Further, police may not be reaching IPV in lesbian partnerships (Davies et al. 2007) or in the African American or Latina communities. Women of color are less likely to contact the police about IPV·with good reason, as they may have had negative experiences with the police in the past or they may fear the danger posed by police intervention to African American men in their community. Indeed, women of color are likely to contact the police only when IPV is severe (Davies et al. 2007), and even when they do contact the police, they are less likely to receive the same quality of assistance than other victims (Robinson and Chandek 2000). Instead, women of color are more likely to reach out to their informal networks and religious institutions for assistance and guidance. Latina survivors of IPV also may be hesitant to contact the police for assistance. Davies and colleagues (2007) found Latina women are more likely to contact the police when they have personal income they

Women and Policing | 199

control and when they have children living with them. Effective programs may be better able to reach women of color and Latina women who have survived IPV if they partner with churches and religious leaders and other informal sources of support. However, research by Felson and colleagues (2005) using the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that police involvement in and of itself has a deterrent effect on IPV; arrest, they found, has only a small impact on IPV. Rape and Sexual Assault Similar to IPV, many rape victim advocates and scholars argue that, traditionally, police officers have treated rape victims poorly and continue to do so today, despite such changes as specialized sexual assault units and increased training. Rape victims are predominantly female. Analysis of the Violence Against Women (and Men) Survey shows that police receive lower satisfaction ratings from victims of sexual assault than from victims of physical assault (Felson and Pare 2008). This may be why rapes are commonly not reported. Indeed, rape overwhelmingly involves a female victim (in fact, in some states, the law only recognizes female victims of rape), yet, „Sixty-three percent of completed rapes, 65% of attempted rapes, and 74% of completed and attempted sexual assaults against females were not reported to the police‰ (Rennison 2002: 2, emphasis added). Looking at the National Crime Victimization Survey compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Incident-Based Reporting System collected by the FBI, Addington and Rennison (2008) found that rapes with aggravating factors (such as occurring with another crime, presence of a weapon, and an offender who was not an intimate partner) were more likely to be reported to the police, and rapes that occurred with other crimes were more likely to result in arrest than rapes that were the sole incident. While the National Research Council (2004: 121) found mixed evidence regarding the impact of victim gender and was „unable to draw firm conclusions about the existence of widespread bias in police practices linked to gender bias,‰ the widely held belief that police espouse rape myths·and negative experience with officers who actually do·has discouraged many victims from reporting sexual assault. Acceptance of rape „myths‰·or victim-blaming attitudes·may play a role in police investigation of rape. Rape myths are „prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists‰ (Burt 1980: 217). These commonly held beliefs limit the crime of rape through a narrow definition of a „real‰ rape, a „real‰ rape victim, and a „real‰ rape perpetrator, and they facilitate blaming the victim for the attack. Even after reformation of rape laws across the country, shifting focus from victim to offender, many police officers defined rape directed at the victim and using old legal definitions. There is evidence that police officers may be more accepting of rape myths, and rape myth acceptance has been linked to hostility

200

|

Women Criminals

toward women (Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1995). Indeed, police have been heavily criticized by victims/survivors of rape and sexual assault and advocates for victims/ survivors, who claim police are insensitive to victims/survivors or blame them for their victimization. As a whole, police are less likely to believe rape myths today than in the past, but they maintain credibility standards that rape victims must pass. Often, the characteristics and behavior of the victims are considered in rape investigations, in a sense, putting the victims on trial. Police have been accused of such inappropriate procedures regarding rape investigations, neglecting many rape victims with a few inadequate (if any), investigation (if any), and routinely „unfounding‰ cases to inflate arrest statistics (Lonsway 2002). Indeed, the few rape cases that are reported rarely make it to court because they are dismissed by the police. Assessment of police attitudes toward women and rape victims, sparked by the womenÊs movement of the 1970s, called for more training in sexual assault investigation and police-victim relations, as negative and victim-blaming attitudes toward sexual assault victims were thought to stem from a lack of training. Some states mandate that officers have some training courses to improve their responses to sexual assault, although such training is not intensive. Generally, police receive basic training in all crimes at the police academy. Specialized training, although rare, incorporated into the academy (and possibly after) has been shown to improve police performance toward rape victims; however, beliefs and attitudes toward rape and rape victims are not affected by specialized training (Lonsway et al. 2001). In addition to training, law enforcement agencies have undergone major changes in dealing with sexual assault cases. For example, police departments created special investigative units (i.e., sexual assault units, special victim units), often including female officers. Further, sexual assault response teams (SART), sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE), and rape crisis centers collaborate with the police to encourage victim participation in the criminal justice system and increase chances of arresting the offender. These coordinated community responses to sexual assault (and IPV) improve victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system. While there have been some improvements in policing sexual assault against women in recent years, there is still much we do not know. The literature on rape and sexual assault in the United States has sampled predominantly white survivors so little is known about women of color and women identifying with other racial and ethnic groups who have survived rape and sexual assault, except that race and ethnicity is significant in empirical models. WomenÊs experience with law enforcement would greatly benefit through increased attention to these groups. In sum, there is evidence of differential treatment of women both as offenders and victims. The next section explores the other side of policing·women as law enforcement officers.

Women and Policing | 201

WOMEN IN POLICING: FEMALE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Reporting data from 20 years ago, Reiss (1992) reported: Women . . . remain underrepresented in all departments relative to their proportion in the labor force. This disproportion may be owing, in part, to the age-cohort structure of departments. Yet even the younger cohorts display selection effects. Despite gains, in 1988 women constituted only 7.9 percent of all sworn officer employment in all UCR-reporting police agencies while accounting for 64.7 percent of all their civilian employees. (p. 78) These statistics mirror todayÊs image of the police department which remains predominantly male. In law enforcement agencies in the United States, women comprise 11.9 percent of sworn officers and 61.6 percent of civilian employees (FBI 2009, Table 74). Size of the agency plays a role; as city size increases, so does the proportion of female officers (FBI 2009). Today, women still are underrepresented in policing, but it is clear that they have a presence in law enforcement. Historical Overview of Women in Policing Traditionally, policing was considered a male occupation. While police departments were first established in the United States in the 1840s, women were not involved in policing until much later, when police „matrons‰ were appointed. According to the National Center for Women and Policing, the first female officer, Mrs. Marie Owens, was appointed in 1905 in Chicago, as a way to provide „death benefits‰ from her husband who was killed in the line of duty. The first sworn police officer, Lola Baldwin, was appointed in 1905 by the Portland, Oregon, police department; other departments soon followed, like the Los Angeles Police Department, which in 1910 appointed Alice Stebbin Wells as a „policewoman‰ (Grana 2002; National Center for Women and Policing). Traditionally women were restricted to supervising female prisoners of police, performing clerical duties, or issuing parking tickets. Early policewomen typically were social workers prior to joining police department and commonly worked with juvenile offenders as counselors. Women were largely barred from having the full police powers of male law enforcement officers. While the Fourteenth Amendment provides for equal protection under the law, women were on the receiving end of discrimination until Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited·at least on paper·job discrimination based on sex and race, among other factors. The PresidentÊs Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967 called for sex equality in policing. A few years later, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 applied Title VII to state and local governments.

202 |

Women Criminals

Despite all of this legislation, police departments continued discriminating hiring practices, excluding women from policing. For example, knowing that, on average, men are biologically bigger than women, police departments set height and weight requirements for all new recruits. A series of lawsuits ensued, challenging these hiring standards. For example, the courts held, among other things, that employment requirements must be related to the actual job duties (Griggs v. Duke Power Company 1971); that there is no evidence that taller officers are better at policing (Blake v. City of Los Angeles 1979), and that the height and weight requirement of the Baltimore Police Department constituted evidence of sex discrimination in hiring (Vanguard Justice Society v. Hughes 1979). With these successful law suits and affirmative action programs setting quotas in hiring, women began to have more of a presence in law enforcement. This is solidified by the establishment of support organizations specifically for women in law enforcement (e.g., the International Association of Women Police). Further, if law enforcement agencies aspire to be or currently are recognized by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), they must show a good faith effort to recruit a police force with demographics matching the surrounding community. Comparing CALEA and non-CALEA agencies, Burlingame and Baro (2005) found that, at least in large cities, CALEA seems to make a difference in the hiring, retention, and promotion of women police. In SklanskyÊs (2006) words, itÊs „not your fatherÊs police department.‰ However, there still is work to be done as women police face a variety of issues in law enforcement. Contemporary Issues Facing Female Law Enforcement Officers While female officers have overcome many barriers to their entry into policing, they face many hurdles as officers from both outside and inside the police department. Citizens have perceptions of who a police officer should be·and so do many officers within the department. Male citizens may take issue with obeying the orders of women in authority positions. Given that the United States is a patriarchal society, men traditionally have held positions of authority and power while women have taken a subordinate role. A policewoman challenges patriarchy which citizens may find threatening. Male citizens also may ignore the officerÊs position of authority. For example, one policewoman interviewed by Archbold and Schulz (2008) discussed the perceptions of some citizens: I always get hit on by citizens while I am on duty . . . I have also had a male citizen walk up to a table of me and four other female officers having lunch and say „Is this all of the female cops that your department has?‰ I felt like I was on display or something. (p. 58)

Women and Policing | 203

Despite some citizen opposition, there is no evidence that men are „better‰ at policing than women·that is, policewomen are just as effective as policemen. However, some studies have found sex differences among police officers. For example, women tend to use community policing and problem solving more often than men. Analyzing the proportion of the shift dedicated to problem-solving activities in two police departments, Engel and Worden (2003) found that female officers spend 1.6 times more of their shift than male officers focusing on problem-solving activities. These data also revealed that female officers were better able to interpret supervisor preferences for problem-solving activities. Additionally, officers working for a female supervisor tend to spend more time problem solving than officers working for a male supervisor. Further, since women are socially trained to communicate, there is some evidence (albeit equivocal) that female officers are more likely to diffuse violent situations without resorting to the use of excessive force. Some studies indicate women use deadly force less than men (McElvain and Kposowa 2008)·despite that women, on average, are biologically smaller than men. We might expect that women would use force to compensate for this biological difference, but this is not the case. However, male officers tend to be more aggressive and use coercive force more often than female officers. Female officers interviewed by Archbold and Schulz (2008) indicated women are more likely to use voice commands first while men are more likely to resort to physical violence. Policewomen also may be perceived as more helpful to female crime victims, especially in domestic violence and sexual assault cases. While research has shown that women are not necessarily inherently better than men in investigating cases of rape, they may be more likely to offer support and, some victims strongly favor female officers for their sensitivity. For example, women, in general, are less accepting of rape myths. A meta-analysis by Anderson and colleagues (1997) of 72 studies about rape attitudes showed that men were more accepting of rape.3 In addition to working better with female rape victims, policewomen may be better than male officers to work with juveniles, as women are socialized in a patriarchal society to be „caregivers.‰ One officer interviewed by Archbold and Schulz (2008) commented that female officers have more success with juveniles, as juveniles tend to view the women as „mother figures.‰ Society may continue to perceive men as stronger and more emotionally stable than women. Some believe that police work is too violent and dangerous for women. However, this clearly is not the case. Despite evidence that women police just as effectively as men, the male-dominated police culture can be challenging to women and many may experience a backlash from fellow officers or the police department as a whole. Until recently, female officers were held to higher standards (for example, women were required to hold a college degree while men only needed a high school diploma

204

|

Women Criminals

or GED to enter the police department). With the lawsuits and federal legislation discussed above, equal standards of hiring and the elimination of sex discrimination·at least on paper·were mandated. However, some officers may perceive these mandates as evidence of women receiving preferential treatment. Women also may be ostracized from the male-dominated police organization and the police social culture, with male officers refusing to accept them or even displaying hostility. Male officers may be resistant to female officers, incorrectly believing that female officers cannot adequately do police work because women lack physical strength. Wives and girlfriends of male officers also may be a barrier to male acceptance of female officers as they may be opposed to husbands and boyfriends working long shifts partnered with another woman. Given that some scholars have found the police subculture to have many negative attributes, being rejected from the police subculture may be a good thing for women. Female officers may use other techniques and resolve situations with less confrontation and, as a result, have less resistance from citizens, assuming they are not indoctrinated into the police culture. However, Paoline and colleagues (2000) found in their examination of the Indianapolis Police Department and the St. Petersburg Police Department that male and female officer orientations toward the police culture are strikingly similar. In their analysis, they found female officers were less likely than male officers to agree with aggressive patrol, but this relationship was very weak. They and other scholars suggested that sex may interact with race; Paoline et al. (2000) found this sex and race interaction to be true for only one police department, thus suggesting this interaction depends on organizational context. Clearly, more research is needed. Overall, no one can deny that police departments have improved in their treatment of women in the last few decades. Female officers interviewed by Archbold and Schulz (2008) commented that their particular police department had improved in the way male officers treat female officers; however, they still perceived to receive differential treatment. For example, female officers reported being called away from their beats to search a female suspect (and then complete the paperwork on the search) and to respond sexual assault cases, being asked to speak to community groups like the Girl Scouts, and feeling like they needed to prove themselves to the male officers. Contrary to the expectation that women would be blocked from promotion, Archbold and SchulzÊs (2008) recent study of female officers suggests a different perspective·because of the overzealous encouragement of male administrative officers, female officers declined to apply for promotion. In the Midwestern police department studied, female officers interviewed indicated they felt the department administrators were not concerned with the quality of the officersÊ work, but rather with their status as women. As such, they did not want to apply for a promotion based on their status. They commented that the attention makes them stand out and makes their jobs harder.

Women and Policing | 205

In short, women have a clear presence in law enforcement today. Despite this presence, issues remain. Similar to women as offenders and women as victims, much research is needed to complete the picture of women in policing. CONCLUSION Women are involved with law enforcement as offenders, victims/survivors of crime, and as enforcers of the law·each connected through the social status of being women. Clearly, there remain many underresearched areas involving womenÊs interaction with policing, and we have many unanswered questions. The future of research appears interesting, though, in the changing picture and dynamic of women and policing. Notes 1. Sex refers to biological differences between males and females, while gender is socially constructed. 2. African American men have the highest rate of victimization at 27.5 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010), reiterating the need to examine crime in the context of race and sex. 3. While many of these studies have sampled students, this relationship holds in nonstudent populations as well (Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994).

References Addington LA, Rennison CM. 2008. Rape co-occurrence: Do additional crimes affect victim reporting and police clearance of rape? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24: 205ă226. Anderson KB, Cooper H, Okamura L. 1997. Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 295ă315. Archbold CA, Schulz DM. 2008. Making rank: The lingering effects of tokenism on female police officersÊ promotion aspirations. Police Quarterly, 11(1): 50ă73. Avakame EF, Fyfe JJ. 2001. Differential police treatment of male-on-female spousal violence. Violence Against Women, 7(1): 22ă45. Brunson RK, Miller J. 2006. Gender, race, and urban policing: The experience of African American youths. Gender & Society, 20: 531ă552. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2006. National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington DC: US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available online: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ cvusst.htm. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2010. Criminal victimization in the United States, 2007 statistical tables: National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington DC: US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available online: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf. Burlingame D, Baro AL. 2005. WomenÊs representation and status in law enforcement: Does CALEA involvement make a difference? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16: 391ă411. Burt MR. 1980. Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 217ă230.

206

|

Women Criminals

Chesney-Lind M. 2006. Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1): 6ă26. Davies K, Block CR, Campbell J. 2007. Seeking help from the police: Battered womenÊs decisions and experiences. Criminal Justice Studies, 20(1): 15ă41. Durose MR, Smith EL, Langan PA. 2007. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Contacts between police and the public, 2005. Washington DC: US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Engel RS, Worden RE. 2003. Police officersÊ attitudes, behavior, and supervisory influences: An analysis of problem solving. Criminology, 41(1): 131ă166. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2009. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington DC: U.S. Dept of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov. Felson RB, Ackerman JM, Gallagher CA. 2005. Police intervention and the repeat of domestic assault. Criminology, 43(3): 563ă588. Felson RB, Pare P-P. 2008. Gender and the victimÊs experience with the criminal justice system. Social Science Research, 37: 202ă219. Grana SJ. 2002. Women and (in)justice: The criminal and civil effects of the common law on womenÊs lives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Langton, L. 2010. Women in Law Enforcement, 1987ă2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Lonsway KA. 2002. Sexual assault cases: „Problems seen in the investigation and coding of sexual assault.‰ Women Police, 36(1): 3ă5. Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. 1994. Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18: 133ă164. Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. 1995. Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4): 704ă711. Lonsway KA, Welch S, Fitzgerald LF. 2001. Police training in sexual assault response: Process, outcomes, and elements of change. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6): 695ă730. Lord VB, Rassel G. 2000. Law enforcementÊs response to sexual assault: A comparative study of nine counties in North Carolina. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(1): 67ă88. Maxwell CD, Garner JH, Fagan JA. 2001. Effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: new evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program. Washington DC: U.S. Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice. McElvain JP, Kposowa AJ. 2008. Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of using deadly force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35: 505ă521. Miller SL. 2001. The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7: 1339ă1376. Murphy AK, Venkatesh SA. 2006. Vice careers: The changing contours of sex work in New York City. Qualitative Sociology, 29: 129ă154. National Center for Women and Policing. A history of women and policing in the United States. Beverly Hills, CA: Author. Available online: http://www.womenandpolicing.org/history/index.asp. National Research Council, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. 2004. Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence, ed. W Skogan, K Frydl. Committee on Law and Justice, Division on Behavioral and Soc. Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Paoline EA III, Myers SM, Worden RE. 2000. Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17(3): 575ă605.

Women and Policing | 207

Pleck E. 1989. Criminal approaches to family violence, 1640ă1980. Crime and Justice, 11: 19ă57. Rand MR. 2009. National Crime Victimization Survey: criminal victimization, 2008. Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Reiss AJ Jr. 1992. Police organization in the twentieth century. Crime and Justice, 15: 51ă97. Rennison CM. 2002. Rape and sexual assault: reporting to police and medical attention, 1991ă 2000. Washington DC: U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Robinson AL, Chandek MS. 2000. Differential police response to black battered women. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(2/3): 29ă61. Schauer EJ, Wheaton EM. 2006. Sex trafficking into the United States: A literature review. Criminal Justice Review, 31: 146ă169. Schmidt JD, Sherman LW. 1996. Does Arrest Deter Violence? In Do arrests and restraining orders work?, ed. ES Buzawa, CG Buzawa, pp. 43ă53. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sherman LW, Berk RA. 1984. The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 261ă272. Sherman LW, Smith DA, Schmidt JD, Rogan DP. 1992. Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57(5): 680ă690. Sklansky DA. 2006. Not your fatherÊs police department: Making sense of the new demographics of law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96(3): 1209ă1243. Smith D. 1986. The neighborhood context of police behavior. Crime and Justice: Communities and Crime, 8: 313ă341. Smith DA, Visher CA. 1981. Street-level justice: Situational determinants of police arrest decisions. Social Problems, 29(2): 167ă177. Smith DA, Visher CA, Davidson LA. 1984. Equity and discretionary justice: The influence of race on police arrest decisions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75(1): 234ă249. Steffensmeier D, Schwartz J, Zhong H, Ackerman J. 2005. An assessment of recent trends in girlsÊ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology, 43(2): 355ă406. Visher CA. 1983. Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21(1): 5ă28. Weitzer R. 1999. Prostitution control in America: Rethinking public policy. Crime, Law and Social Change, 32(1): 83ă102.

Cases Cited Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1979) Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) State v. A.B. Rhodes, 61 N.C. 453 (1868) Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp. 1521, US Dist Ct (D. Conn. 1984) Vanguard Justice Society, Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F.Supp. 670 (D. Md. 1979)

This page intentionally left blank

WOMEN, LAW, AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM Celesta A. Albonetti

WOMEN AND CRIMINAL ADJUDICATION Four decades of empirical research by sociologists and social scientists reveal important findings of how women are treated in criminal adjudication. This large body of research involves studies of prosecutorial discretion at the initial charging stage, later decision to nolle prosequi (not pursue) charges, judicial discretion at the pretrial bail stage, and at sentencing. Due to the difficulty of gaining access to prosecutorial data and the ready availability of valid and reliable sentencing data, at both state and federal levels, more is known about how women are treated at sentencing than is known about the early prosecutorial screening decisions. This manuscript describes research findings of the relationship between defendantÊs gender and outcomes at charging and sentencing stages of felony adjudication. Research on the treatment of women by the American legal system largely focuses on gender-based disparities in outcomes since the early 1960s. Beginning with the work of Green (1961), early research addressing the relationship between defendantÊs gender and sentence outcomes concluded that judges impose less severe punishment on females than males. Green (1961) concluded that gender differences in sentence outcomes in Philadelphia could not be explained away by differences in legally relevant variables such as the defendantÊs record of prior convictions or offense severity. In the later 1970s and early 1980s, researchers used more rigorous multivariate statistical procedures to empirically test various theoretical perspectives that hypothesize differential treatment of defendants based upon extralegal case characteristics in criminal adjudication. HaganÊs (1974) seminal article urged researchers to apply more rigorous analytical techniques to assessing the role of defendant extralegal characteristics on sentence severity. In that article Hagan asserted the need to avoid spurious relationships between defendant characteristics and sentence outcomes by control for legally relevant variables, using multivariate estimation procedures. In the years that followed, most researchers applied multivariate statistical procedures to empirically test various theoretical perspectives that hypothesize differential treatment of defendants based upon extralegal case characteristics in criminal adjudication.

209

210

|

Women Criminals

Several theories are referenced to explain the effect of defendantÊs gender on case processing outcomes. Proponents of a chivalry or a paternalism perspective (Pollak, 1961) predict that judges and prosecutors treat female defendants more leniently than similarly situated males due to socially constructed perceptions that women are in need of protection from harsh treatment accorded to males. From this perspective, women are viewed by judges as being less culpable than men for illegal activity and thereby, deserving of lower levels of punishment. Another theory is referenced to as the „evil women‰ theory (Chesney-Lind, 1977; Smart, 1977). Proponents of the „evil women‰ perspective maintain that women who behave counter to societal gender stereotypes are punished more harshly than women whose behavior is consistent with the delicate, vulnerable, and nonthreatening traditional gendered image of women. This perspective hypothesizes that counter-stereotype conduct results in punishment and criminal adjudication more similar to that experienced by male defendants. Another theoretical perspective, the uncertainty avoidance/causal attribution perspective (Albonetti, 1991, 2002a, 2002b), attempts to explain the lower sentences imposed on women by reference to the perceived situational nature of womenÊs criminal involvement. In addition, the theory emphasizes the role of stereotypes that characterizes womenÊs criminal involvement as temporary and other-directed on sentencing outcomes. The uncertainty avoidance/causal attribution theory asserts gender-based causal attributions of criminal activity as an important context for understanding judgesÊ sentencing outcomes imposed in guideline and indeterminate sentencing schemes. The uncertainty avoidance/causal attribution theoretical perspective of judicial and prosecutorial discretionary decision making is derived from organizational theorists who focus on how decision makers in any workplace attempt to produce rational decisions within contexts characterized by uncertainty. Reliance upon stereotypes and patterned responses serve to manage uncertainty in decision making. At sentencing, defendantÊs gender, an extralegal factor, takes on significance to the advantage of females, compared to males. The focal concerns perspective (Steffensmeier, Kramer, and Streifel, 1993), which shares a substantial overlap with the uncertainty avoidance/causal attribution theory, argues that judges view females as less blameworthy than males. As such, judges impose more lenient punishment for female defendants. The social world perspective (Ulmer and Kramer, 1996; Ulmer, 1997) suggests that the social relations between key actors in the local court influence sentencing decisions. This perspective is influenced by the courtroom work group theory (Eisenstein and Jacob, 1977; Flemming, Nardulli, and Eisenstein, 1992). A substantial body of research from the social world perspective has focused on sentencing under the Pennsylvania guidelines (Kramer and Ulmer, 2009). During the past three decades, numerous studies have been conducted on the variables affecting judgesÊ sentencing decisions. Sentence outcomes are typically

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 211

defined by the decision to imprison, the length of sentence, and the decision to suspend punishment. Studies of sentence outcomes are meaningfully divided by jurisdiction (federal or state court level) and by whether sentences are imposed under an indeterminate or determinant presumptive guidelines scheme. Some state courts (i.e., Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, Florida) instituted determinant sentencing reform well before Congress mandated the creation of the federal sentencing reform with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This act established the U.S. Sentencing Commission and charged it with creation and implementation of a guidelines scheme that would severely restrict federal sentencing judgesÊ discretion while enhancing discretion exercised by federal prosecutors. Regardless of whether guidelines systems were established to govern state or federal sentencing practices, the overall reform goal was to reduce, if not eliminate, sentence disparities associated with extralegal defendant characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and social status.

FEDERAL SENTENCING Research on federal sentencing outcomes prior to implementation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in November 1987 produced fairly consistent findings of the effect of defendantÊs gender on the severity of punishment imposed. Most of this research was conducted on defendants convicted of white-collar crimes with some distinctions made within the broad classification of white-collar criminality. Studies indicate that female defendants, compared to male defendants, are less likely to receive an imprisonment sentence (typically referred to as the in/out decision) (Peterson and Hagan, 1984; Wheeler, Weisburd, and Bode, 1982; Weisburd, Wheeling, Waring, and Bode, 1991). Most of these studies were conducted on sentencing of white-collar offenders (Wheeler et al., 1982; Weisburd et al, 1991) or drug offenders (Peterson and Hagan, 1984). In addition, among defendants sentenced to prison, findings revealed that female defendants were sentenced to a significantly shorter period of imprisonment. For the most part, these findings were obtained in studies that estimated multivariate sentence models that controlled for legally relevant case characteristics, the route of case disposition (guilty plea or trial), and extralegal defendant characteristics such as defendantÊs race/ethnicity, educational achievement, citizenship, and number of dependents. Benson and WalkerÊs (1988) study of sentence outcomes imposed on white-collar offenders found that the defendantÊs gender did not produce a significant effect on either the judgeÊs decision to incarcerate the offender or on the length of imprisonment imposed. This study did not include bribery, antitrust, or securitiesand-exchanges white-collar offenses. Their study suggests that, contrary to other studies of white-collar sentencing studies, federal judges are not systematically and

212 |

Women Criminals

significantly influenced by defendantÊs gender. This is only one of very few prefederal guidelines studies reporting that defendantÊs gender is unrelated to sentence outcomes. Having found fairly consistent empirical evidence of a significant and substantial relationship between defendantÊs gender and sentence severity, some researchers conceptualized and tested a more complex relationship than a simple direct effect of defendantÊs gender on sentence outcomes. These researchers designed studies that examined whether defendantÊs gender is a component of an interaction effect on sentence outcomes. These studies address whether the effect of defendantÊs gender conditions or mediates the effect of legally relevant case information, processrelated variables (i.e., guilty pleas), or other defendant characteristics (i.e., race/ ethnicity, educational attainment, citizenship). For example, Bickle and PetersonÊs (1991) study of eight federal district courts found that female defendants do not receive more lenient sentences than males for being married, for having dependents, or for providing significant economic support for their dependents. Furthermore, they found that the sentence reduction associated with being married was significantly greater for black than for white females. For male defendants, the interaction effect of race and marital status was not significant. However, they report that the effect of marital status and providing substantial emotional support for dependents is similar for male and female defendants. Their research points to the importance of a joint race and gender conditioning effect of family role variables on federal sentencing outcomes. Other studies used path modeling (i.e., structural equation models) to estimate direct and indirect effect of defendantÊs gender on sentence outcomes. These studies examined a hypothesis that suggested that defendantÊs gender may affect sentence outcomes through intervening offense characteristics and process-related variables. For example, AlbonettiÊs (1992) study of white-collar offenders found that the level of case complexity conditioned the effect of defendantÊs gender on the probability of receiving a suspended sentence (avoiding punishment). Specifically, only in relatively complex case levels did females enjoy a higher probability of a suspended sentence. The gender gap in probability of a suspended sentence reduces to nonsignificance when females are convicted of a white-collar characterized as complex in nature. These findings suggest that females lose their gender-based advantage at sentencing when their offense reflects counter-stereotype characteristics. As such, these findings are consistent with the evil women perspective and with the uncertainty avoidance/causal attribution theory of judicial discretion at sentencing. Two subsequent studies of the same federal white-collar sentencing data rely on structural equation modeling to further explore the relationship between defendantÊs gender, case complexity, and sentence outcomes. To examine further the relationship between defendantÊs gender and sentence severity, Albonetti proposed a legal-bureaucratic model of federal sentencing „that

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 213

structurally links the complex nature of some white-collar crime to the legalities associated with pleading guilty in federal court and to prosecutorial and judicial interests in efficiency and finality in adjudication‰ (Albonetti, 1999: 307). This model hypothesizes that „ those defendants who are charged with complex white collar crimes enter guilty plea negotiations with greater bargaining power than defendants who are charged with less complex white-collar crimes‰ (307). According to this model, defendants who are socially or economically better positioned to commit a complex white-collar crime are better positioned to negotiate substantial reductions in the severity of punishment imposed. Key to the legal-bureaucratic model is the interplay between guilty pleas and levels of case complexity. This theory argues that defendants who have certain characteristics that are associated with an increased probability of committing a complex white-collar crime are more likely to plead guilty and, as such, to realize a statistically significant and substantial reduction in sentence severity. From this model, defendantÊs gender may affect sentence severity both directly and indirectly via the interplay between case complexity and guilty pleas. The direct effect, if found, captures the effect of gender discrimination at sentencing; while the indirect effect of gender reveals how „location in a stratified social and occupational society translates to advantage at sentencing through a link between legality and bureaucratic interests in avoiding the uncertainty of a successful trial.‰ (Albonetti, 1999:312). AlbonettiÊs research tested the legal bureaucratic model by examining federal judgesÊ imposition of length of imprisonment (Albonetti, 1998a) and judgesÊ decisions to suspend sentence (Albonetti, 1999). Regarding the latter decision, her findings indicated that defendantÊs gender produced significant direct and indirect effects on federal judgesÊ decisions to suspend a sentence in white-collar crimes cases. AlbonettiÊs (1999) analysis found that judges are significantly more likely to suspend a sentence when the defendant is female. This finding is consistent with findings of sentence leniency associated with female defendants. Of particular importance to unraveling the influence of defendantÊs gender on judicial discretion at sentencing is AlbonettiÊs findings that a nontrivial amount of the total effect of defendantÊs gender on length of imprisonment is accounted for by whether the defendant was convicted of a complex, compared to a common, white-collar crime and whether the defendant pleaded guilty rather than pursued a trial. The diagram below illustrates the paths through which defendantÊs gender exerts significant influence on the likelihood of a suspended sentence. Female

Suspend Sentence

Complexity of Crime

Guilty Plea

214

|

Women Criminals

AlbonettiÊs findings revealed that females are less likely to be convicted of a complex white-collar crime and, as such, experience a reduction in the probability of a suspended sentence due to the interplay of case complexity and pleading guilty. The three indirect paths from defendantÊs gender to suspended sentence reveals the structural disadvantage females, compared to males, face at sentencing due to their lower likelihood of involvement in complex white-collar offenses. AlbonettiÊs findings point to the intervening effect of case complexity in the relationship between defendantÊs gender and the likelihood of a federal judge suspending sentence·referred to as avoiding punishment for a criminal conviction. Therefore, although female defendants receive leniency at sentence, taking the form of a higher probability of receiving a suspended sentence, the level of leniency is reduced for females who are less likely than men to be involved in complex white-collar crime. Albonetti (1998b) found similar findings of direct and indirect effects of defendantÊs gender on length of imprisonment for federal white-collar cases. The diagram above also illustrates the ways in which defendantÊs gender significantly affects the length of imprisonment imposed for offenders convicted of a whitecollar crime. Consistent with other studies (Wheeler et al., 1982; Weisburd et al., 1991), Albonetti (1998a) found that female defendants received a direct negative effect on length of sentence. However, to the extent that females are less likely than males to be involved in complex white-collar crime, they received less sentence reductions due to pleading guilty. Taken together, these findings point to how genderbased opportunity structures that increase the likelihood of committing a complex white-collar crime translate into increase leverage over plea negotiations that produced substantial reductions in length of imprisonment. Sentencing of Female Defendants since Implementation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines With enactment of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on November 1, 1987, the landscape of criminal adjudication and sentencing changed in significant ways. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were designed to reform sentencing by all but eliminating the wide latitude of discretion characterizing judicial sentencing. The United States Sentencing Commission, designers of the guidelines, created a sentencing scheme that was intended to produce uniformity, proportionality, and truth in sentencing. These goals of federal sentencing would be the outcome of federal judges implementing a presumptive guidelines system that explicitly defined defendantÊs gender, as well as other extralegal characteristics, as irrelevant to the determination of sentence outcomes in the federal courts. (Chapter 5, part H of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, 2009, specifies defendant characteristics that are not ordinarily relevant to sentencing decisions.) During the more than 20 years since the implementation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a substantial body of research has explored sentence disparities

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 215

related to defendant characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, to name the most often studied). AlbonettiÊs (1997) study is the first empirical analysis of the variables affecting sentence outcomes under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Similar to later studies (Kautt, 2002; Ulmer, 2005), Albonetti analyzed sentencing for convicted drug trafficking/manufacturing defendants since these cases represent a consistently high percentage (47% or more) of all convicted felony cases in the federal court system. Her research found that female defendants received significantly more lenient sentences; in other words, female defendants were less likely to be incarcerated, and, for those sentenced to prison, they received a shorter length of imprisonment. In addition, her study revealed significant interaction effects of defendantÊs gender and race/ethnicity on sentence outcomes. Regardless of defendantÊs race/ethnicity, female defendants charged with federal drug trafficking/manufacturing received significantly shorter sentences than their male counterparts. However, among Hispanic defendants, the disparity in length of imprisonment between females and males is the least of the three race/ethnic groups. These findings were obtained controlling for legally relevant guideline-defined case characteristics, whether the defendant received a guidelines departure, route of case disposition (guilty plea or trial), circuit differences in sentencing and other extralegal defendant characteristics (citizenship, education level). AlbonettiÊs early study of sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines revealed that early in guidelines implementation (1991ă1992), federal judgesÊ sentencing decisions were influenced by defendantÊs gender, to the advantage of females. Another study of federal sentences imposed during 1991ă1992 (Albonetti, 1998) focused on gender disparities among defendants convicted of white-collar offenses (fraud, money laundering, embezzlement/larceny). This study found that the mean length of imprisonment for females was 13.14 months (standard deviation = 14.63 months), compared to a mean length of 19.23 (standard deviation = 21.42). This study found that the gender disparities in the percentage of downward guidelines departures contributed substantially to the significantly more lenient sentences imposed on female defendants, compared to male defendants. In addition, this study revealed that sentence leniency for females among white-collar offenders was linked to gender differences in the guidelines offense severity level. Male defendants, compared to female defendants, were likely to be convicted of fraud and money laundering· offenses carrying longer sentences. In addition, males were convicted of a higher number of offense counts. These legally relevant case characteristics, combined with a lower probability of receiving a downward guidelines departure, contributed to significantly longer lengths of imprisonment for males. Later studies, focusing on drug trafficking cases sentenced over different time periods, report consistent findings about the relationship between defendantÊs gender and sentence severity. For example, SevignyÊs (2009) study of drug sentences imposed in 1997 concluded that female defendants continue to receive sentence leniency under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. He found a significant link

216 |

Women Criminals

between defendantÊs gender, race, and their role in the offense. More specifically, he found that males were more likely to act as a wholesaler of drugs while females were more likely to play either a retailing role or to charged in simple possession of drugs. Female defendants were more likely to play a courier or mule role in the drug offense. As such, he concluded that „because role is related to these extralegal factors, the guidelineÊs promotion of culpability-based uniformity contributes indirectly to racial and gender disparities‰ (Sevigny, 2009: 173). The consistent findings that under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines judges impose less severe sentences for females drug offenders, compared to males, stimulated research investigating linkages between defendantÊs gender, role in offense, case processing, and sentence outcomes. Exploring the association between defendantÊs gender and role in drug trafficking offenses took on particular importance with enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the so-called safety valve amendment (Albonetti, 2002a and 2002b). With the passage of this act and the safety valve amendment to the guidelines, judges are released from applying the harsh mandatory minimums for controlled substance offenses. Three of the five conditions (criminal history, use of a dangerous weapon, and low-level involvement in the offense) are associated with defendantÊs gender. Female defendants, compared to male defendants, are more likely to quality for the safety-valve provision resulting in significantly lower sentence lengths with relaxation of the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum penalties. Another question researchers have explored is whether defendantÊs gender and ethnicity/race act jointly to condition the effect of legally relevant guidelines offense level, criminal history, and downward departures on length of imprisonment for drug trafficking/manufacturing offenders. Albonetti (2002a) found that females received shorter average sentences than male offenders. However, she found that among female offenders, white offenders received shorter sentences compared to either Hispanic or black offenders. Therefore, attempts to understand gender disparities in federal sentences must explore how defendantÊs gender and race/ethnicity combine to influence the sentence severity. Furthermore, findings reveal that the guidelinesÊ downward departures differentially influenced length of imprisonment contingent on the joint interaction of defendantÊs gender and race/ethnicity. Regardless of defendantÊs race/ethnicity, females received significantly greater sentence reduction due to downward guideline departure. However, the complexity of the relationship between these two variables is revealed in the finding that among females, white defendants experienced the greatest sentence reduction from guidelines departures. In addition, among female defendants, the effect of guidelines offense severity produced the greatest increase in sentence severity for white defendants. Among females, the effect of guidelines offense severity on sentence length was similar for Hispanic and for black defendants.

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 217

In summary, although the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were implemented as a reform measure to eliminate extralegal disparities in sentencing, the extensive body of research conducted on drug trafficking/manufacturing and on white-collar convictions reveals that judges continue to sentence female defendants more leniently than males. However, the research reveals that there is more to the story than simple direct effects of gender on sentence severity. DefendantÊs gender conditions the effects of legally relevant case characteristics and case processing practices. Furthermore, defendantÊs gender is a second component of an interaction with defendantÊs race/ethnicity; producing an interplay that conditions the effect of legally relevant variables and guidelines downward departures on length of imprisonment.

GENDER DISPARITIES IN STATE SENTENCING Most studies of state level sentencing practices have focused on states that have enacted determinant or presumptive sentencing guidelines. Studies of sentencing in Pennsylvania (Kramer and Ulmer, 2009; Ulmer and Kramer, 1996; Steffensmeier and Streifel, 1993; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer, 1988; Johnson, 2006), Washington (Engen and Steen, 2000; Engen, Gainey, Crutchfield, and Weiss, 2003), and Minnesota (Koons-Witt, 2002) provide important findings that inform our understanding of gender disparities in state courts. During the last two decades, a substantial body of empirical studies directly addressed the presence of gender disparities in state sentencing. Generally, the research indicates that female defendants receive significantly less severe sentences, compared to males. Research conducted on sentences that were imposed under the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines has consistently found that females are less likely to be incarcerated, and when incarcerated, they receive significantly shorter sentences than males. Kramer and UlmerÊs (2009) research on Pennsylvania sentencing reports that, although legally relevant case information such as offense gravity and defendantÊs prior record score produce strong and significant increases on the probability of incarceration (in county jail and state prison) and length of imprisonment for those incarcerated, female defendants had an decrease in the probability of receiving an incarceration sentence and a decrease in the length of imprisonment for serious violence offenses such as homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery convictions. This research did not find any evidence that defendantÊs gender interacted with offense type to alter the effect of pursuing a trial on sentence outcomes. The observed direct effect of defendantÊs gender on sentence severity imposed for serious offenses imposed during 1997ă2000 was also found for less serious offenses such as simple assaults, arson, theft, burglary, forgery, and drug violations. Kramer and UlmerÊs (2009) analyses of cases sentenced from 1998 to 2000 found that males had substantially greater odds of having mandatory minimum penalties

218 |

Women Criminals

applied at sentencing. They suggested that judges are less likely to impose mandatory minimum penalties on females because of a perception that females, compared to males, pose less danger, are less blameworthy, and more likely to be successfully rehabilitated. This is consistent with the focal concerns and uncertainty avoidance perspectives of sentencing. In 1981, the Washington Sentencing Reform Act was enacted for the pursuit of limiting judicial sentencing discretion by requiring judges to primarily determine sentence severity in accord with offense severity and the offenderÊs criminal history score. These two case characteristics are to determine the standard range in months within which the sentence judge is to sentence adult felons. The presumptive guidelines were designed to substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the influence of extralegal defendant characteristics on sentence outcomes. Studies of sentencing in Washington state reveal a nontrivial relationship between defendantÊs gender and the likelihood of departure sentences below Washington guidelines range (Engen et al., 2003; Engen and Steen, 2000). Holding constant the effect of legally relevant variables, female defendants have significantly higher odds of receiving a departure lower the standard sentence range, compared to males. Females are no more likely than males to receive departure higher than the standard sentence range prescribed by the guidelines. Under the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines, judges can use discretionary sentence alternatives to depart from the standard range: exceptional above and exceptional below. The researchers were interested in examining whether judges used sentencing alternatives as a way of departing from the standard range. They found that judges were more likely to use one of the sentencing alternatives (alternative sentence conversion, first-time offender waiver) for female defendants than for males. These findings were obtained controlling for legally relevant variables such as offense seriousness, criminal history score, and type of criminal offense. Minnesota was the first state to enact sentencing guidelines. The guidelines became law in May 1980 with implementation of a presumptive scheme for determining disposition (in/out) and duration for sentencing. The goal of the guidelines was to reduce judicial discretion by establishing uniform standards for determining sentence outcomes. Similar to state and federal sentencing guidelines that followed (with some variation in structure) MinnesotaÊs scheme, sentence outcomes, both dispositional and duration, were to be directly linked to the severity of the convicted offense and to the offenderÊs criminal history. By so doing, defendant extralegal characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, would be irrelevant to judicial sentencing decisions. Koons-WittÊs (2002) study of the in/out and sentence length decisions preguidelines and post-guidelines produced findings salient to relationship between defendantÊs gender and sentence outcomes during a period of indeterminate sentencing followed by reforms directed to eliminating judicial consideration of gender at sentencing. She expected to find that females received more lenient sentence

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 219

outcomes during the pre-guidelines period since judges use more discretion in deciding the case characteristics relevant to sentencing. Contrary to her expectations, she found that females were sentenced no differently than males. However, she did find an interaction between defendantÊs gender and the presence of dependent children in the household. For female defendants with dependent children, judges were significantly less likely to impose an incarceration sentence. Male defendants with dependent children received no such sentence advantage during the pre-guidelines period. Her analysis of sentencing practices early after the Minnesota guidelines went into effect produced different findings of relationship between defendantÊs gender and sentence outcomes. During the early period of guidelines implementation, she found that defendantÊs gender did not exert a significant direct effect on the likelihood of imprisonment. However, her findings revealed a significant interaction between defendantÊs gender and race; nonwhite females were significantly more likely to receive a community alternative to incarceration than white females. Furthermore, she found that the sentence advantage that females with dependent children had received during the pre-guidelines period was no longer observed during the years just following guidelines implementation. Koon-WittÊs analyses of Minnesota sentence outcomes in later years revealed that there was no significant direct effect of gender on the likelihood of incarceration. However, the interaction effect between gender and the presence of dependents re-emerged as an influence on judgesÊ decisions to incarcerate. She found that females with dependents in the household were significantly more likely to be sentenced to community alternatives to incarceration. She suggested that judges may have used community alternatives as a mechanism for avoiding the guidelines when females had child care-giving responsibilities. Similar to sentencing practices during pre-guidelines period, male defendants with dependants did not receive sentence leniency. This research is particularly relevant to criticisms that sentencing reforms directed to producing uniformity would disproportionately disadvantage females by making it illegal for judges to consider care-giving responsibilities that are disproportionately assigned to women (Daley, 1987a; 1987b; Nagel and Johnson, 1994; Raeder, 1995). Her findings provide evidence, at least in one state, that after the initial guidelines implementation period, judges returned to pre-guidelines practices of considering child care-giving responsibilities at sentencing. However, such considerations were limited only to females; males with dependents received no sentence comparable sentence leniency.

DEATH SENTENCES FOR WOMEN Capital punishment is rarely imposed on women in the United States. SegraveÊs (2008) research on execution of women in the United States between 1632 and 2005, reveals that only 2.8 percent of approximately 20,000 executions involved

220

|

Women Criminals

women (3). His research further indicates that the percent of women executed has declined over the years. His research reveals that white women are less likely to be executed than black women. StreibÊs well-recognized study of capital punishment in the United States concluded that „female offenders are unlikely to be arrested for murder, only very rarely sentenced to death and almost never executed‰ (2002: 434). In a more recent study, Streib (2006) reported that of all murder arrests in the United States between 1973 and 2005, women defendants made up only 10 percent (625). He further found that only 2 percent of death sentences for murder involved a female defendant, and only 1.5 percent of the persons on death row were women. Finally, he reports that only 1.1 percent of executed offenders during the above 32-year period were women. Streib suggests that women offenders whose criminal conduct is more similar to male aggressive stereotypes and less similar to feminine stereotypes are more likely to have the death penalty imposed for capital murder. This finding is supportive of the evil women thesis of punishment. PhillipÊs (2009) analysis of 504 adult defendants indicted for capital murder in Harris County, Texas, during 1992ă1999 provide strong evidence that male defendants are significantly more likely than females defendants to have capital murder charges pursued and significantly more likely to receive the death penalty. The findings of the gendered nature of these two capital murder decisions are particularly interesting and revealing because these findings are observed having controlled for an extensive number of variables measuring the effect of aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the murder, defendantÊs and victimÊs social status, defendantÊs race/ethnicity, and defendantÊs record of prior violent convictions. Rapaport (2000) argues that one reason for the apparent gender bias in the imposition of the death penalty is two-fold. First, only few murderers actually are in legal jeopardy of a capital sentence (2000: 582), and woman account for 1 to 2 percent of those murderers. Second, she points out that women comprise a small percentage of those offenses that are actually eligible for capital punishment. She adds that two-thirds of female murderers killed a family member or a lover (2000: 583). Rapaport argues that research indicates that, regardless of offenderÊs gender, these types of murders rarely result in the offender receiving the death penalty. Furthermore, Rapaport points out that women murders do not have the same serious violent criminal histories characterizing most male murder offenders. (For more information on women and the death penalty, see Appendix D, „Death Penalty for Female Offender,‰ by Victor Streib.) PROSECUTORIAL CHARGING DECISIONS: GENDER DIFFERENCES Does suspectÊs gender influence prosecutorial charging decisions? Researchers have sought to answer this question for decades. However, given the informal and

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 221

low visibility of prosecutorial decision making at the charging stage of criminal adjudication, only a relative few studies have focused on empirically assessing the relationship between suspectÊs gender and the decision to go forward with criminal charges. The chivalry/paternalism thesis (Pollak, 1961) maintains that females are treated more leniently than males throughout all stages of the criminal justice system. Early studies of charging provide some support for the thesis, namely, that prosecutors take into consideration the defendantÊs gender when deciding to go forward with felony charges, the level (felony or misdemeanor), and whether to nolle prosequi charges. American prosecutors possess what amounts to unfettered discretion regarding the above three decisions·each taking place early in the criminal justice system. Research conducted in the 1960s and early 1970s focused on the role legal and social factors played in the prosecutorÊs decision to go forward with charges (Blumberg, 1967). Other studies (Myers and Hagan, 1979; Stanko, 1982) examined the influence of victim characteristics and defendant-victim relationship on the decision to charge. These early studies paid little, if any, attention to the role of the defendantÊs gender on prosecutorial discretion. Beginning in the late 1970s, researchers using multivariate models of charging and plea bargaining were capable of estimating the direct and conditioning effect of defendantÊs gender on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Contrary to either the chivalry/paternalism or the evil women thesis, Nagel, Cardascia, and RossÊ (1980) study found that a prosecutorÊs decision to charge a suspect was unrelated to the defendantÊs gender. However, Nagel and Hagan (1983) found that prosecutors were more likely to prosecute males than females. Using data on a large sample of felony cases processed in the Superior Court of Washington, D.C., Albonetti (1987) found the defendantÊs gender was unrelated to the decision to prosecute felony charges. This study was the first to include measures of evidence as important control variables in the analysis. Her analysis revealed that prosecutors were significantly more likely to prosecute when there is corroborative evidence, physical evidence, and more than one witness to the alleged crime. In addition, prosecutors were more likely to prosecute when a weapon was used, when the victim is either an individual or an organized collectivity, and when the suspect has a prior record of criminal activity. Prosecutors were significantly less likely to prosecute when the victim-suspect relationship was intimate. This study hypothesized that prosecutorÊs charging decisions are influenced by attempts to reduce uncertainty of failing to obtain a conviction if charges are filed. Therefore, to the extent that defendantÊs gender is unrelated to prosecutorÊs assessments of uncertainty of winning a conviction, female defendants are not expected to receive different treatment that males at this early screening decision. Other studies found a significant effect of defendantÊs gender on the initial decision to prosecute and the decision to discontinue prosecution (Miethe, 1987; Spohn,

222

|

Women Criminals

Gruhl, and Welch, 1987). MietheÊs study of charging practices after implementation of Minnesota sentencing guidelines found that females were more likely to be charged with less serious offenses than males, controlling for suspectÊs race, employment status, use of a weapon, and record of prior convictions. Furthermore, he found that females were more likely to have initial felony charges dismissed, compared to males. Research indicated that prosecutors based decisions to discontinue prosecution on strength of evidence against the defendant, evidence that the victim provoked the incident, the victim-defendant relationship, the defendantÊs race, and severity of the offense. AlbonettiÊs (1986) study of prosecutorial discretion in the D.C. Superior Court found that prosecutors were more likely to discontinue prosecution post-indictment for female defendants, controlling for three measures of evidence, the defendant-victim relationship, bail outcome severity, type of crime, and statutory severity of the charged offense. She found that, net of other case information, female defendants had a 7 percent reduction in the chances of having charges continued after indictment. A recent study of prosecutorial discretion to apply mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania found gender differences (Ulmer, Kurlychek, and Kramer, 2007). Specifically, their analysis indicates that prosecutors are 1.7 times more likely to impose mandatory minimum penalties for male defendants than for females. This finding was obtained controlling for defendantÊs race, type of drug, route of case disposition, prior record, and offense gravity score. Imposition of mandatory minimums results in substantially longer sentences than that imposed under the Pennsylvania guidelines system. In jurisdictions where drug treatment is available, prosecutors often have the option of diverting an offender from felony criminalization by placing him/her in rehabilitation facility or out-patient treatment program of counseling and random drug-testing. Avoiding criminalization and the associated negative label has immediate and long-term ramifications in terms of employment, family care-giving, and educational opportunities for an offender. Albonetti and Hepburn (1996) studied the pre-file deferred prosecution to treatment program instituted by the Maricopa CountyÊs AttorneyÊs Office in 1989. Qualification for deferred prosecution varied by drug possessed; the overall purpose of the program was to offer diversion to casual users with no prior criminal history. Etiology of bias theory and labeling theory links defendantÊs gender to the severity of outcome at several stages of the criminalization process. Consistent with expectations under the uncertainty avoidance perspective, Albonetti and Hepburn hypothesized that females, compared to males, are perceived to pose a lower risk of failing in the treatment diversion program, and consequently, prosecutors are more likely to divert females away from criminal prosecution into a rehabilitation program. Causal attribution theory, linked to the uncertainty avoidance perspective, suggests that a stable, enduring pattern of illegal behavior is indicated by a record

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 223

of prior arrests and the number of charges filed. Albonetti and Hepburn suggested that these two achieved status characteristics are perceived to indicate the moral character of the defendant. As such, prosecutors are expected to be more likely to criminalize defendants who are charged with more than one charge and who have a record of prior arrests. The study estimated main effects of defendantÊs gender on prosecutorÊs decision to divert the offender from criminal prosecution to treatment. The researchers found that prosecutors were significantly more likely to divert female defendants from criminalization, controlling for defendantÊs minority status, age, type of drug, and record of prior arrest. This finding is consistent with the uncertainty avoidance theoretical perspective, the etiology of bias, and the chivalry paternalism theses. Drawing from both the uncertainty avoidance perspective and the causal attribution perspective, Albonetti and Hepburn (1996) hypothesized that the effect of prior record of arrests (an achieved status characteristic associated with causal attribution theory) on a prosecutorÊs decision to divert the defendant from criminalization is conditioned by the ascribed status of gender. The evil women thesis argues that women are treated more similar to men when women violate gender stereotypes (e.g., having a prior record of arrests). The researchers found that the hypothesized interaction between gender and prior record of arrests does not produce a significant effect on the decision to divert the defendant from criminalization. Their findings indicate that culturally embedded biases associated with gender did not influence the effect of having a record of prior arrests on the likelihood of diversion. Taken together, research provides mixed findings about the relationship between prosecutorial initial screening decisions and a suspectÊs gender. Most research suggests that prosecutors consider gender when deciding to go forward with felony charges and deciding to divert a defendant from criminalization. Furthermore, research indicates that subsequent charge dismissal decisions favor female defendants, compared to males. However, research is needed to explore further how defendantÊs gender interacts, if it does, with other prosecutorial decisions concerning charging, dismissal of charges, and diversion.

ABORTION AND CRIMINALIZATION The history of abortion criminalization in the United States spans a 130-year period that is divided into two periods: the common law and the statutory law years. The common law era as applicable to abortion covers the years from 1664 through 1829 (Means, 1968: 419). Legal historians and legal scholars present conflicting characterizations of the substance of common law during this period. For example, Mohr (1978), Means (1968), and Buell (1991) maintain that abortions carried out prior to quickening, the first time the mother feels the fetus move, were not defined as criminal

224

|

Women Criminals

during the common law period. Furthermore, they maintain that criminalization of abortions after quickening centered on defining harm to the fetus, not to the mother, as the basis for criminality. Buell (1991) notes that „courts in several states dissented but acknowledged their contravention of the common law. Furthermore, although abortionists were prosecuted for performing postquickening abortions, no American case reports a common-law prosecution of a woman for procuring an abortion, either pre- or postquickening; dicta, however, runs both for and against the womanÊs liability‰ (1781). MeansÊ analysis of common law in the early American courts describes it as exhibiting „an ambivalence in the matter of abortion that underlines its native respect for the two great values of liberty and life‰ (1968: 437). As to the value of liberty, Means references the substance of common law to allow the women to put herself at risk of having an abortion (before quickening), a risk that was not trivial at the time. As to the value of life, Means notes that the abortion provider would be hanged in the event that the pregnant women lost her life as a result of the abortion. Fortysix years prior to New YorkÊs first statute against abortion, the period from 1783 to 1830, pregnant women in New York were not criminalized for having an abortion prior to quickening (441). It is important to note that some legal scholars challenge the conclusion that American common law during the early decades of the 19th century protected prequickening abortions. Dellapenna (2006) challenges MeansÊ (1968) and MohrÊs (1978) conclusion that abortions were not uncommon and that common law reflected an acceptance of a pregnant womenÊs decision to abort prior to quickening. In contradiction to MeansÊ (1968) assertion that postquickening abortions were criminalized out of a concern for protecting the pregnant womenÊs life, Dellapenna argues that common law criminalized postquickening abortions out of a concern for protecting the fetus. DellapennaÊs assertion that Means (1968) and Mohr (1978) distort the substance of common law actually applies to their description of 15th- through 17th-century English common law rather than to early American common law (Spivack, 2007). Spivack (2007: 151) was critical of DellapennaÊs description of early modern English common law as misguided and lacking in an understanding of the social and cultural context of criminalization of abortion. She argued convincingly that common law penalties for postquickening abortions focused on limiting injuries to pregnant women. Concern over injury to the fetus as a person was not part of common law in early modern England. For most legal historians and legal scholars, the statutory law era of criminalization of abortion began in 1821 with ConnecticutÊs Revised „Crimes and Punishments‰ law (Mohr, 1978: 20). Section 14 of the revised statute, titled the Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1821, added a miscarriage clause that made it criminal for any person to poison a pregnant woman with the result that a quickened child was aborted. Mohr (26) notes that similar criminal statutory prohibitions against abortion via poisoning were soon enacted in Missouri and Illinois.

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 225

He conjectures that, although the latter two statesÊ statutes did not specifically define the criminality to the postquickening stage of pregnancy, a failure to do so was more than likely due to legislatures taking-for-granted distinction that appeared in common law. In January 1830, New YorkÊs Revised Statutes of 1829 made it illegal to abort a quickened fetus. As Means (1968: 443) notes, New YorkÊs criminal law of abortion was one of three offenses addressed in the revised statutes. According to section 8 of the Revised Statutes of 1829: „The willful killing of an unborn quick child, by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother, shall be deemed manslaughter in the first degree‰ (as cited in Means, 1968: 443). Section 21 of New YorkÊs 1829 statute was the first to allow for abortions due to „therapeutic exceptions‰ (Mohr, 1978: 27). Section 21 states,: „Every person who shall willfully administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug, substance or thing whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for that purpose; shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in a county jail no more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment‰ (as cited in Mohr, 1978: footnote 16, 270). Mohr (1978: 31) maintained that the evolution of abortion policy in the 19th century, as codified into statutory law, was highly influenced by the evolution of medical practices. During the first wave of abortion legislation in the United States (1821ă1841), Mohr argued that trained physicians (referred to as „regulars‰) who subscribed to scientific principles in the practice of medicine used state legislatures to solidify their claim to the practice of medicine. This group of physicians opposed abortion at any stage of the pregnancy from an ideological, moral, and scientific position. As Mohr points out, the regulars were distinguished from other practicing physicians who had no, or little, formal medical training by their allegiance to the Hippocratic Oath which condemned abortion (35). Mohr argued, „The best way out of these dilemmas was to persuade state legislators to make abortion a criminal offense. Antiabortion laws would weaken the appeal of the competition and take the pressure off the more marginal members of the regularsÊ own sect‰ (37). Even more to the point, Mohr stated that: The first wave of abortion legislation in American history emerged from the struggles of both legislators and physicians to control medical practice rather than from public pressure to deal with abortion per se. Everyone of the laws passed between 1821and 1841 punished only the „person‰ who administered the abortifacient or performed the operation, none punished the woman herself in any way. (43)

226

|

Women Criminals

From 1840 to 1860, states enacted statutory laws against abortion that were dissimilar (119). Michigan and Vermont enacted somewhat similar statutes that criminalized abortion at any stage of gestation. MohrÊs (1978) research revealed that abortions after quickening was criminalized as manslaughter in both states. These states enacted abortion laws that provided for therapeutic exceptions (129). In 1847, Massachusetts enacted abortion legislation that criminalized advertisement of abortion services (130). Two years later the states of Virginia, California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin enacted statutes that criminalized abortion. As Mohr pointed out, VirginiaÊs statute criminalized abortions taking place before quickening (132). Punishment for aborting a pre-quickened fetus was set at up to 12 months in jail, and aborting a quickened fetus carried a sentence from one to five years in prison (132). However, California and WisconsinÊs statutes criminalized only abortions taking place post-quickening. New York and New Hampshire legislatures passed antiabortion laws that sought to punish the pregnant women for pre-quickened abortions (134). In the 1850s the territories of Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, and Kansas, and the states of Texas and Louisiana enacted antiabortion statutes (138). According to Mohr (138) statutes in Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon expressed the „protective tradition‰ that had characterized the statutes of the 1840s. Minnesota and Oregon statutes criminalized post-quickening abortions. Kansas Territory criminalized as a misdemeanor attempted abortions regardless of gestation stage (138). Washington Territory criminalized all abortion attempts (139). Mohr points out that in these four territories the statutes criminalized the provider of the abortion, not the pregnant woman. In 1854 Texas enacted legislation that criminalized abortions post-quickening and assigned a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Two years later, Texas amended the punishment to between 2 and 5 years of prison in the case of the pregnant women giving consent (Mohr, 1978: 139). Four years later, Texas legislators criminalized all attempts to abort after quickening, regardless of whether the abortion was successful (139). In 1858, IowaÊs legislature passed an antiabortion criminalizing the abortionist but not the woman (144). One year later Indiana strengthened its 1835 criminal code against abortion by attempting to criminalize pre-quickening abortions (141). Mohr (1978) summarizes the criminalization of abortion during the period of 1840ă1860 in the following way: The response of American policymakers as a whole was limited and cautious between 1840 and 1860. Though abortion became a common social phenomenon, only three states struck the immunities traditionally enjoyed by American women in cases of abortion. Anti-advertising laws of the period were equally few in number and pitifully weak. The quickening doctrine remained an important principle in American courts, and thirteen of the thirty-three states in the Union by 1860 had yet to pass any statues on the subject of abortion. (145ă146)

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 227

During 1880ă1900, antiabortion policy reflected the statutory focus characterizing the 1860ă1880 period with some significant changes (Mohr, 1978: 227). Indiana antiabortion statutes expanded to criminalizing the consenting pregnant women. The territories of Arizona, Idaho, and the state of Wyoming expanded their statutory codes to include criminalization of pregnant women who consented to an abortion (229). As Mohr noted, by 1900, every state in the Union had an antiabortion law except for Kentucky (229): By 1900 abortion no longer seemed to be a threat to the native population, and regular physicians had already successfully accomplished most of their personal and professional goals. Consequently, after four decades of rapid change, American abortion policy restabilized during the final two decades of the nineteenth century while legislative responses typical of the 1860Ês and 1870Ês wove themselves deeply into the fabric of American law. There they would remain through the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. (245) Buell describes the first half of the 20th century as a „period of inactivity‰ in terms of criminal abortion laws (1991:1795). He characterizes courts as taking the position that the woman undergoing an abortion is a victim bearing no criminal responsibility (1795). Furthermore, he notes that the medical professional had successfully defined abortion issues/decisions in their domain with reliance on therapeutic exceptions as justification or rationalization of abortions. Buell (1991) notes that although abortion statutes existed, they were rarely enforced. The American Law InstituteÊs Model Penal Code (Code) stated that „a Person who purposely and unjustifiably terminates the pregnancy of another otherwise than by a live birth commits a felony of the third degree or, where the pregnancy has continued beyond the twenty-sixth week, a felony of the second degree‰ (Model Penal Code, §230.3[1] (1962)). According to the code, abortions were justifiable only in the case where two physicians believed that there was a „substantial risk‰ that the pregnancy would „gravely impair‰ the motherÊs physical or mental health. In addition, the code defined the pregnant woman as a third-degree felon if after the 26th week of gestation „she purposely terminated her pregnancy otherwise than by a live birth, or if she uses instruments, drugs or violence upon herself for that purpose‰ (Model Penal Code, §230.3[4]). In addition, the code criminalized inducing or aiding a woman to commit a self-abortion, pretending to commit abortion, and selling or possessing abortifacients with intent to sell, except to physicians (Model Penal Code, §230.3[4]-[6]). Buell (1991) argues that the Model Penal Code influenced New York, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon abortion statutes in the mid-1960s to include more broadly defined therapeutic exceptions. He points out that the states of Hawaii and New York were the first states to

228

|

Women Criminals

„effectively decriminalize abortion by removing all requirements of justification. Their reformed statutes proscribed that the abortion must be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital (Buell, 1991: 1798). In Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 1973) the Supreme Court held that states could no longer criminalize abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. Buell (1991: 1800) labels the era after Roe v. Wade as a the „non-criminal era‰ of abortion law. The majority holding in Roe v. Wade held that the constitutional right to privacy included the right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court further held that any state statute limiting this right had to be founded on a compelling state interest (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 154ă55). Since Roe, states have attempted to restrict access to abortion. In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (428 U.S. 52, 69, 78ă81 [1976]), the Supreme Court struck down MissouriÊs law requiring spousal consent for an abortion. However, the court ruled that states could define „viability‰ (at 63ă65, 79ă81). In Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (462 U.S. 416, 437, 444ă45 [1983]), the court held that states can not require hospitalization for all second-trimester abortions and disallowed state requirements that a women considering an abortion must listen to a „parade of horribles‰ prior to going through with the abortion. In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (476 U.S. 747, 769ă71 [1986]), the Supreme Court ruled against PennsylvaniaÊs regulation that specified that doctors must attempt to save the fetus in postviability abortions, and the court ruled against the stateÊs laws that required the presence of two doctors during a postviability abortion. In Harris v. McRae (448 U.S. 297, 316ă17, 1980) and in Maher v. Roe (432 U.S. 464, 474ă77, 1977), the Supreme Court held that Congress and state legislatures could deny funding for abortions. These rulings effectively restricted access to abortion to those women who could financially afford to pay for the procedure. In Bellotti v. Baird (443 U.S. 622, 643ă44, 1979), the Court held that states could require parental consent for abortions in cases where the individual seeking the abortion is a minor and as long as the minor had access to alternative judicial consent procedures. Buell noted the significance of the Supreme CourtÊs decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490, 1989) as the „beginning of the end of this era of abortion regulation and as a landmark ruling of a second era of criminal abortion‰ (Buell, 1991: 1803). Buell pointed out that the Webster decision allows states to declare that life begins at conception. With that declaration, the Court implied that stateÊs have an interest in life at the point of conception. In addition, WebsterÊs the majority opinion ruled in favor of allowing states to prohibit the use of pubic employees and facilities for abortion procedures. Furthermore, as Buell noted, the majority opinion „disavowed the trimester framework; upheld a second-trimester regulation allegedly justified by a state interest in fetal life; and acknowledged that his [Chief Justice RehnquistÊs] holding permitted regulation that would have been unconstitutional under RoeÊs progeny‰ (Buell, 1991: 1804).

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 229

Soon after the Webster decision, a number of states have sought to further restrict the right to abortion. For example, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Utah, Louisiana, and the territory of Guam were quick to take advantage of the Webster ruling. However, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833, 879, 1992), the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to chose an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus and that the women has the right to obtain the abortion „without undue interference from the State.‰ The Court also ruled that states may regulate and prohibit abortions after the fetus reaches viability, so long as the regulation „contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the womenÊs life or health‰ (Casey 505 at 844). Finally, the majority in Casey ruled that the state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of the mother and the life of the unborn fetus, even from the outset of the pregnancy (Casey 505 at 846). In 2000 the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart (530 U.S. 914) held that NebraskaÊs law that prohibited both standard dilation and evacuation (D&E) and intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E) was unconstitutional because (a) the law lacked a health exception for the mother that Casey required, and (b) the law imposed an undue burden on a womanÊs choice for a standard D&E abortion, and thus abortion altogether, since the prohibition applied to both pre- and post-viability (Stemberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 930). In 2003, President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (18 U.S.C. §1531). The statute prohibits a physician from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion that kills a human fetus. The law provides for a fine and/or imprisonment of no more than two years. At the state level, attempts to test Roe v. Wade continue. For example, South DakotaÊs 2006 antiabortion statute, the WomenÊs Health and Human Life Protection Act (H.R.B. 1215, 81st Legislative Assembly) has been described as „the most draconian‰ (Bernstein, 2008) restriction since Roe v. Wade. The statute would have prohibited abortion even when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or in a situation in which a pregnancy would be dangerous to the womenÊs physical and/or mental health. The only exception the statute allowed was an abortion to prevent the death of the mother (Bernstein, 2008: 1467). The act assigned a class 5 felony and a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $500 fine for performing an abortion (Bernstein, 2008: 1467). The law was defeated by a referendum vote in 2006. State level attempts to severely restrict the right to abortion continue. A recent attempt by UtahÊs legislators to provide criminal sentencing up to life in prison for a woman whose fetus died due to her intentional or reckless behavior was withdrawn by its sponsor, Representative Carl D. Wimmer (Johnson, 2010). Essentially, the bill would have criminalized behavior by a woman that resulted in miscarriage. Representative Wimmer plans to revise the bill to exclude the phrase „reckless act of the woman‰·making the bill more narrow in scope.

230

|

Women Criminals

MATERNAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND CRIMINALIZATION FentimanÊs (2009a) legal analysis of the treatment of pregnant women who abuse drugs resulting in harm to the fetus or child after birth reveals that state prosecutors first sought to criminalize drug-using pregnant women by charging under drug abuse and child abuse statutes. After a decade of pursuing criminal prosecution under these statutes that carried less severe penalties upon conviction, prosecutors in some states pursued criminalization under homicide statutes. Only in the United States do prosecutors pursue criminal charges or civil action against women who abused drugs during their pregnancy. Fentiman (2009a) identifies two waves of criminal prosecution of pregnant women for alleged harm to their fetus as a result of the drug use. During the first wave of criminalization, beginning in the late 1980s, Fentiman points out that women were either prosecuted for crimes related to delivery of a drug to a minor, or for child abuse. Her research found that most of these convictions were subsequently overturned upon an appeal. However, only in South Carolina did appellant courts uphold convictions. In all other states, reversals of lower court convictions often centered on judicial opinions that a fetus was not legally a child or that drugs could not be delivered to a minor via the umbilical cord. Fentiman found that official law enforcement and court response to women who abused drugs during pregnancy was to refer women to drug rehabilitation programs. During this first wave of law enforcement, the courts sought to criminalize women and impose long prison sentences upon conviction. It was only at the appellate court level and only in some states did the official response reject criminalization and define the problem of drug abuse among pregnant women as a health issue to be addressed by treatment. Fentiman documents that beginning in the late 1990s prosecutors in some states began to aggressively charge criminal homicide, murder, manslaughter, and attempted intentional homicide against pregnant women abusing drugs. This represented a significant move away from charging drug abuse and delivering drugs to a minor child to charging homicide. Prosecution under the more serious statutes carried with it the possibility of serving long imprisonment. The earliest states to adopt this prosecutorial strategy are Wisconsin, South Carolina, Hawaii, Utah, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Regina McKnight, addicted to crack cocaine, is the first American women to be charged with murder after her child was stillborn. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Her conviction was upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Although prosecutors adopted the practice of charging homicide and homicide-related offenses and were largely successful at obtaining convictions and severe sentences, state appellate courts varied in their decisions to uphold or reverse convictions. Fentiman notes that while some appellate courts (i.e., South Carolina) upheld the convictions based on the legality of

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 231

„homicide by child abuse,‰ other state appellate courts (i.e., Wisconsin) nullified the conviction on the basis that a fetus is not legally a human being. Fentiman (2009a) notes that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in the 1996 case of Deborah J. Z., questioned the law enforcement practice of criminalizing alcoholic women for the death of their fetus and pointed to concerns that women in similar situations would likely avoid prenatal care and/or drug treatment out of fear of criminalization. The court also cautioned against such prosecutions because of the potential „slippery slope‰ of extending criminalization of women for failing to receive prenatal medical care, for smoking, and for poor diet. Clearly, the Wisconsin appellate court took a more cautious approach to upholding criminalization of drugusing pregnant women. The Hawaii Court of Appeals overturned a 2003 conviction and 20-year sentence of a methamphetamine-using women whose child died soon after birth. The appellate courtÊs reversal of the lower courtÊs conviction and sentence was based on the determination that the victim of the drug abuse must be a person at the time the mother abused the drug. These cases are examples of the tension between increased aggressive state prosecution and conviction of pregnant drug-abusing women for the alleged harm to their fetus and state appellate courtsÊ reluctance to uphold such criminalization. FentimanÊs (2009a) analyses of court cases reveal that poor, minority women continue to be disproportionately prosecuted and punished under state laws making drug-using pregnant women criminally culpable for alleged harm to their fetus. Fentiman (2009b) noted that in all states, except Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina, state appellate courts have held prosecutions, or the resulting convictions, of drug-abusing pregnant women to be unconstitutional. Fentiman documented that in spite of appellate reversals, prosecutors continue to pursue criminal charges. HornÊs (2008) research provided legal analyses of the displacement of rights from women to their fetus. She argued that criminal prosecution of drug-using pregnant women for harm to their fetus violates the motherÊs constitutional due process limits related to protections against statutory vagueness and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Statutory vagueness protections are violated because criminal prosecution for such cases is unforeseeable or unintended based on a reading of the legislative statutes as they were written for child abuse, drug delivery, and homicide. Regarding violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Horn (2008) argues that criminal charging for prenatal drug abuse creates a „de facto gender classification in that only mothers are prosecuted for their childrenÊs injuries‰ and produces disparity in criminalization that is directly tied to the socioeconomic and minority status of women (847). Research by legal scholars reveals changes over the last three decades in state prosecutorsÊ strategies to criminalize and punish drug-using pregnant woman even in the face of overwhelming and fairly consistent state appellate reversals of prosecution and convictions. Legal scholars have argued that prosecution is unconstitutional

232

|

Women Criminals

and targets poor minority women who have the least opportunity to change the social and economic conditions that are associated with drug use. Furthermore, it is argued that aggressively prosecuting drug use among this vulnerable population of women creates an obstacle to obtaining the medical care and treatment necessary for mother and fetus. Proponents argue for a more public health approach to confronting the social problems posed by pregnant women abusing drugs and alcohol. BATTERED WOMEN, THE LAW, AND CRIMINALIZATION Family violence is not a new or recent social phenomenon. Given the circumstances in which domestic violence typically takes place, it is difficult to accurately assess whether incidents of family violence have decreased over the last century. What we do know is that domestic violence continues to threaten family members, especially women and children. A brief look at the history of reform effects by religious leaders, feminists, and policy makers through the decades reveals that social and cultural embeddedness of domestic violence and the difficulty of providing protection to vulnerable family members persists even to this day. According to Pleck (1987), reform efforts in American history date back to the years between 1640 and 1680 when the Puritans passed the first laws against wife beating and „unnatural severity‰ to children. Not until over 200 years later did a second reform period (1874ă1890) emerge in American history. This second epoch of reform saw the creation of societies for the prevention of child cruelty, women battering, and incest. A third period of reform began in 1962 focused on describing „the battered child syndrome‰ (Pleck). Reform efforts toward the prevention of wife beating and marital rape emerge approximately 10 years later. Although reformersÊ attempted to expose the prevalence of women battering and family violence and to change cultural implicit acceptance or willingness to ignore the presence of domestic violence in American society, advocates always confronted the „family ideal‰ as a major barrier to creating a widespread and serious social and legal reforms. This culturally defined image espoused „family privacy, conjugal and parental rights, and family stability‰ centered on patriarchal control and construction of the daily lives and opportunities of spouse and children (Pleck, 1987: 9). PleckÊs historical analysis reveals how reform efforts collided head on with social and cultural conceptions of the family and is reflected well in the following statement: „reform against family violence is an implicit critique of each element of the Family Ideal. It inevitably asserts that family violence is a public matter, not a private issue. Public policy against domestic violence offers state intervention in the family as a major remedy for abuse, challenges the view that marriage and family should be preserved at all costs, and asserts that children and women are individuals whose liberties must be protected‰ (Pleck, 1987: 9). Family privacy delineated the private

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 233

from the public sphere·the latter encompassing all that that is not the immediate nuclear family. Domestic violence, whether directed to spouse or to children, was not the business of neighbors, law enforcement, or the courts. The expectation of secrecy resulting from the family privacy prong of the ideal family model created a threatening obstacle to women and children seeking help and protection against violence directed toward them often by male heads of household. This „family ideal‰ survives across centuries and has only relatively recently come under attack by public officials, law enforcement, and the courts. In the past 30 years, domestic violence has increasingly been defined as a social problem requiring intervention by law enforcement. Criminalization of domestic violence has taken the form of mandatory arrest policies and increased prosecution of assaults, regardless of the victimÊs desire to have law enforcement and the criminal justice system enter into family matters. Research provides mixed findings of whether these policies and practices result in a reduction of domestic violence. Retaliation for calling the police and testifying in court can place the victim in further harm. Victim unwillingness to cooperate with prosecution poses uncertainty about successful criminalization of the violence. Battered women often enter the criminal justice system, not as a victim, but as a defendant charged with murder. Statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that approximately 9 percent of all homicides victims in the United States are killed by their spouse, with women far more likely to be victims than men. For the past three decades, the legal system has been forced to confront the question of whether a history of abuse is a legal defense against criminal culpability. The law provides two categories of defenses against culpability: justifications and excuses (Ogle and Jacobs, 2002). Both categories are potentially relevant to battered women who kill their abuser. Justification defenses argue that the killing of an abuser, otherwise legally criminal, is justified as a reasonable self-defense given the threatening context confronted. Elements of the crime and the womenÊs role are not in question. Excuse defenses argue against legal culpability based on circumstances or conditions that absolve the defendant from having acted in ways that would otherwise be criminally liable. Again, the elements of the crime and the womenÊs role in committing the act are not in question. GillespieÊs (1989) and WalkerÊs (1989) analyses of the gender-biased law of selfdefense in how courts and prosecutors apply it was revealing two decades ago and continues to be relevant today. Gillespie outlined three dimensions of the law of self-defense „in action‰ that disadvantage battered womenÊs using the law as a basis for a successful defense against legal culpability against killing the womanÊs abuser (1989: 50). According to Gillespie, the first aspect of the law of self-defense that poses difficulty for women is the requirement that the threatened harm to the women be sufficiently serious to legally justify taking the life of another (Gillespie, 1989: 50ă67). Historically, the notion of a serious threat involved the use of

234

|

Women Criminals

a deadly weapon such as a gun or a knife. Drawing from observations of most assaults against women, especially in domestic violence situations, the batterer uses his feet, fists, and hands. In some courts, such assaults are not defined as resulting in sufficiently serious harm to the women to legally justify taking the battererÊs life. Gillespie further points out the typical domestic violence situation faced by battered women, namely, repeated and frequent assaults in the past, is often used as evidence that the women had no reason to believe that the incident assault would result in more serious harm than she had experienced in the past. Therefore, the self-defense requirement of threat of sufficiently serious harm that would justify homicide of the batterer is argued by prosecutors to be absent in most battered womenÊs cases. Gillespie argued that the assumption that the incident assault will not be more serious than past assaults is not supported by research indicating that seriousness of domestic violence escalates with each incident. The second aspect of the law that Gillespie (1989) and Walker (1989) identified as posing a difficult obstacle for women to meet in arguing justifiable homicide is the self-defense requirement that the threatened harm is imminent. Gillespie argued that the „single brief episode‰ interpretation of imminent harm does not adequately capture the ongoing nature of domestic violence. She emphasized that battered women live in what amounts to continual threat of imminent harm. Gillespie stated that „the threat of violence is a permanent and ongoing part of a battered womanÊs life. The question is not whether he will beat her up again but when, and not whether he will injure her but how badly or whether he will kill her this time‰ (1989: 68). As such, the legal requirement of imminent harm associated with justifiable homicide does not adequately capture the realities confronted by battered women. The third dimension of the law of self-defense that has posed considerable difficulties to battered women is the requirement that the person retreat from the potentially threatening situation. As Gillespie noted, this requirement has been interpreted by the courts to require „an affirmative obligation to escape, or to try to escape, where there is an opportunity to do so‰ (1989: 79). Gillespie argued that the constant state of fear that battered women experience prevents most women from realistically considering escaping their batterer. She asserted that „the greatest burdens a battered women defendant faces at trial are, first finding a way to explain to the jury how living constantly with violence and the threat of violence affected her view of her situation, and, second convincing them that her fear of serious injury or death was reasonable‰ (123). With research findings of the „learned helplessness‰ characterizing battered womenÊs perception of their situation and the need to address in court prosecutorÊs and law enforcementÊs assertion of the unreasonableness of the womanÊs lethal attack of the batterer, expert witnesses are called on behalf of the battered woman defendant. As noted by Gillespie, expert witness testimony of the battered women syndrome is used to explain to jurors the reasonableness of the womenÊs lethal action against the batterer, not as a legal justification for the action (159). Furthermore, Gillespie pointed out that the syndrome is not used as the basis of an insanity defense.

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 235

The battered women syndrome, described by Walker (1979), has been used as a supplement to self-defense with little success in the criminal justice system. The syndrome is an example of an excuse defense against legal culpability. Walker tied the syndrome to a three-stage pattern characterizing what she referred to as a cycle of battering. The first stage of the cycle is described as beginning with a period of tension-building during which the batterer intimidates, degrades, and threatens the victim. During this stage, the victim overcomplies with the battererÊs demands as a way to put off or avoid impending battering. The second stage is the actually violent battering in which the batterer attempts to exert control over the women. The third stage involves battererÊs expresses contrition for the battering, promises to stop the abuse, and attempts to reconcile with the battered woman as a way to convince the woman to stay in the relationship. Central to WalkerÊs description of the battered women syndrome is the psychological state of „learned helplessness‰ that develops after repeated battering that extends over years. This „learned helplessness‰ is relied upon as an explanation for why the victim remained in the battering relationship and in time takes the life of the batterer. Some researchers (e.g., Browne, 1987) have argued that women who kill their batterer are acting less from a „learned helplessness‰ and more from a reasonable survival strategy. At this time, all jurisdictions allow expert witnesses to testify regarding claims to support battered women syndrome as part of a self-defense claim against legal culpability (Browne, 2009). California, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming have codified the use of the battered women syndrome into statutory law. Courts have become increasingly more willing to allow expert testimony about battered women syndrome and have extended the syndrome to include men·referred to as the „battered spouse syndrome‰ or the „battered husbandÊs syndrome‰ (Wright, 2009). Recently, arguments have been put forward in support for creating a general and all-encompassing term, the „domestic abuse syndrome‰ (Wright, 2009), to be used as a self-defense plea when adults or children who have been victims of domestic abuse kill their abusers. Clearly, during the past three decades, the problems of domestic abuse has been transformed from being part of the private sphere of the family to being part of the public sphere of law enforcement and the courts. Self-defense, either on the basis of excuse or justification, has become an available legal defense for victims of domestic abuse. (See also the essay on „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending.‰) References Albonetti, Celesta. 1986. Criminality, Prosecutorial Screening, and Uncertainty: Toward a Theory of Discretionary Decision-Making in Felony Case Processing. Criminology. 24: 623ă44. Albonetti, Celesta. 1987. Prosecutorial Discretion: The Effects of Uncertainty. Law and Society Review. 21: 291ă313. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1991. An Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial Discretion. Social Problems 38: 247ă266.

236

|

Women Criminals

Albonetti, Celesta A. 1992. The Symbolic Punishment of White-Collar Offenders. In George Bridges and Martha Myers (eds.) Inequality, Crime, and Social Control, 269ă282. Boulder, CO: Westview. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1994. Data Problems Relevant to Research on the Impact of Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter. 6: 33ă35. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1997. Sentencing Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: An Analysis of the Effects of Defendant Characteristics, Guilty Pleas, and Departures on Sentencing Outcomes for Drug Offenders, 1991ă1992. Law & Society Review 31: 601ă634. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1998a. Direct and Indirect Effects of Case Complexity, Guilty Pleas and Offender Characteristics on Sentencing for Offenders Convicted of a White-Collar Offense Prior to Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 14: 353ă378. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1998b. The Role of Gender and Departures in the Sentencing of Defendants Convicted of a White Collar Offense Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance 1: 3ă48. Albonetti, Celesta A. 1999. The Avoidance of Punishment: A Legal Bureaucratic Model of Suspended Sentences in Federal White-Collar Cases Prior to Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Social Forces 78: 303ă329. Albonetti, Celesta A. 2002a. The Effects of the „Safety Valve‰ Amendment on Length of Imprisonment for Cocaine Trafficking/Manufacturing Offenders: Mitigating the Effects of Mandatory Minimum Penalties and OffenderÊs Ethnicity. Iowa Law Review 87: 401ă433. Albonetti, Celesta A. 2002b. The Joint Conditioning Effect of DefendantÊs Gender and Ethnicity on Length of Imprisonment Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines For Drug Trafficking/Manufacturing Offenders. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice 6: 39ă60. Albonetti, Celesta A., and John Hepburn. 1996. Prosecutorial Discretion to Defer Criminalization: The Effects of DefendantÊs Ascribed and Achieved Status Characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 12: 63ă81. American Law Institute. 1962. Model Penal Code §230.31. Model Penal Code. Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute. Benson, Michael, and E. Walker. 1988. Sentencing the White-Collar Offender. American Sociological Review 53: 294ă302. Bernstein, Janessa L. 2008. The Underground Railroad to Reproductive Freedom: Restrictive Abortion Laws and the Resulting Backlash. Brooklyn Law Review 73: 1463ă1508. Bickle, Gayle S., and Ruth D. Peterson. 1991. The Impact of Gender-Based Family Roles On Criminal Sentencing. Social Problems 38: 373ă394. Blumberg, Abraham. 1967. The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession. Law & Society Review: 15: 15ă20. Browne, Angela. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: Free Press. Browne, Angela. 2009. Tenth Annual Review of Gender and Sexuality Law: Criminal Law Chapter: Battered Woman Syndrome. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 10: 333ă349. Buell, Samuel W. 1991. Criminal Abortion Revisited. New York University Law Review 66: 1774ă1831. Chesney-Lind, Meda. 1977. Judicial Paternalism and the Female Status Offender: Training Women to Know their Place. Crime and Delinquency 23: 121ă130. Daly, Kathleen. 1987a. Discrimination in the Criminal Courts: Family, Gender, and the Problem of Equal Treatment. Social Forces 66: 152ă175. Daly, Kathleen. 1987b. Structure and Practice of Familial-Based Justice in Criminal Courts. Law & Society Review 21: 268ă290. Dellapenna, Joseph W. 2006. Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 237

Eisenstein, James, and Herbert Jacob. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis Of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little Brown. Engen, Rodney, Randy Gainey, Robert Crutchfield, and Joseph Weis. 2003. Discretion and Disparity Under Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Departures and Structured Sentencing Alternatives. Criminology 41: 99ă130. Engen, Rodney, and Sara Steen. 2000. The Power to Punish: Discretion and Sentencing Reform in the War on Drugs. American Journal of Sociology 105: 1357ă1395. Fentiman, Linda C. 2009a. Pursuing the Perfect Mother: Why AmericaÊs Criminalization Of Maternal Substance Abuse Is Not the Answer·A Comparative Legal Analysis. Journal of Gender and Law 15: 389ă465. Fentiman, Linda C. 2009b. In the Name of Fetal Protection: Why American Prosecutors Pursue Drug Users (and other Countries DonÊt). Columbia Journal of Gender And Law 18: 647ă669. Flemming, Roy B., Peter F. Nardulli, and James Eisenstein. 1992. The Craft of Justice: Politics and Work in Criminal Court Communities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gillespie, Cynthia K. 1989. Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense, and the Law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Green, Edward. 1961. Judicial Attitudes in Sentencing. London: Macmillian. Hagan, John. 1974. Extra-legal Attributes and Criminal Sentencing: An Assessment of Sociological Viewpoint. Law & Society Review 8: 357ă383. Horn, Meghan. 2008. Note: Mothers Versus Babies: Constitutional and Policy Problems with Prosecutions for Prenatal Maternal Substance Abuse. William & Mary Journal of Women & Law 14: 635ă657. Johnson, Brian. 2006. The Multilevel Context of Criminal Sentencing: Integrating Judge- and County-Level Influences. Criminology 44: 259ă298. Johnson, Kirk. 2010. Utah Anti-Abortion Bill Citing „Reckless Act‰ Is Withdrawn. New York Times, March 5, 2010. Kautt, Paula M. 2002. Location, Location, Location: Interdistrict and Intercircuit Variation in Sentencing Outcomes for Federal Drug-Trafficking Offenses. Justice Quarterly 19: 633ă671. Kramer, John H., and Jeffery T. Ulmer. 2009. Sentencing Guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publications. Koons-Witt, Barbara A. 2002. The Effect of Gender on the Decision to Incarcerate before and after the Introduction of Sentencing Guidelines. Criminology 40: 297ă327. Means, Cyril C., Jr. 1968. The Law of New York Concerning Abortion and the Status of the Foetus, 1664ă1968: A Case of Cessation of Constitutionality. New York Law Forum 14: 411ă515. Miethe, Terence. 1987. Charging and Plea Bargaining Practices Under Determinate Sentencing: An Investigation of the Hydraulic Displacement of Discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78: 155ă176. Mohr, James C. 1978. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800ă 1900. New York: Oxford University Press. Myers, Martha A., and John Hagan. 1979. Private and Public Trouble: Prosecutors and the Allocation of Court Resources. Social Problems 26: 439ă451. Nagel, I., and Brian Johnson. 1994. The Role of Gender in a Structured System: Equal Treatment, Policy Choices, and the Sentencing of Female Offenders Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85: 181ă221. Nagel, Ilene, John Cardascia, and Catherine Ross. 1980. Institutional Sexism: The Case in Criminal Court. In Discrimination in Organizations, edited by R. Alvarez. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

238

|

Women Criminals

Nagel, Ilene, and John Hagan. 1983. Gender and Crime: Offense Patterns and Criminal Court Sanctions. In Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, vol. 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ogle, Robbin S., and Susan Jacobs. 2002. Self-Defense and Battered Women Who Kill. Westport, CT: Praeger. Peterson, Ruth D., and John Hagan. 1984. Changing Conceptions of Race and Sentencing Decisions. American Sociological Review 49: 56ă70. Phillips, Scott. 2009. Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment. Law & Society Review 43: 807ă837. Pleck, Elizabeth. 1987. Domestic Tyranny: The Making of American Social Policy Against Family Violence from Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press. Pollak, Otto. 1961. The Criminality of Women. Reprint ed. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co. Perpetua Books. Orig. pub. 1950. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Raeder, Myrna. 1995. The Forgotten Offender: The Effect of the Sentencing and Mandatory Minimums on Women and Their Children. Federal Sentencing Reporter 8: 157ă162. Rapaport, Elizabeth. 2000. Equality of the Damned: The Execution of Women on the Cusp of the 21st Century. Ohio Northern University Law Review 26: 581ă600. Segrave, Kerry 2008. Women and Capital Punishment in America, 1840ă1899. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Sevigny, Eric L. 2009. Excessive Uniformity in Federal Drug Sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25: 155ă180. Smart, Carol. 1977. Women, Crime and Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Spivack, Carla. 2007. To „Bring Down the Flowers‰: The Cultural Context of Abortion Law in Early Modern England. William & Mary Journal of Women & Law 14: 107ă151. Spohn, Cassia, John Gruhl, and S. Welch. 1987. The Impact of the Ethnicity and Gender of Defendants on the Decision to Reject or Dismiss Felony Charges. Criminology 25: 175ă191. Stanko, Elizabeth Anne. 1982. The Impact of Victim Assessment on ProsecutorÊs Screening Decisions: The Case of the New York County District AttorneyÊs Office. Law & Society Review 16: 225ă239. Steffensmeier, Darrell, John H. Kramer, and Cathy Streifel. 1993. Gender and Imprisonment Decisions. Criminology 31: 411ă446. Steffensmeier, Darrell J., Jeffrey T. Ulmer, and John H. Kramer. 1998. The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Costs of Being Young, Black, and Male. Criminology 36: 763ă797. Streib, Victor L. 2002. Gendering the Death Penalty: Countering Sex Bias in Masculine Sanctuary. Ohio State Law Journal 63: 433ă472. Streib, Victor L. 2006. The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Ulmer, Jeffrey T. 1997. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany: State University of New York. Ulmer, Jeffrey T. 2005. The Localized Uses of Federal Sentencing Guidelines in Four United States District Courts: Evidence of Processual Order. Symbolic Interaction 28: 255ă279. Ulmer, Jeffrey T., and John Kramer. 1996. Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity. Criminology 3: 306ă332. Ulmer, Jeffrey T., Megan C. Kurlychek, and John Kramer. 2007. Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44: 427ă458.

Women, Law, and the Legal System

| 239

Walker, Leonore. 1979. The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer. Walker, Leonore. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper & Row. Weisburd, David, Stanton Wheeler, Elin Waring, and Nancy Bode. 1991. Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wheeler, Stanton, David Weisburd, and Nancy Bode. 1982. Sentencing the White-Collar Offender: Rhetoric and Realty. American Sociological Review 47: 641ă659. Wright, Nancy. 2009. Voice for the Voiceless: The Case for Adopting the „Domestic Abuse Syndrome‰ for Self-Defense Purposes for All Victims of Domestic Violence Who Kill Their Abusers. Criminal Law Brief 4: 76ă94.

Further Reading Cairns, Kathleen A. 2007. The Enigma Women: The Death Sentence of Nellie May Madison. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Campbell, Nancy D. 2006. Women as Perpetrators of Crime: The Construction Of Pregnant DrugUsing Women as Criminal Perpetrators. Fordham Urban Law Journal 33: 463ă489. Goodmark, Leigh. 2008. When Is A Battered Woman Not a Battered Woman? When She Fights Back. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 20: 75ă128. Gorski, Ashley. 2009. The Author of Her Trouble: Abortion in Nineteenth- and Early TwentiethCentury Judicial Discourses. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 32: 431ă462. Howarth, Joan W. 1994. Deciding to Kill: Revealing the Gender in the Task Handed to Capital Jurors. Wisconsin Law Review: 1345ă1424. Jacobsen, Carol, Kammy Mizga, and Lynn DÊOrio. 2007. Battered Women, Homicide Convictions, and Sentencing: The Case for Clemency. Hastings WomenÊs Law Journal 18: 31ă62. Piehl, Ann Morrison, and Shawn D. Bushway. 2007. Measuring and Explaining Charge Bargaining. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23: 105ă125. Pleck, Elizabeth. 2006. Women as Perpetrators of Crime: Rare and Inconsistent: The Death Penalty for Women. Fordham Urban Law Journal 33: 609ă629. Rapaport, Elizabeth. 2001. Staying Alive: Executive Clemency, Equal Protection, and the Politics of Gender in WomenÊs Capital Cases. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 4: 967ă1007. Schneider, Elizabeth M. 2000. Battered Women and Feminist Law-Making. Yale University Press. Schulberg, David E. 2000. The Execution of Females. Orange County Lawyer 42: 25ă32. Shapiro, Andrea. 2000. Unequal Before the Law: Men, Women and the Death Penalty. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 8: 427ă470. Siegal, Reva. 1992. Reasoning from the Body: A Historical Perspective on Abortion Regulation and Questions of Equal Protection. Stanford Law Review 44: 261ă381. Siegel, Reva B. 2009. The Constitutional Law and Politics of Reproductive Rights. Yale Law Journal 118: 1312ă1317. Unah, Isaac. 2009. Choosing Those Who Will Die: The Effect of Race, Gender, and Law in Prosecutorial Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in Durham County, North Carolina. Michigan Journal of Race & Law 15: 135ă179. Wilmot, Keith A., and Cassia Spohn. 2004. Prosecutorial Discretion and Real-Offense Sentencing: An Analysis of Relevant Conduct Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Criminal Justice Policy Review 15: 324ă343.

This page intentionally left blank

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND WOMEN: CORRECTIONS AND CORRECTIONAL ISSUES Barbara A. Koons-Witt and Gillian M. Pinchevsky

INCARCERATION TRENDS Until recently, women have largely been overlooked in the criminal justice system. Much of the previous research focused on males because males have historically committed the largest number of crimes and comprised the largest percentage of the imprisoned population. Although men remain the overwhelming majority of individuals imprisoned in state and local jails, womenÊs rates of incarceration have increased so dramatically they can no longer be ignored. Between 1980 and 1997, the number of women in state and federal prisons increased from approximately 12,300 to 82,800, or an increase of 573 percent (Mauer, Potler, & Wolf, 1999). Although rates of increase have slowed in recent years, the number of female prisoners under jurisdiction has continued to grow. In fact, the average annual change between 2000 and 2007 in the percentage of female prisoners under jurisdiction (includes federal, state, local jails) surpassed both the total average annual change and average annual change for males for the same time period (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009). On average, the annual change between 2000 and 2007 for female prisoners under state and federal jurisdiction was 3.0 percent while the total average annual change and average annual change for males was 2.0 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. In total, there were 1,610,446 inmates under jurisdiction of state and federal prisons by the year-end 2008 (see Table 5). Although the number of prisoners reached an all-time year-end high, the growth rate between 2007 and 2008 (0.8%) was the smallest annual increase in the prison population since 2000. Nonetheless, the rate of female imprisonment continued to rise with females making up approximately 7 percent of the incarcerated population at the end of 2008. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of females under jurisdiction of state and federal prisons increased from 93,234 female prisoners in 2000 to 114,852 in 2008, roughly a 23 percent increase (Sabol et al., 2009). 241

242 |

Women Criminals

Number of Prisoners under State and Federal Jurisdiction, by Sentence Length, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Gender, 2008 TABLE 5

Total

Male

Female

1,610,446

1,495,594

114,852

1,540,036

1,434,784

105,252

Whiteb

591,900

562,800

29,100

b

Black

528,200

477,500

50,700

Hispanic

313,100

295,800

17,300

Prisoners by sentence length Total under jurisdiction Sentenced to more than one year a

Estimated prisoners by race

Based on prisoners sentenced to more than one year. Excludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two or more races. a

b

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Imprisonment Rate per 100,000 Persons in the U.S. Resident Population, by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Gender, 2008 TABLE 6

Male

Female

Totala

952

62

Whiteb

487

50

b

Black

3,161

149

Hispanic

1,200

75

Note: Imprisonment rates are the number of prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction sentenced to more than 1 year per 100,000 persons in the U.S. resident population in the referenced group. a Total includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two or more races. b

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

The imprisonment rate among females varies by racial group. Black females (149 per 100,000) have the highest imprisonment rate of all racial groups with rates triple that of white females (50 per 100,000) and double the rate of Hispanic females (75 per 100,000; see Table 6). Nonetheless, black female imprisonment rates have experienced a decline since 2000 (Sabol et al., 2009; West & Sabol, 2008).

Criminal Justice System and Women | 243

Estimated Percent of Sentenced Prisoners under State Jurisdiction, by Offense and Gender, Year-end 2006 TABLE 7

Offense

All inmates

Total Violent Murder

a

Male

Female

100.0

100.0

100.0

50.2

51.5

32.3

10.9

11.0

9.5

Manslaughter

1.3

1.2

2.0

Rape

4.1

4.4

0.5

Other sexual assault

7.9

8.4

1.5

Robbery

13.5

13.9

7.7

Assault

10.3

10.4

8.5

2.3

2.2

2.6

20.9

20.3

28.9

Burglary

10.4

10.7

6.2

Larceny

3.9

3.5

8.5

Motor vehicle theft

2.0

2.1

1.8

Fraud

2.6

2.0

10.2

Other property

2.0

2.0

2.3

20.0

19.4

27.5

Other violent Property

Drug offenses b

Public order offenses

8.4

8.6

6.7

Other/unspecifiedc

0.5

0.2

4.6

Note: Totals based on prisoners with a sentence of more than one year. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Includes negligent manslaughter.

a

Includes weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses. Includes juvenile offenses and other unspecified offense categories.

b

Source: Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Estimates from 2006 suggest that although a considerable percentage of women are sentenced to state prisons for violent crimes (32%), it pales in comparison to the percentage of men being sentenced for these crimes (51.5%). On the other hand, women are more likely to be sentenced to state prisons for both property offenses (28.9% for women vs. 20.3% for men) and drug offenses (27.5% for women vs. 19.4% for men) compared to their male counterparts (see Table 7). Criminal justice policies have played an integral role in increasing female incarceration rates. According to Sokoloff (2005), although policies including mandatory minimums, „three-strikes‰ laws, and „truth-in-sentencing‰ laws were enacted

244 |

Women Criminals

to combat violent male offenders, women have received similarly harsh, if not harsher, punishments. For example, while the War on Drugs campaign has affected both males and females, the consequences have been more devastating for females. According to Blumstein and Beck (1999), drug offenses made up 43 percent of the growth rate in the state female prison population between 1980 and 1996. The street-level emphasis of the war on drugs has implicated individuals ranging from minor players to heads of drug rings. A disproportionate number of women, especially those of minority status, have been „caught in the net‰ of the war on drugs policing and sentencing due to their engagement in lower-level drug trade activities (Greene & Pranis, 2006; Sokoloff, 2005). Drug offenses for males, on the other hand, only accounted for 28 percent of the growth rate in male prison populations. Even starker statistics involve the increase in drug offenses among females. Mauer and colleagues (1999) reported that between 1986 and 1996, the number of women incarcerated in state prisons for drug offenses rose by 888 percent. In addition, female incarceration rates have been influenced by sentencing guidelines that no longer allow judges to take child care responsibilities into consideration when determining penalties on individuals. As a result, a large number of imprisoned women have young children. In one study, almost 80 percent of the incarcerated women were mothers (Owen, 1998). Put simply, it may not necessarily be an increase in womenÊs criminality that is driving the incarceration rates; rather it may be due to changes in criminal justice policies (Sokoloff, 2005).

THE FEMALE PRISONER Female prisoners tend to reflect the economically and socially disadvantaged (Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003). They tend to be young (mid-thirties), single, undereducated, and underemployed (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). In addition, many women in the criminal justice system are usually primary caregivers to their children. According to Bloom and colleagues (2003), 65 percent of women in state prisons and 59 percent of women in federal prisons have an average of two children under the age of 18 years old. Women involved in the criminal justice system also have histories that seem to reflect their current situations with their own children. Nearly 60 percent of these women grew up in households where at least one parent figure was absent. Many others grew up in foster care or in group homes. Compared to men, incarcerated women are more likely to have at least one family member incarcerated. In addition, a large number of female inmates have extensive histories of lifetime physical and sexual abuse (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999; Chesney-Lind & Rodriguez, 1983; Gilfus, 1992; Lake, 1993,1995; McDaniels-Wilson & Belknap, 2008). For example, according to Browne and colleagues (1999), over 70 percent of women in the general

Criminal Justice System and Women | 245

corrections population reported being victims of severe physical violence from a caretaker during childhood or adolescence. Although imprisoned males also tend to report lifetime abuse and victimization, the rates are notoriously higher for imprisoned females. Despite the growing numbers of women under jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, we are only now beginning to understand specific issues that are unique to this particular offender population. Recent work has focused attention on gendered pathways to crime and gender-specific policies and practices for addressing the female offender population. In the remaining portion of this essay, we highlight correctional issues that affect incarcerated women.

WOMEN AND PATHWAYS TO PRISON Significant increases in incarceration rates for women over the last 30 years has prompted a considerable amount of interest in explaining womenÊs criminality, examining the reasons for their increasing involvement in the criminal justice system, and exploring the implications of a growing women offender population for corrections in terms of assessment, supervision and management, programming, and community reentry. Criminologists increasingly believe that female offenders take different pathways in and out of the criminal justice system compared to male offenders (Belknap, 2007; Daly, 1992; Holsinger, 2000). It is assumed that these distinct pathways are shaped by gender as well as both adolescent and adult background characteristics. These experiences may be more emblematic of femalesÊ lives as compared to malesÊ lives, or in some cases, may be experienced equally by both genders, but key distinctions can occur in terms of their influence on females (Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). Criminologists recognize multiple paths to criminality for women. DalyÊs (1992) early work on female offending and pathways to felony courts identified five pathway perspectives for females: (1) harmed and harming women, (2) battered women, (3) street women, (4) drug-connected women, and (5) „other‰ women. Harmed and harming women experience a chaotic and highly dysfunctional childhood. In many cases, these women experience abuse, neglect by their parent(s), exposure to alcoholism by their parents, experience the death of a close adult during their adolescent years, and frequently relocation between caretakers. By their teen years, they are „acting out,‰ resorting to violence and recognized as being „out of control‰ or „difficult to manage.‰ Battered women include females who are involved in relationships with violent men (or former relationships). Daly found that these women committed offenses involving second-degree assault, first-degree manslaughter, and reckless endangerment·all of which were typically committed against their significant others (or former significant others).

246 |

Women Criminals

While similar to harmed and harming women, street women survive on the streets by hustling, prostitution, or selling drugs. According to Daly (1992), women included in this pathway have more extensive arrest and conviction records and have also spent more time in jail compared to women in other pathways. Additionally, street women have bad relationships with their parents, in some cases have experienced abuse in the home, and have „escaped‰ this setting while they were young. This particular pathway has been the focus of many criminologists who have documented the continued victimization, exploitation, and subsequent offending and drug use of females who leave home as girls; either their survival strategies are criminalized by the juvenile justice system, or they turn to prostitution, drugs, and other forms of crime in order to survive on the streets (Bloom et al., 2003; Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998; Gilfus, 1992; Herrera & McCloskey, 2003; Moe, 2004). Another pathway involves drug-connected women. Women in this group use or sell drugs because of their connections to boyfriends or family members. These are women who have yet to be heavily involved in street life and the criminal justice system. WomenÊs offending is tied to their relationships with others and their personal drug use is „recent and experimental‰ (Daly, 1992, 41). With respect to a fifth pathway, there are some women whose life experiences do not fall under the other pathways. The emerging literature on pathways maintains womenÊs criminality and desistance require different theoretical explanations and different approaches (i.e., management, programmatic). Given the relatively small number of women compared to men in the corrections system, the pathways perspective has been important in drawing key distinctions between the offender populations of both genders. This line of research is informative because time and again women offenders are supervised and managed within a corrections system that is dominated by policies and practices that are implemented for the majority population·males. Accordingly, correctional systems fail to respond to womenÊs unique needs and to supervise and manage them in ways that reflect these gendered differences. It is important for corrections to acknowledge these key differences and other unique issues for women in order respond to them appropriately within a system where they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by their male counterparts.

GENDER-RESPONSIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES In part, based on the pathways perspective, researchers have emphasized the need to design and implement gender-responsive policies and practices for women offenders. Historically, policies, programs, and services in institutional corrections have been developed and used to address male criminality and male pathways into crime. Although court systems have mandated that female offenders be given the same access to services and programs as their male counterparts, it has been noted

Criminal Justice System and Women | 247

that, compared to men, women have lived in and been subjected to poorer conditions, facilities, and/or programs (Collins & Collins, 1996). Research suggests that offenders have physical, emotional, and social issues that differ by gender and require different programming and services (Wells & Bright, 2005). Gender-responsive programs and services are those that „provide women in the system with service that, in both context (structure and environment) and content, are comprehensive and relate to the realities of their lives‰ (Covington & Bloom, 2000, 12). For example, women exhibit stronger attachments to their children, resulting in more anxiety and stress related to separation from their kids. Women also have more extensive histories of sexual and physical abuse when compared to men. Drug addiction programs that acknowledge these key differences and other unique issues for women have been successful in reducing recidivism (Wells & Bright, 2005). First appearing in the 1990s, several studies highlighted the need to provide and implement gender-responsive policies and practices for female offenders (Austin, Bloom, & Donahue, 1992; Bloom & Covington, 1998; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998; Owen & Bloom, 1995). In the late 1990s, Bloom and colleagues (2003), along with the National Institute of Corrections, collaborated on work involving genderresponse strategies and approaches to managing female offenders. Bloom and colleagues reported that although not everything in corrections is different between males and females, there are critical differences between sexes that have serious implications for the effective management of and programming and services for female offenders. Such gender-responsive policies and programs should address the intersection of substance abuse, victimization, mental health, social and economic marginality, and relationships. Bloom and colleagues (2003) identified six principles with which the criminal justice system should address female offenders. These principles involve the following: 1. Gender: Acknowledge that gender makes a difference. 2. Environment: Create an environment based on safety, respect, and dignity. 3. Relationships: Develop policies, practices, and programs that are relational and that promote healthy connections to children, family, significant others, and the community. 4. Services and supervision: Address substance abuse, trauma, and mental health issues through comprehensive, integrated, and culturally relevant services and appropriate supervision. 5. Socioeconomic status: Provide women with opportunities to improve their socioeconomic status. 6. Community: Establish a system of community supervision and reentry with comprehensive, collaborative services. (76)

248 |

Women Criminals

Most important, Bloom et al. (2003) maintained that gender is the most influential of the principles in terms of how women who come into contact with the criminal justice system are handled. The long-standing debate of whether females should be treated in an identical manner (i.e., „equal‰) as men or treated differently reflects this issue. While the equality or parity position dominated corrections throughout the 1960s and into the 1980s, some researchers have cautioned against supporting such a position. For example, Chesney-Lind (e.g. 2003) and others have warned that equality will be measured using a „male standard.‰ According to this argument, arguing for equality, therefore, would result in women being sanctioned more harshly for their offenses (i.e., serving longer prison sentences) or in women receiving programs and services that are inadequate and fail to address their specific needs or pathways to crime (Britton, 2000; Rafter, 1993). On the other hand, there are those who argue that equity is the more appropriate position to take. In other words, equal treatment (i.e., identical policies and practices) does not necessarily mean that both male and female offenders should receive the same programming or policies. Recognizing the importance and influence of gender acknowledges the fact that women take different pathways into the criminal justice system than their male counterparts, experience prison differently, are less threatening to the prison environment and the community than men, and have overall different life experiences. These experiences are often shaped by prior abuse and victimization, drug addictions, mental health issues, parenting roles, and education and employment backgrounds (Bloom et al., 2003). Additionally, women need a supportive and respectful environment where they feel safe. It is important that criminal justice workers and institutions acknowledge the extensive abuse histories of women offenders and work to make sure these oppressive structures and experiences are not re-created within criminal justice settings such as corrections. Likewise, females tend to be more relational than males, therefore gender-responsive policies and practices ought to encourage healthy and functional relationships with their children, family members, and significant others, as well as connections to the community (Bloom et al., 2003). MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND WOMEN PRISONERS Background Prior to the 1960s, much of what was known about female prisoners was simply gleaned from studies based on imprisoned males. Classic prison studies by Clemmer (1940) and Sykes (1958) gave insight into male prisoner communities with focuses on inmate codes and the inmate social system. Although the first studies of prisons focused on male inmates, classic studies of imprisoned females do exist (Giallombardo, 1966; Heffernan, 1972; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). These studies

Criminal Justice System and Women | 249

often used what was known about male prison communities as a point of reference. In addition, these studies tended to focus, and perhaps overstate, the sexual and social structure of female prisons. Ward and KassebaumÊs (1965) and GiallombardoÊs (1966) studies of female inmates exposed the prevalence of inmate relationships as a coping mechanism for dealing with the pains of imprisonment. Homosexual relationships and pseudo-familial relationships became especially important for women to regain status and control. These relationships paralleled the gender and sex roles they had assumed in the free world. In addition to the interest of sexual and familial relationships in female prisons, early studies of incarcerated women also attempted to assess the level of cohesion and prisonization among inmates. Prisonization is the degree of inmate culture embraced by inmates in an institution (Clemmer, 1940). In comparison to male prisoners, Ward and Kassebaum (1965) and Heffernan (1972) found that women experienced less inmate cohesion and adherence to inmate code; however, there was evidence of a female prison argot or specialized language among inmates (Heffernan, 1972). The specialized argot was part of the overarching social system to buffer women from the pains of imprisonment. Gender Differences in Prison Adaptations Although both men and women adapt to life behind prison walls, they seem to have different ways of „doing time.‰ Interestingly, however, many women compare their experience in prison to that of their male counterparts (Owen, 1998). Nonetheless, a consensus among researchers seems to suggest there are key differences. For one, women do not appear to hold as much allegiance to the inmate code as do males (Owen, 1998; Tittle, 1969; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). The inmate code, for example, includes things like solidarity among inmates. This finding is supported by both inmate and correctional officer reactions. Research seems to support the idea that women tend to affiliate with one best friend or a small group of friends as opposed to the large collective inmate population (Greer, 2000; Kruttschnitt, Gartner, & Miller, 2000; Tittle, 1969). According to one woman, „the men have everything. They stick together. The women are afraid . . . they donÊt want to stay here any longer than they have to‰ (Owen, 1998, 73). As a result, women engage in interpersonal relationships with smaller groups. Interestingly, more recent research seems to suggest a change in how females view interpersonal relationships in prison. According to Greer (2000), interpersonal relationships are viewed with distrust and manipulation, and inmates tend to make a stark contrast between friends and associates. An associate describes a simple interaction between two inmates while a friend is a far more difficult status to attain. In fact, out of the 35 women she intensively interviewed, 60 percent described themselves as loners at one point in the interview. Nonetheless, most women also reported having at least one inmate she considered a friend.

250

|

Women Criminals

Sexual relationships are also an important aspect of female prisons. Although sexual relationships among inmates are not unique to female prisons, early research has suggested they serve differential functions in female and male prisons. According to Tittle (1969), homosexuality among female inmates seemingly reflects affective and stable relationships while homosexuality among male inmates tends to serve a purely physical gratification and economically manipulative purpose. Within female prisons, early research suggested that sexual relationships among inmates were not uncommon (Ward & Kassebaum, 1965; Giallombardo, 1966; Heffernan, 1972). In an attempt to deal with the pains of imprisonment and the depersonalization that accompanies incarceration, many women engage in sexual relationships with other inmates to feel a sense of self-worth. Recent research by Greer (2000) confirms evidence of homosexuality within female prisons; however, the research brings to light how women may have different reasons for engaging in these behaviors. Unlike early research suggesting that homosexuality based on genuine affection and compatibility was a common adaptation to prison life, Greer (2000) reported that sexual relationships were based more on economic motivations and manipulations. According to the study, 71 percent of inmates sampled reported economic motivations as a primary reason for prison sexual relationships, while 51 percent reported a primary reason as a need for companionship. Similar to views on inmate friendships, Greer (2000) found that women prisoners viewed sexual relationships with contempt and mistrust. Death Penalty and Women Prisoners At the end of 2008, there were 3,207 prisoners on death row in the United States (Snell, 2009). Approximately 98 percent of these prisoners were men (3,149 prisoners), and the remaining 2 percent were women (58 prisoners). During 2008, women were under a sentence of death in 17 states and at the federal level. A little over twothirds of women on death row were in five states (California, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Alabama). California housed the most number of women on death row (15 women or 25.9%), followed by Texas (10 women or 17.2%), Pennsylvania (5 women or 8.6%), North Carolina (5 women or 8.6%), and Alabama (4 women or 6.9%; See Table 8). There were 2 women (3.4%) sentenced to death in the federal system (Snell, 2009). Of the 58 women serving on death row in the United States at the end of 2008, 69 percent of them were white and approximately 26 percent were black. This compares with 56 percent of males on death row who were white and 42 percent of males who were black during the same time period (Snell, 2009). A total of 50 women were executed between 1903 and 2005 in 20 different states and in the federal system. New York has executed the most number of women (7 or 14%), followed by Oklahoma (4 or 8%), Alabama (4 or 8%), and California

Criminal Justice System and Women | 251

TABLE 8

Women Under Sentence of Death by Race and Jurisdiction, December 31,

2008 Jurisdiction

All racesa

Whiteb

Blackb

Total

58

40

15

California

15

11

2

Texas

10

6

4

Pennsylvania

5

2

3

North Carolina

5

2

2

Alabama

4

2

2

Mississippi

3

3

0

Federal

2

2

0

Louisiana

2

1

1

Tennessee

2

2

0

Arizona

2

2

0

Ohio

1

1

0

Florida

1

1

0

Georgia

1

1

0

Kentucky

1

1

0

Oklahoma

1

1

0

Virginia

1

1

0

Idaho

1

1

0

Indiana

1

0

1

Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

a

Excludes persons of Hispanic/Latino origin.

b

Source: Snell, T. L. (2009). Capital punishment, 2008: Statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

(4 or 8%). Approximately two-thirds of the women executed during this period were white, whereas 30 percent were black and 4 percent were from other racial groups. The majority of women (52%) were executed using electrocution. Other methods of execution used included hanging (16%), used prior to the 1940s; the gas chamber (14%); and lethal injection (18%), which has been predominantly used since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Management and Supervision of Women Prisoners Gender stereotypes have often shaped the manner in which women offenders have been treated within the corrections system. The handling of incarcerated women as children in terms of the system serving in a parental role toward women offenders

252

|

Women Criminals

is an approach that is steeped in the history of their custody and detention (Schram, Koons-Witt, & Morash, 2004). Accordingly, views of women as „passive, overly emotional, and childlike‰ has resulted in more control over their prison supervision along with „limited expectations of appropriate roles‰ for them in terms of needed correctional programming services·in other words those consistent with traditional gender roles (Schram et al., 2004). „Forced dependency,‰ a common characteristic of womenÊs prisons, erects barriers to empowerment and autonomy for women·all of which negatively impact womenÊs successful transition back into the larger society (Zaitzow, 2006). Schram and colleagues (2004) maintain that women may exhibit more emotions while incarcerated compared to men, but for women this might reflect a means of coping with their incarceration, separation from their children, and limited interactions with close family members and friends. In other words, their emotional state may be more reflective of this heightened level of anxiety and stress that they feel. The differential manner in which women experience their time in the corrections system should not be devalued or negatively labeled but should serve as an important factor in developing supervision strategies and appropriate training for managing incarcerated women. While researchers working in the corrections area often hear the adage „an inmate is an inmate‰ during their encounters with correctional administrators and staff, many of those working in the system readily admit to differences in managing female and male corrections facilities. Some of these differences are more tangible than others, such as unique medical needs of women and the presence of pregnant inmates in womenÊs prisons; however, countless other distinctions seem to influence the day-to-day working environments of corrections. Schram and colleaguesÊ (2004) examination of different management approaches based on gender supports this viewpoint. Their national study of correctional administrators found that almost 83 percent of them recognized the need for a different type of management approach when working with women inmates, whereas 10 percent provided a „mixed‰ response and 7 percent believed both men and women prisoners require the same approach (i.e., gender-neutral approach). When asked to explain what type of different approach was needed, correctional administrators overwhelmingly pointed to the need for distinctive interpersonal and communication skills (50%) and programmatic differences (20%) between males and females. Other reported differences included specific security needs (7%), a belief that women „do their time differently‰ (6%), and issues of empowerment (2%) for women offenders (Schram et al., 2004). For those administrators who acknowledged differences based on interpersonal and communication skills, many administrators perceived women offenders as being more verbal or talkative (24%), believed listening skills were essential (18%), and felt that women offenders negotiated with staff and asked more questions (18%) and that women were more emotional (15%).

Criminal Justice System and Women | 253

Correctional administrators viewed women as needing more communication and interaction so that they would feel more comfortable and free to discuss their feelings and experiences. Interestingly, most administrators in this study viewed these differences with female inmates in a positive light, yet not all administrators do (Schram et al., 2004). In his role as warden of a federal penitentiary for women in California, Turnbo (1993) experienced several significant differences in managing a prison housing women including (a) staff and inmate rapport, (b) response to authority and confinement, (c) level of inmate participation in operations and programs, and (d) inmatesÊ responsiveness to positive incentives. Similar to SchramÊs (2004) study, Turnbo (1993) found staff and inmate rapport to be noticeably different. Close interpersonal relationships between staff and inmates helped to ease prisonersÊ time while in confinement and fostered good levels of communication between correctional staff and women inmates. Also, staff members represented good role models for some of the women (Turnbo, 1993), and the positive rapport between staff and inmates promoted the delivery of programming and services to women who needed them. At times, close interrelationships between correctional staff and inmates were a cause for concern. According to Turnbo (1993), women developed strong relationships with other inmates and staff members and once returned to the community, the interruption to these interpersonal relationships became a source of difficulty in their transition to the community setting. Also, because of the setting and context in which these relationships were established, this sometimes lead to one or both parties being manipulated or taken advantage of the other (Turnbo, 1993). In many instances, it is these key differences that correctional administrators point to when acknowledging that working in a womenÊs prison is more difficult than working in a menÊs prison. It is a view that has reverberated throughout the history of womenÊs detention. In a historical account of womenÊs incarceration in 19th-century male prisons, Dodge (1999) found that prison matrons referred to female prisoners as being „more impulsive, more individual, more unreasonable and excitable than men‰ (912). This view persists today. PollockÊs (1995) work continues to suggest that working in womenÊs prisons is more difficult for correctional officers and staff than working in menÊs prisons because women inmates seek out more personal interaction with correctional officers and tend to be more expressive emotionally toward them. Corrections officers and staff members are not usually trained to recognize or understand these gendered differences; instead, they view women offenders as being more difficult and problematic. Assessment and Screening of Women Prisoners Despite differences between males and females in terms of adaptation to prison life and need for management and supervision, prisons have historically classified

254

|

Women Criminals

women offenders using instruments designed and developed for use with men inmates. Morash and colleaguesÊ national corrections study found that 39 of 50 states (78%) were using the same classification instrument for men and women prisoners. At that time only 3 states (6%) were using a unique classification designed for women to determine appropriate custody levels (Morash et al., 1998). Prior research has found that administrators are concerned with the overclassification of women into higher than necessary security levels when using male classification systems (Wright, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2007). There is a growing interest in the need to develop gender-responsive instruments for women in the corrections system (Farr, 2000; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Morash et al., 1998; Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001). Concerns with current custody classification systems led to a recent partnership between Van Voorhis and the National Institute of Corrections. As a result of this research initiative, Van Voorhis and colleagues recommended that corrections systems „adopt valid assessment tools to formulate risk levels and identify genderneutral and gender-responsive treatment needs‰ (Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2009). Related work in this area has resulted in a better understanding of where to properly place women within the corrections system, how to address prison misconducts by female offenders, and how to take into account the risk factors associated with desistance by women on probation and parole (Salisbury, Van Voorhis, Wright, & Bauman, 2009; Wright et al., 2009; Wright et al., 2007). CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS, SERVICES, AND WOMEN PRISONERS Abuse and Victimization For the typical female offender, the pathway to the criminal justice system often includes abuse, drug addictions, mental health problems, and disruptive family lives. Some may have even sought protection on the streets turning to prostitution, drug use, and other petty forms of crime as a way to survive (Chesney-Lind & Rodriguez, 1983; Gaarder & Belknap, 2002; Gilfus, 1992; McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; Moe, 2004). Both men and women prisoners often have extensive histories of abuse and victimization; however, the statistics for males pale in comparison to females. For example, in a 1999 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 16 percent of male and 57 percent of female state prison inmates reported experiencing some form of abuse prior to incarceration (Harlow, 1999). Other studies, however, paint an even starker picture. In a study of 150 women entering a New York maximum security prison, Browne and colleagues (1999) found that over two-thirds of the women reported experiencing severe physical violence by an adult caretaker and over half reported experiencing some form of sexual

Criminal Justice System and Women | 255

abuse by any individual during childhood and adolescence (Browne et al., 1999). These statistics far exceed those for women in the general population. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW), 40 percent of females reported experiencing some form of physical violence by an adult caretaker, and 9 percent reported being raped by anyone during childhood and adolescence (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Victimization is not unique to childhood and adolescence. Incarcerated females also have high estimates of adult victimization, both at the hands of intimate partners and non-intimates. According to Browne et al. (1999), 75 percent of their sample reported experiencing physical violence by their intimate partners in adulthood, and 77 percent reported physical or sexual violence at the hands of non-intimates. Again, the statistics exceed those for women in the general female population. In the community, approximately 22 percent of women reported experiencing physical violence by their intimate partner, and almost 40 percent reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violence by non-intimates (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Put simply, female inmates experience abuse at rates that exceed women in the general population as well as incarcerated men. Drug Use Some feel that a critical hurdle for women offenders who have a history of abuse is to build healthy and supportive relationships with others that „do not repeat their histories of loss, neglect, and abuse‰ (Covington, 2003, 74). Nonetheless, the connection between a history of abuse and problem behaviors is very real. Substance abuse addiction, for example, is not uncommon in a correctional population. Physical and/or sexual abuse is associated with substance use, as many women offenders with these experiences turn to drugs (i.e., self-medicate) in attempt to dull the pain and trauma of their victimization(s) (Chesney-Lind, 2000; McClellan et al., 1997; Morash & Schram, 2002). According to Vito and Tewksbury (2000), a greater percentage of women compared to men are likely to test positive for drugs such as cocaine and opiates at the time of their arrest. Researchers have found that, overall, illicit drug use is significantly higher for female inmates than male inmates (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; McClellan et al., 1997). In a study of male and female inmates in Texas, usage rates of crack cocaine for females and males were 54 percent and 33 percent, respectively, and 35 percent and 23 percent for heroin use, respectively (McClellan et al., 1997). Similarly, with the exception of alcohol use, women were more likely than men to be clinically dependent on illicit drugs. Sadly, despite the number of individuals in institutions with clear needs for services and treatments, current programs are lacking. Put simply, „the term Âcorrectional institutionsÊ becomes a poignant euphemism in a system that provides few programs to held redress the most basic needs and concerns of female inmates‰

256

|

Women Criminals

(Covington, 2001, 86). For example, even though increasing numbers of females are entering prisons with drug-related crimes and/or drug additions, only 20 percent of incarcerated women with addictions have received some type of treatment since their imprisonment (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). Mental Health Existing data also suggests that mental health issues are pervasive among the incarcerated population. In fact, there are three times as many mentally ill individuals incarcerated in U.S. prisons than are in psychiatric hospitals (Human Rights Watch, 2004). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2005, more than half of all prison and jail inmates had at least one mental health problem (James & Glaze, 2006). Broken down by gender, female inmates had higher rates of mental health problems than men: 73 percent of females in state prisons and 75 percent of females in local jails exhibited mental health problems compared to 55 percent of males in state prisons and 63 percent of males in local jails. Mental health problems are expressed differently in female prisoners than in male prisoners. Prior to incarceration, during incarceration, and after release, research time and again suggests that women are more likely than men to be diagnosed with or exhibit symptoms of depression and other mental disorders (James & Glaze, 2006; Lovell, Gagliardi, & Peterson, 2002; Magaletta et al., 2009; McClellan et al., 1997). Because mental health services in the community are more likely to be available for the most severe mental health problems, women with depression are less likely to receive treatment (Lovell et al. 2002). Institutional mental health treatment services for female offenders are lacking. In a study of 955 jailed female inmates, approximately 12 percent needed mental health services. However, of those inmates who needed services, only about 24 percent actually received the services (Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1997). There also appeared to be a differential in which mental health disorders received treatment. Approximately 48 percent of detainees with more severe disorders such as schizophrenia or manic episodes compared to 15 percent of detainees with depression received treatment; these statistics suggest that individuals with depression may be overlooked and suffer from the lack of treatment options. Moreover, prior treatment history also is predictive of the likelihood of receiving treatment, as those with prior treatment histories are more likely to receive services than those without prior treatment histories. Although the aforementioned issues are not solely unique to incarcerated females, they appear to be more of a problem when compared to males. Research consistently points to an association between mental health disorders and substance use. Co-occurring disorders typically refer to the coexisting presence of substance abuse and mental health disorders. Within the female correctional

Criminal Justice System and Women | 257

population, co-occurring disorders are common. In one study, 8 percent of females in jail had a co-occurring severe mental and substance use disorder (Abram, Teplin, & McClelland, 2003). However, when conditioning on having a mental health problem, the rates of co-occurring disorders becomes even starker·approximately 75 percent of women with a mental health problem also have a substance abuse problem (Abram et al., 2003; James & Glaze, 2006). Parenting Issues Viewed as „collateral consequences or costs‰ by some (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003), as many as two-thirds of women in state prisons leave behind at least one dependent child upon entering the corrections system (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). An estimated 1.7 million dependent children in the United States have at least one parent who is incarcerated. The forced separation of imprisoned mothers and their children is continuing to grow and has varying implications for families, especially black and Hispanic families. For instance, black children were almost nine times more likely to have an incarcerated parent than white children, whereas Hispanic children were three times more likely to have an incarcerated parent compared their white counterparts (Mumola, 2000). Still, families are much more likely to be disrupted by the incarceration of women than the incarceration of men (Bloom, 1993). Approximately 64 percent of mothers lived with their children either in the month before their arrest or just prior to incarceration compared to 46.5 percent of fathers (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008, see Table 9). The impact on families will no doubt persist as the number of incarcerated women continues to climb and as women serve longer sentences for their crimes (Snyder, 2009). In addition to wearing the label of convict, women offenders with children also carry the stigma of being „bad‰ or „unfit‰ mothers whose kids would be better off

Parents in State Prison Who Reported Living with their Minor Children in the Month before Arrest or just prior to Incarceration, by Gender, 2004 TABLE 9

Lived with their minor children

Total

Male

Female

In month before arrest In two-parent household In single-parent household

37.1% 17.9% 19.2%

35.5% 18.3% 17.2%

55.3% 13.6% 41.7%

Prior to incarceration

43.8%

42.4%

60.6%

Either in the month before arrest or just prior to incarceration

47.9%

46.5%

64.2%

Estimated number of parents in state prison

636,300

585,200

51,100

Source: Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

258

|

Women Criminals

without them (Covington, 2002; Morash & Schram, 2002; Snyder, 2009). Public views and criminal justice policies seem to reflect this sentiment. Morash and Schram (2002) maintain that, because of societal pressures and stereotyped motherhood expectations, female offenders are more harshly judged by the system than male offenders. For example, there is the belief that „women have a natural, maternal instinct,‰ and furthermore, it is only „natural for women to assume a caring role‰ (74). Therefore, when women offend and are incarcerated, they have failed to live up to a role that is inherent to their very nature·motherhood. Separation from their children is one of the most disconcerting issues women face while in prison (Zaitzow, 2006). They worry about who will care for and serve as guardian of their children while they are away. They fear they will never regain custody of their children. These mothers feel an array of emotions including concern, frustration, shame, guilt, and stress (Morash & Schram, 2002). During their incarceration, mothers can experience difficulties in maintaining relationships with their children. Contact between mothers and their children occur either through the mail, by telephone, or during prison visits (Sharp, 2003). Though 78 percent of female state prisoners reported having weekly contact with their kids, only 24 percent of these inmates noted that the contact was through personal visitations. Furthermore, 54 percent of incarcerated women never had a personal visit with their children during their imprisonment (Mumola, 2000). The occurrence of visitations is especially difficult between mothers and their children. Because there are fewer prisons for women because of their lower numbers, it is not unusual for women to be housed long distances from their kids (Sharp, 2003). Many of the children left behind in the community reside with relatives, typically their maternal grandparents; however, some are placed in foster homes and institutions and separated from their siblings (Bloom, 1993). More recent data indicates that children of state incarcerated mothers typically live with a grandparent (44.9%), the other parent (37.0%), or some other relative (22.87%) during their prison sentence (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; see also Covington, 2002; see Table 10). Having their children live with their relatives may provide women with some level of comfort and ease during the separation period. Women believe if children are placed with relatives they are not as likely to lose their parental rights. Some scholars believe these placements ought to be viewed with a certain amount of caution (Sharp, 2003). Caring for the children of incarcerated women adds unknown financial and emotional stresses on relatives and their families. When children reside with relatives who are not their legal guardians, children are not able to access state funds to assist with the financial burden (Morash & Schram, 2002). Women offenders often come from disruptive and chaotic families filled with violence, abuse, substance abuse, and criminal behavior (Zaitzow, 2006); their children may be placed in these same settings doomed to be exposed to the same tragic set of circumstances experienced by their own mothers (Sharp, 2003). Children may be

Criminal Justice System and Women | 259

Current Caregiver of Minor Children of Parents in State Prison, by Gender, 2004 TABLE 10

Children’s current caregivera

Total

Male

Female

Other parent

84.2%

88.4%

37.0%

Grandparent Grandmother Grandfather

15.1% 14.0% 4.3%

12.5% 11.6% 3.6%

44.9% 42.1% 12.0%

Other relatives

6.2%

4.7%

22.8%

2.9%

2.2%

10.9%

2.9%

2.4%

7.8%

636,3000

585,200

51,100

Foster home or agency b

Friends, others

Estimated number of parents in state prison

Includes all parents with minor children. Detail may sum to more than 100 percent because some prisoners had multiple caregivers. a

Includes inmates’ friends, friends of the inmate’s children, cases where the parent reported that the child now lived alone, and others.

b

Source: Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

placed with relatives who live in dangerous communities and may be moved from relative to relative. Sharp (2003) argues that we know very little about the consequences of these custodial placements for the children involved, and because of their heightened risk of involvement in the juvenile and adult legal system themselves, further research is necessary in order to fully understand what arrangements might be most beneficial for children of incarcerated mothers. The hardship on the children left behind is equally traumatic (Richie, 2001; Snyder, 2009). The separation of children from their mothers can negatively influence their well-being. Children exhibit a range of emotions including anger, fear, depression, and other emotional and behavior concerns including bedwetting, nightmares, withdrawal, daydreaming, truancy, a decline in school performance, expulsion from school, aggression and fighting with others, and poor relationships with their caregivers (Morash & Schram, 2002; Snyder, 2009). Criminologists also believe that children of incarcerated parents are at an increased risk themselves of becoming involved in the criminal justice system (Sandifer, 2008). Since women are the primary caregivers of their children at the time of their incarceration and many will assume those same responsibilities once they reenter the community, it is important that women have access to programs and services that assist them with this important responsibility. Prisons offer several types of programs to help mothers maintain connections with their children. Prisons frequently offer parenting programs to incarcerated women. Parenting programs teach inmates basic information as to how to care for

260

|

Women Criminals

their children and what to expect in terms of normal physical and emotional development of their kids. Parenting programs also teach women how to appropriately discipline their kids (Morash & Schram, 2002). Some prisons have special visitation programs in order to help strengthen and maintain the bonds between incarcerated women and their children. In some cases, prisons have programs that assist caregivers and children with transportation to and from correctional facilities. CaliforniaÊs Chowchilla Family Express program provides free transportation to children of incarcerated women, their family members, and caregivers to and from the Valley State Prison for Women and the Central California WomenÊs Prison in Chowchilla, California (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2010). Other prisons allow children to visit their mothers in separate housing areas for longer periods of time·typically over weekends. The Tennessee Prison for Women permits a weekend visitation between children three months and five years old and their incarcerated mother/grandmother (Tennessee Department of Correction, 2010). South DakotaÊs The Parent and Children Together (P.A.C.T.) program allows up to two children to visit over a weekend for eligible women (South Dakota Department of Corrections, 2010). These types of visitation programs permit women to spend quality time with their children, interact with them through play and activities, and physically touch and hold their kids. Additionally, it permits women to assume some level of responsibility in raising their children. Some prisons operate Girl Scouts Beyond Bars (GSBB) programs, whereby girls of incarcerated women can visit their mothers and participate in Girl Scout troop meetings with them. These programs serve girls between the ages of 5 and 17 years and are operating in corrections facilities in some 17 states. The primary goal of GSBB programs is to increase the parent-child bond and instill self-awareness and leadership development in girls (Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., 2007). Each of these parenting program initiatives are meant to improve womenÊs understanding of their parenting roles and to (re)establish and/or strengthen the relationship and bond they have with their children. While these various programs represent innovative approaches for promoting parent and child bonding and interactions, all too frequently prisons are not sensitive enough in offering visitations experiences that benefit the children. Covington (2002) notes that corrections facilities are focused solely on creating environments that are safe and secure, yet they fail to consider the environment as experienced by their young visitors. A lack of privacy, cumbersome visitation policies and procedures, travel logistics, noise, inadequate toys, and age-appropriate activities negatively impacts the mother-child visitation experience. It is simply not enough to offer programs and services to imprisoned mothers and their children. Prisons must take a closer look at the substantive quality of these programs along with the context and direct experiences of those participating in programs in order to make sure they are positively impacting both mothers and their children.

Criminal Justice System and Women | 261

Education, Job Skills, and Training Adults under correctional supervision tend to be less educated than their counterparts in the general population (Harlow, 2003). In general, approximately 40 percent of state prisoners and 27 percent of federal prisoners report having never completed a high school degree as compared to 18 percent of the general population having failed to complete their high school degree. Survey of state inmate data suggests that incarcerated women tend to be somewhat better educated (i.e., high school and postsecondary education) than incarcerated men (Harlow, 2003). Nonetheless, more male state prisoners report having completed a GED than female state prisoners (35.2% vs. 27.9%), whereas more female state prisoners report having received a high school diploma than male state prisoners (30.3% vs. 25.2%) (see Table 11). Approximately half of men (52%) and women (50%) state prisoners report participating in educational programs after entering prison (Harlow, 2003). Almost 33 percent of male state inmates and 30 percent of female state inmates participated in some type of vocational program since they were first admitted to prison (Harlow, 2003). Female offenders have few job skills and are more likely to be unemployed at the time of their arrest than male offenders (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). Additionally, women are more likely to be receiving welfare assistance prior to their incarceration (30% of women vs. 8% of men). Involvement in education and job skills programming while being incarcerated promotes a „sense of accomplishment‰ for the women (Zaitzow, 2006). Unfortunately, there is wide variation in terms of the programs that are provided to incarcerated women, as many state prisons are deficient in their provision of training and services and are not preparing women for reentry into the larger society and job market (Schram, Koons-Witt, Williams, & McShane, 2006). Becoming financially independent and self-sufficient is a critical objective for women reentering the community and is a source of difficulty for them (Brown & Bloom, 2009). Those reentering the community after spending time in prison face substantial barriers, including the stigma of being a former inmate and having a criminal record, and being legally prevented from pursuing certain jobs (Eaton, 1993; OÊBrien 2001). While vocational training may be available to incarcerated women, the type of training offered may not provide them with optimal job skills, those that are both marketable and suitable for access to better paying jobs (Zaitzow, 2006). Nontraditional job skills programs for incarcerated women are uncommon. According to Zaitzow (2006), the underutilization of these programs is likely due to a number of factors including eligibility requirements for program entry, a commitment by women prisoners to traditional feminine roles, and staff resistance to nontraditional programs (see also Schram, 1998). For example, Schram (1998) found in her study of stereotypes and vocational programming that women prisoners themselves had the most nontraditional attitudes toward women including being

262

|

Women Criminals

Education, by Gender for State Prison Inmates, 1997 TABLE 11

Male

Female

Educational attainment 8th grade or less Some high school GED High school diploma Postsecondary / some college College graduate

% 14.3 25.3 28.9 20.4 8.8 2.3

% 13.6 28.2 22.3 21.6 11.2 3.1

High school completion Completed high school Earned GED In prison / jail Outside prison / jail

% 25.2 35.2 26.3 8.9

% 30.3 27.9 15.9 11.9

Educational programs Total Basic GED / high school College English as a second language Vocational Other

% 52.0 3.1 23.6 10.0 1.2 32.4 2.5

% 50.1 3.3 21.3 9.1 0.5 29.5 3.8

Number of prison inmates

989,419

66,076

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding or inmates’ participation in more than one educational program. Source: BJS, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Institutions, 1997 (taken from Harlow, 2003).

the least likely to see the need of female inmates to work. Therefore, even if nontraditional job programming is made available to incarcerated women, they may not take part in the programming since they view it as unnecessary or inappropriate for them (Schram, 1998). According to Zaitzow (2006), womenÊs prisons typically provide programming in cosmetology, food service, laundry, sewing, clerical work, and keypunch. Few of these positions, however, offer women marketable skills and opportunities to live independently once they leave prison and seek employment on the outside. Even if women do have sufficient education and job skills upon their departure from prison, they may not know how to locate a job, fill out an application, or present themselves at an interview. Many prisons offer life skills programs to inmates. Life skills programming often comprises a wide array and mix of skills-based content and training including problem solving; anger management and conflict resolution; management of stress, time, and money; and development of self-esteem,

Criminal Justice System and Women | 263

negotiation, family responsibility, job search, self-sufficiency, and economic independence skills (Finn, 1998; Hale, 2001; Schram & Morash, 2002). These basic life skills are undoubtedly necessary once women are released from prison. Community Reentry Most offenders who are sentenced to prison eventually come back to the community. Reentry includes both offenders who „max-out‰ or complete their sentences behind bars, and are released with no conditions, and those who transition back into the community through discretionary release and have conditions applied to their discharge. More than 700,000 offenders were released from state and federal prison during 2008. While the number of inmates released from state and federal prisons increased by just 2 percent during 2008, a large part of this increase was the result of inmates being released without conditions (Sabol et al., 2009). Statistics such as these suggest that many former prisoners are returning to the community without any supervision or conditions as they try to be successful in their transition back into free society. In 2008, just over 99,000 women were on parole in the United States, accounting for approximately 12 percent of the entire parole population (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009). While all ex-inmates face difficulties in returning home, women appear to have additional worries and issues to consider. According to a recent National Institute of Justice (2005) report, „studies show that female inmates must overcome unique social, emotional, and physical challenges that impede their ability to integrate smoothly back into society following a period of incarceration‰ (1). They face reunification with their children and loved ones; challenges in finding safe housing and stable employment, along with affordable and safe childcare options; a need to address existing mental health and well-being issues; and the pressures of participating in necessary and required programming, including drug treatment (Brown & Bloom, 2009; Covington, 2002; Mallik-Kane & Visher, 2008; Robbins, Martin, & Surratt, 2009; Schram et al., 2006). When taken together, these issues seem complex, overwhelming, and daunting. As noted previously, many incarcerated women have dependent children on the outside. The relationship with their children and family members are tenuous at best most of the time and can represent both support and stress for women offenders (Leverentz, 2006). In addition to the stress and pressures felt by women as they re-establish relationships with family members and their children, women must also locate safe and affordable housing. Until they are capable of living on their own, women frequently live with relatives or friends on a temporary basis (La Vigne, Brooks, & Shollenberger, 2009). In fact, it is not unusual for women to move among multiple places before they are able to establish a residence of their own. This period of transiency is difficult and can significantly impact womenÊs successful reentry

264

|

Women Criminals

into life outside of prison. Schram and her colleagues found stable housing to be one of the most influential indicators of how well women perform while on parole (Schram et al., 2006). Once in the community, women must also find suitable employment. Finding steady employment and a job that pays an adequate wage has important implications for other reentry issues including housing and family reunification. The reentry literature consistently points to the importance of ex-prisoners finding jobs as an explanation for their successful transition to the community (Graffam, Shinkfield, & Hardcastle, 2008; La Vigne et al., 2009). In one study, researchers found that women had difficulty in finding stable employment. Furthermore, women during reentry were less likely to be employed full time, made lower hourly wages, and usually worked in the service sector as opposed to trade skills position compared to males during reentry (La Vigne et al., 2009). A separate study involving female parolees found that women who were consistently unemployed versus women who had stable employment were more likely to fail (i.e., to be reincarcerated due to new crimes or technical violations) while on community supervision (Schram et al., 2006).

CONCLUSION It is clear that incarcerated women represent a unique population. With the explosive increase of women offenders in the criminal justice system, it is important to examine the differences between men and women offenders. Only recently have researchers and prison administrators acknowledged the explicit differences between both groups in terms of their pathways into criminality, adaptations to prison life, need for management styles, and unique issues, including, but not limited to having dependent children, having had experiences of extensive victimization, and wrestling with drug and mental health issues. As a result, gender-responsive policies and practices are necessary to effectively serve incarcerated females. Moreover, these policies and programming should not be limited to the prison setting; rather, they should be extended to helping women with their reentry back into the community. References Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., & McClelland, G. M. (2003). Comorbidity of severe psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders among women in jail. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160 (5), 1007ă1010. Austin, J., Bloom, B. & Donahue, T. (1992). Female offenders in the community: An analysis of innovative strategies and programs. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bloom, B. (1993). Incarcerated mothers and their children: Maintaining family ties. In Female offenders: meetings needs of a neglected population, 60ă68. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.

Criminal Justice System and Women | 265

Bloom, B. & Covington, S. (1998). Gender-specific programming for female offenders: What is it and why is it important? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, D.C. Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (1999). Population growth in U.S. prisons, 1980ă1996. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (eds.), Prison, 17ă61. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Britton, D. M. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 57ă76. Brown, M., & Bloom, B. (2009). Reentry and renegotiating motherhood: Maternal identity and success on parole. Crime & Delinquency, 55(2), 313ă336. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguine, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3ă4), 301ă322. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2010). Get on the bus program and chowchilla family express. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Visitation/Get_On_The_Bus.html. Chesney-Lind, M. (2000). Women and the criminal justice system: Gender matters. In Topics in community corrections annual issue 2000: Responding to women offenders in the community, 7ă10. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. Chesney-Lind, M., & Rodriguez, N. (1983). Women under lock and key. Prison Journal, 63, 47ă65. Chesney-Lind, M., & Sheldon, R. G. (1998). Girls, delinquency, and the juvenile justice system. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston: Christopher Publishing House. Collins, W. C., & Collins, A. W. (1996). Women in jail: Legal issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Covington, S. S. (2001). Creating gender-responsive programs: The next step for womenÊs services. Corrections Today, 63(1), 85ă87. Covington, S. (2002). A womanÊs journey home: Challenges for female offenders and their children. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. Covington, S. S. (2003). Beyond trauma: A healing journey for women. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Covington, S. S., & Bloom, B. E. (2000, November). Gendered justice: Programming for women in correctional settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, California. Daly, K. (1992). WomenÊs pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and WomenÊs Studies, 2, 11ă52. Death Penalty Information Center. (n.d.). Women executed in the U.S. since 1900. http://www.death penaltyinfo.org/women-executed-us-1900. Dodge, M. (1999). One female prisoner is more trouble than twenty males: Women convicts in Illinois prisons, 1835ă1896. Journal of Social History, 32(4), 907ă930. Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. R. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications of reintegration. Prison Journal, 81, 42ă54. Eaton, M. (1993). Women after prison. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Farr, K. A. (2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward. Crime & Delinquency, 46(1), 3ă17. Finn, P. (1998). Delaware Department of Corrections Life Skills Program. National Institute of Justice, Office of Correctional Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

266 |

Women Criminals

Gaarder, E., & Belknap, J. (2002). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred to adult court. Criminology, 40(3), 481ă517. Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a womenÊs prison. New York: Wiley. Gilfus, M. E. (1992). From victims to survivors to offenders: WomenÊs routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 63ă90. Girl Scouts of the USA. 2007. Girl Scouts Beyond Bars and Girl Scouting in Detention Centers: Supporting girls, connecting families. New York. http://www.girlscouts.org/program/program_ opportunities/community/GSBBGSDCBrochure2007.pdf. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2009). Probation and parole in the United States, 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents of prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A. J., & Hardcastle, L. (2008). The perceived employability of ex-prisoners and offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(6), 673ă685. Greene, Judith, Kevin Pranis, and Natasha Frost. The Punitiveness Report: Hard hit: The growth in the imprisonment of women, 1977ă2004. Institute on Women and Criminal Justice. New York: WomenÊs Prison Association. Greenfeld, L., & Snell, T. (1999). Women offenders. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice. Greer, K. R. (2000). The changing nature of interpersonal relationships in a womenÊs prison. Prison Journal, 80(4), 442ă468. Hale, T. (2001). Creating visions and achieving goals: The women in Community ServiceÊs Life Skills Program. Corrections Today, 63(1), 33ă37. Hardyman, P., & Van Voorhis, P. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. Harlow, C. W. (1999). Prior abuse reported by inmates and probationers. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Heffernan, E. (1972). Making it in prison: The square, the cool, and the life. New York: WileyInterscience. Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. (2003). Sexual abuse, family violence, and female delinquency: Findings from a longitudinal study. Violence and Victims, 18(3), 319ă334. Holsinger, K. (2000). Feminist perspectives on female offending: Examining real girlsÊ lives. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(1), 23ă51 Human Rights Watch. (2004, February). Prisons no place for the mentally ill. http://www.hrw.org/ en/news/2004/02/12/prisons-no-place-mentally-ill. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Kruttschnitt, C., & Gartner, R. (2003). WomenÊs imprisonment. Crime and Justice, 30, 1ă81. Kruttschnitt, C., Gartner, R., & Miller, A. (2000). Doing her own time? WomenÊs responses to prison in the context of the old and the new penology. Criminology, 38(3), 681ă717. Lake, E. S. (1993). An exploration of the violent victim experiences of females. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 41ă51. Lake, E. S. (1995). OffendersÊ experiences of violence: A comparison of male and female inmates as victims. Deviant Behavior, 16(3), 269ă290.

Criminal Justice System and Women | 267

La Vigne, N. G., Brooks, L. E., & Shollenberger, T. L. (2009). Women on the outside: Understanding the experiences of female prisoners returning to Houston, Texas. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute. Leverentz, A. (2006). People, places, and things: The social process of reentry for female exoffenders. Document No. 215178. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Lovell, D., Gagliardi, G. J., & Peterson, P. D. (2002). Recidivism and use of services among persons with mental illness after release from prison. Psychiatric Services, 53(10), 1290ă1296. Magaletta, P. R., Diamond, P. M., Faust, E., Daggett, D. M., & Camp, S. D. (2009). Estimating the mental illness component of service need in corrections: Results from the Mental Health Prevalence Project. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(3), 229ă244. Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. Mauer, M., Potler, C., & Wolf, R. (1999). Gender and justice: Women, drugs, and sentencing policy. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project. McClellan, D. S., Farabee, D., & Crouch, B. M. (1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 455ă476. McDaniels-Wilson, C. & Belknap, J. (2008). The extensive sexual violation and sexual abuse histories of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14(10), 1090ă1127. Moe, A. M. (2004). Blurring the boundaries: WomenÊs criminality in the context of abuse. WomenÊs Studies Quarterly, 32(3/4), 116ă138. Morash, M., Bynum, T. S., & Koons, B. A. (1998). Women offenders: Programming needs and promising approaches. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Morash, M., Haarr, R. N., & Rucker, L. (1994). A comparison of programming for women and men in U.S. prisons in the 1980s. Crime and Delinquency, 40, 197ă221. Morash, M. & Schram, P. J. (2002). The prison experience: Special issues of women in prison. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. (2005). Reentry programs for women inmates. National Institute of Justice Journal, 252. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. OÊBrien, P. (2001). Making it in the „free world.‰ Albany: State University of New York Press. Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a womenÊs prison. Albany: State University of New York Press. Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (1995). Profiling the needs of CaliforniaÊs female prisoners. Report to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Pollock, J. (1995). Women in corrections: Custody and the „caring ethic.‰ In M. V. Merlo & J. M. Pollock (eds.), Women, Law & Social Control, 97ă116. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Rafter, N. H. (1993). Equality or difference? In Female offenders: Meeting needs of a neglected population, 7ă11. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. Richie, B. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 368ă389. Robbins, C. A., Martin, S. S., & Surratt, H. L. (2009). Substance abuse treatment, anticipated maternal roles, and reentry success of drug-involved women prisoners. Crime & Delinquency, 55(3), 388-411. Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

268 |

Women Criminals

Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationersÊ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541ă566. Salisbury, E. J., Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., & Bauman, A. (2009). Changing probation experiences for female offenders based on womenÊs needs and risk assessment project findings. Women, Girls & Criminal Justice, 10(6), 83. Sandifer, J. L. (2008). Evaluating the efficacy of a parenting program for incarcerated mothers. Prison Journal, 88(3), 423ă445. Schram, P. J. (1998). Stereotypes about vocational programming for female inmates. Prison Journal, 78(3), 244ă270. Schram, P. J., & Morash, M. (2002). Evaluation of a life skills program for women inmates in Michigan. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(4), 47ă70. Schram, P. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., & Morash, M. (2004). Management strategies when working with female prisoners. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(2), 25ă50. Schram, P. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (2006). Supervision strategies and approaches for female parolees: Examining the link between unmet needs and parolee outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 450ă471. Sharp, S. F. (2003). Mothers in prison: Issues in parent-child contact. In S. F. Sharp (ed.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in womenÊs prisons, 151ă165. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Snell, T. L. (2009). Capital punishment, 2008: Statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Snyder, Z. K. (2009). Keeping families together: The importance of maintaining mother-child contact for incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(1), 37ă59. Sokoloff, N. J. (2005). Women prisoners at the dawn of the 21st century. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(1/2), 127ă137. South Dakota Department of Corrections. (2010). South Dakota WomenÊs Prison: Mother infant programs. http://doc.sd.gov/adult/facilities/wp/mip.aspx. Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tennessee Department of Correction. (2010). Child visitation program. http://tennessee.gov/correc tion/institutions/child.html. Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., & McClelland, G. M. (1997). Mentally disordered women in jail: Who receives services? American Journal of Public Health, 87, 604ă609. Tittle, C. R. (1969). Inmate organization: Sex differentiation and the influence of criminal subcultures. American Sociological Review, 34(4), 492ă505. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Turnbo, C. (1993). Differences that make a difference: Managing a womenÊs correctional institution. In Female offenders: Meeting needs of a neglected population, 12ă16. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Gender comparisons in drug testing probationers and parolees. Corrections Compendium, 25(9), 1ă5, 27.

Criminal Justice System and Women | 269

Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. G. (1965). WomenÊs prison: Sex and social structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Wells, D., & Bright, L. (2005). Drug treatment and reentry for incarcerated women. Corrections Today, December, 98. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2008). Prisoners in 2007. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2007). Predicting the prison misconducts of women offenders: The importance of gender-responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 310ă340. Wright, E. M., Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E. J., & Bauman, A. (2009). Lessons from the NIC/UC Gender-Responsive Classification Project. Women, Girls & Criminal Justice, 10(6), 85. Zaitzow, B. H. (2006). Empowerment not entrapment: Providing opportunities for incarcerated women to move beyond „doing time.‰ Justice Policy Journal: Analyzing Criminal and Juvenile Justice Issues and Policies, 3(1), 1ă24.

This page intentionally left blank

Women and Crime: Biographical Profiles, A–Z Volume two provides brief biographical descriptions of women who primarily have been convicted of crimes. Included among them, however, are women who have been arrested for crimes against unjust laws, such as Rosa Parks, or who have advocated against what they have considered unjust laws, such as Gloria Steinem. Below, in alphabetic order is the list of women profiled, and below that, the list of women profiled, listed in chronologic order by their birth, when known. The group spans from the 15th century through today. Bobbitt, Lorena Bombeek, Cecile Bonny, Anne Borden, Lizzie Borgia, Lucrezia Boyd, Belle Brinvilliers, Marquise de Broderick, Betty Brown, Debra Brown, Joyce Ann Buck, Marilyn Cheng Chui Ping Cheng I Sao Clark, Judith Cleghorn, Mildred Cook, Ann Cora, Belle Corday, Charlotte

Alphabetic List Ah Toy Allen, Wanda Jean Allitt, Beverly Anthony, Casey Aquash, Anna Atkins, Susan Axis Sally. See Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk Baker, Josephine Barfield, Velma Barker, Ma Barrows, Sydney Bàthory, Elizabeth Beets, Betty Bell, Mary Bevan, Catherine Bishop, Amy 271

272

| Women and Crime

Cotton, Mary dÊAquino, Iva (Tokyo Rose) Dann, Laurie Davis, Angela Devi, Phoolan Devlin, Bernadette Dhanu Doss, Nannie Drexler, Melissa Dumont, Eleanor Dyer, Amelia Ebadi, Shirin Edmonds, Sarah Ellis, Ruth Everleigh, Ada Everleigh, Minna Fair, Laura Falling, Christine Fallmer, Clara Fisher, Amy Fleiss, Heidi Fonda, Jane Frank, Antoinette Fugate, Caril Garcia, Guin Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk (Axis Sally) Gindorf, Debbie Goldman, Emma González Valenzuela, Delfina; María de Jesús González; and Eva González Good, Sandra Gottfried, Gessina Greenhow, Rose Gunness, Belle Harris, Clara Harris, Jean Hayashi, Masumi Hearst, Patty Helmsley, Leona

Hindley, Myra Hollander, Xaviera Homolka, Karla Howard, Katherine Huckaby, Melissa Huerta, Dolores Hughes, Francine Hutchinson, Anne Jegado, Hélène Jones, Genene Kasabian, Linda Kelly, Gladys Cannon Khaled, Leila Krenwinkel, Patricia La Voisin, Catherine Lafave, Debra Lebron, Lolita Letourneau, Mary Kay Lewis, Teresa Little, Joan Mandela, Winnie Mandelbaum, Mother Mapp, Dollree Marie Antoinette Marquise de Montespan. See Montespan, Marquise de McKnight, Regina Metyard, Sarah; and Sarah Morgan Metyard Montespan, Marquise de Newton, Frances Osborn, Sarah Pagan, Dylcia Parker, Bonnie Parks, Rosa Rachals, Terri Riefenstahl, Leni Riggs, Christina Rosenburg, Ethel Sanger, Margaret Scholl, Sophie

Women and Crime |

Shakur, Assata Shigenobu, Fusako Smith, Susan Snyder, Ruth Soliah, Kathleen Spooner, Bathsheba Steinem, Gloria Stewart, Martha Stone, Lucy Surratt, Mary Suu Kyi, Aung San Taketa, Gwen Tinning, Marybeth Tokyo Rose. See dÊAquino, Iva Tubman, Harriet Tucker, Karla Faye Van Houten, Leslie Van Lew, Elizabeth Wall, Rachel Wanrow, Yvonne West, Rosemary Whitney, Charlotte Anita Wuornos, Aileen Yaklich, Donna Yates, Andrea Young, Lila Zwanziger, Anna Chronological List (by Woman’s Birth Date) Borgia, Lucrezia, 1480ă1519 Howard, Katherine, 1521?ă1542 Bàthory, Elizabeth, 1560ă1614 Hutchinson, Anne, 1591ă1643 Brinvilliers, Marquise de, 1630ă1676 Osborn, Sarah, 1640ă1692 La Voisin, Catherine, 1640ă1680 Montespan, Marquise de, 1640ă1707 Bevan, Catherine, 1680ă1731 Bonny, Anne, 1697ă1720?

Spooner, Bathsheba, 1746ă1778 Marie Antoinette, 1755ă1793 Wall, Rachel, 1760ă1789 Zwanziger, Anna, 1760ă1811 Metyard, Sarah; and Sarah Morgan Metyard, ?ă1762 Corday, Charlotte, 1768ă1793 Cheng I Sao, 1775ă1844 Cook, Ann, 1786ă1826 Gottfried, Gessina, 1798ă1828 Jegado, Hélène, 1803ă1851 Greenhow, Rose, 1814ă1864 Mandelbaum, Mother, 1818?ă1894 Stone, Lucy, 1818ă1893 Van Lew, Elizabeth, 1818ă1900 Tubman, Harriett, 1820ă1913 Surratt, Mary, 1823ă1865 Cora, Belle, 1827?ă1862 Ah Toy, 1828ă1928 Dumont, Eleanor, 1829ă1879 Cotton, Mary, 1832ă1873 Dyer, Amelia, 1839ă1896 Edmonds, Sarah, 1841ă1898 Boyd, Belle, 1844ă1900 Gunness, Belle, 1859ă? Borden, Lizzie, 1860ă1927 Whitney, Charlotte Anita, 1867ă1955 Goldman, Emma, 1869ă1940 Fair, Laura, 1850ă? Barker, Ma, 1871ă1935 Everleigh, Ada, 1875ă1960 Everleigh, Minna, 1878ă1948 Sanger, Margaret, 1879ă1966 Fallmer, Clara, 1892ă? Snyder, Ruth, 1895ă1928 Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk (Axis Sally) (1900ă1987) Young, Lila, 1902ă1967 Riefenstahl, Leni, 1902ă2003 Doss, Nannie, 1905ă1965

273

274 | Women and Crime

Baker, Josephine, 1906ă1975 Parker, Bonnie, 1910ă1934 Cleghorn, Mildred, 1910ă1997 González Valenzuela, Delfina (ca. 1911ă?); María de Jesús González (ca. 1924ă?); Eva González (n.d.) Parks, Rosa, 1913ă2005 Rosenburg, Ethel, 1915ă1953 dÊAquino, Iva (Tokyo Rose), 1916ă2006 Lebron, Lolita, 1919ă2010 Helmsley, Leona, 1920ă2007 Scholl, Sophie, 1921ă1943 Harris, Jean, 1923ă Ellis, Ruth, 1926ă1955 Huerta, Dolores, 1930ă Barfield, Velma, 1932ă1984 Bombeek, Cecile, 1933ă Steinem, Gloria, 1934ă Mandela, Winnie, 1936ă Brown, Joyce Ann, 1936?ă Fonda, Jane, 1937ă Mapp, Dollree, 1937ă Beets, Betty, 1937ă2000 Stewart, Martha, 1941ă Tinning, Marybeth, 1942ă Kelly, Gladys Cannon, 1942ă1987 Hindley, Myra, 1942ă2002 Fugate, Caril, 1943ă Hollander, Xaviera, 1943ă Wanrow, Yvonne, 1943ă Davis, Angela, 1944ă Good, Sandra, 1944ă? Shigenobu, Fusako, 1945ă Suu Kyi, Aung San, 1945ă Aquash, Anna, 1945ă1975 Pagan, Dylcia, 1946ă Ebadi, Shirin, 1947ă Hughes, Francine, 1947ă Krenwinkel, Patricia, 1947ă Shakur, Assata, 1947ă

Soliah, Kathleen, 1947ă Taketa, Gwen, 1947ă Broderick, Betty, 1947ă Devlin, Bernadette, 1947ă Buck, Marilyn, 1947ă2010 Khaled, Leila, 1948ă Atkins, Susan, 1948ă2009 Clark, Judith, 1949ă Kasabian, Linda, 1949ă Van Houten, Leslie, 1949ă Cheng Chui Ping, 1949ă Jones, Genene, 1950ă Barrows, Sydney, 1952ă Garcia, Guin, 1953ă West, Rosemary, 1953ă Hearst, Patty, 1954ă Little, Joan, 1954ă Yaklich, Donna, 1956?ă Wuornos, Aileen, 1956ă2002 Bell, Mary, 1957ă Devi, Phoolan, 1957ă2001 Dann, Laurie, 1958ă1988 Allen, Wanda Jean, 1959ă1989 Tucker, Karla Faye, 1959ă1998 Harris, Clara, 1960ă Hayashi, Masumi, 1961ă Letourneau, Mary Kay, 1962ă Rachals, Terri, 1962ă Brown, Debra, 1962ă Falling, Christine, 1963ă Gindorf, Debbie, 1964ă Yates, Andrea, 1964ă Bishop, Amy, 1965ă Fleiss, Heidi, 1965ă Newton, Frances, 1965ă2005 Allitt, Beverly, 1968ă Lewis, Teresa, 1969ă2010 Bobbitt, Lorena, 1970ă Homolka, Karla, 1970ă Frank, Antoinette, 1971ă Smith, Susan, 1971ă

Women and Crime |

Riggs, Christina, 1971ă2000 Fisher, Amy, 1974ă Dhanu, 1974ă1991 McKnight, Regina, 1977ă

Drexler, Melissa, 1978ă Lafave, Debra, 1980ă Huckaby, Melissa, 1981ă Anthony, Casey, 1986ă

275

This page intentionally left blank

A Ah Toy (1828–1928) Ah Toy gained fame in the California Gold Rush as an independent prostitute, peepshow entertainer, brothel madam, and pursuer of legal justice. Always an independent businesswoman, she shared no earnings with a pimp. Toy stood out among Chinese men and women for having engaged the American judicial system as both a plaintiff and defendant on numerous occasions, as well as for her beauty. She participated as an American, unlike most other Chinese living in the United States at this time, who preferred to withdraw from the mainstream society, living as foreigners in a foreign land. Very little is known about her early life, and sparse and conflicting information exist about her life in San Francisco, but she still has gained some historical relevance in California history. Male Chinese workers began arriving in California in 1848 and had been leaving their home in China to work abroad. High taxes from the Opium Wars, as well as floods and droughts, exacerbated the economic depression peasant farmers were already facing. Upon hearing of Gold Mountain, they came to California. Here they worked the mines abandoned by white miners. Toy left China at the age of 20 for the same reason: to take advantage of opportunities in America. While she was the second Chinese woman to arrive in California, remaining one of two women for many years, Chinese men numbered in the hundreds. Such little female companionship hiked the value of her services, allowing accumulation of significant wealth. Toy was a very well-known prostitute in her time, so much that she was referenced in San Francisco travel books. She was considered attractive because of her height and her „lily-bound aristocratic feet‰ (Pryor, 2003). Most Chinese women were viewed as short with big „peasant‰ feet (Pryor, 2003). Toy exploited myths for her own gain. Scholars do not explicitly state what these myths are, but they imply that she turned a profit from the exotic stereotypes of Asian women. Sex work was her livelihood, but she was never under the supervision of an employer. She had the freedom to offer services as she saw fit, but it may have misled patrons into believing that they could take advantage of her. Most Chinese people living in San Francisco managed disputes amongst members of their ethnic 277

278

|

Ah Toy

community. Toy, on the other hand, pursued justice through the American judiciary system. On numerous occasions, she had been both a plaintiff and defendant. In her best-known court case, Toy charged certain miners with defrauding her by paying for services with brass fillings covered in gold. She accepted payment from patrons in gold, which she weighed herself with her own scale. As evidence, she brought the brass-filled gold pieces to the courthouse, but the judge dismissed the case as her accusations against those specific miners had no evidentiary basis. In 1850, Ah Toy moved out of her Chinatown alley into a larger house more representative of her wealth and status, and she became a madam. Gentry (1964) references then contemporary, anti-Chinese historian F. Soule, who accused Toy of sending enticing letters to young Chinese women to immigrate to the United States, purportedly encouraging prostitutes to arrive in the hundreds. Many of them, voluntarily or involuntarily, became prostitutes at her brothel. Those who felt coerced either committed suicide or sought sanctuary in Christian missions. In August 1852, community members showed that they were threatened by ToyÊs experience with the American judicial system. Toy accused the notorious Chinese leader Yee Ah Tye of extortion. He demanded that her prostitutes pay him a tax so she threatened to take him to court, and he pursued the extortion no further. The police caused deep fright amongst most Chinese, and Yee Ah Tye feared ToyÊs close connections with the police, believing they would protect her interests against his, despite the illegality of both operations. In spite of her purported ties to the police, in 1854, Toy was discriminated against as a Chinese woman when she was arrested, convicted, and fined for keeping a disorderly house. Over the next few years, she saw charges of this type, whereas white madams and prostitutes did not. Such treatment was increasing over the years, causing Toy to sell her house and belongings in 1857 to return to China. However, it seems that her departure from San Francisco was brief as she was arrested again in 1859 for disorderly housekeeping. In the 1850s, anti-Chinese feeling was growing. In 1851, a law was passed to charge a special tax on foreign miners, particularly the Chinese. In 1854, California extended its law against African Americans and Native Americans, forbidding testimony in court for the Chinese, making it impossible for violent crimes against the Chinese to be prosecuted in court. They were viewed as a comical, insular community that only socialized amongst themselves, and the few women present were criticized as „the filthiest and most abandoned of their sex,‰ accused of spreading syphilis (Gentry, 1964: 55). Toy specifically became a subject in a pseudoscientific study comparing internal biological differences between white and Chinese women. Even in this climate, Toy was able to continue her trade despite the discrimination she faced that caused her to leave the country temporarily. In addition to litigating against swindlers in court, Toy defended her house and livelihood against the Vigilante Committee who, in 1851, investigated brothels.

Wanda Jean Allen | 279

They were commissioned to have Toy deported. When head vigilante John Clark, in his efforts to shut down her operations, discovered his father at her brothel, he stopped his investigation. Soon after, John Clark became ToyÊs lover. Ah Toy stood out among the Chinese in San Francisco. She was singular in gender, height, beauty, courage, social connection with Chinese and non-Chinese, wealth, and health. The average Chinese prostitute died young, having been forced to service even the most obviously diseased clients. Toy, on the other hand, as reported in the February 2, 1928, issue of the San Francisco Examiner, died in San Jose days after her 100th birthday, outliving most first arrivals from China. Resources Corr, William. 1996. „How Chinese Women Came of Age in San Francisco.‰ Daily Yomiuri. September 15, p. 15. Gentry, Curt. 1964. The Madams of San Francisco. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company. Public Broadcasting System. 2006. „American Experience: The Gold Rush | People & Events | Chinese Immigrants and the Gold Rush.‰ Retrieved April 6, 2010. http://www. pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldrush/peopleevents/p_chinese.html. Pryor, Alton. 2003. Fascinating Women in California History. Roseville, CA: Stagecoach Publishing. Stephens, Autumn. 1992. Wild Women: Crusaders, Curmudgeons and Completely Corsetless Ladies in the Otherwise Virtuous Victorian Era. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.

Nayla Huq

Wanda Jean Allen (1959–1989) Wanda Jean Allen was the sixth woman put to death since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976. She was executed as a result of her 1989 conviction for killing her intimate partner, 29-year-old Gloria Leathers. AllenÊs execution was carried out by the state of Oklahoma on January 11, 2001, in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. Oklahoma had not executed a woman since 1903, when Dora Wright was executed for murder of a child. Both Wright and Allen were African Americans. AllenÊs execution was the first of a black woman in the United States since 1954. There is some evidence that her sexuality, mental abilities, and legal representation led to controversy about her death sentence. Allen was born in 1959 to Mary and Bill Allen. She was the oldest of eight children. AllenÊs father remained in the home only until the youngest sibling was born, leaving AllenÊs mother to continue to raise the children single-handedly. Allen aided her mother in caring for the younger children but also spent some of her youth in

280

| Wanda Jean Allen

foster homes and facilities for juvenile delinquents. During her youth, Allen suffered from two head injuries. In two IQ tests conducted later, Allen tested at 69 when she was 15 years old and at 80 while she was on death row in the mid-1990s; these IQ scores are indications that she was mentally deficient. These conflicting scores would raise further dispute in her subsequent capi- Wanda Jean Allen pleads with the Oklahoma Clemency Board to spare her life during a clemtal punishment case. ency hearing in Oklahoma, in 2000. Allen was As indicated, Allen had previous executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma. Allen’s interactions with the criminal jus- execution was the first of a black woman in the tice system. These included infrac- United States since 1954. (AP/Wide World Photos) tions that occurred during adulthood as well as her first murder charge. Allen admitted to fatally shooting her childhood friend Detra Pettus on June 29, 1981. Allen reported that the shooting was the result of an argument between herself and Pettus. There was no trial for this incident as Allen pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter. She served approximately two years in prison of the four year sentence·the result of a plea bargain. Allen met Gloria Leathers while serving the prison sentence on the first homicide charge. The two women began an intimate relationship soon after Leathers was released in 1986, and they eventually resided together. Allen reported that her relationship with Leathers was mutually verbally and physically abusive, with Leathers often moving out of their shared home after some of their altercations. As a result of what would be their final dispute, Leathers went to file a complaint against Allen based on a disagreement over the ownership of some of the property in the home. Immediately after filing the complaint at a police station in a suburb of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on December 1, 1988, Allen shot Leathers in the abdomen at close range. They were outside the police station. Leathers died four days later. Allen maintained that she shot Leathers in self-defense because Leathers struck Allen in the face earlier that day, and Allen believed Leathers was going to attack her outside the police station. Allen had visible marks to her face when photographed upon her arrest after Leathers succumbed to her injuries. LeathersÊ mother and the police involved in the case asserted that Allen did not shoot Leathers in self-defense. In her trial, Allen was represented by a private attorney who had never before tried a capital punishment case and was working with especially limited monetary resources (only $800) that would have allowed him to hire investigators and expert witnesses. The attorney agreed to be retained by Allen and her family prior to the prosecutorÊs decision to try Allen as a capital case. Though the attorney asked that

Wanda Jean Allen | 281

the trial judge remove him from the case or that he be assisted by a public defender, the judge denied the motion. The capital trial took place and was concluded in less than five months after LeathersÊ death and AllenÊs arrest. The issues considered in the finding of guilt, the sentencing, and the ultimate execution of Allen centered on the intersectional identity of Allen as a poor black lesbian woman with questionable mental and developmental capacity. In her capital trial, the prosecution continually referred to AllenÊs sexual orientation and that she was the „man‰ in the relationship with Leathers, thus placing traditional heterosexual standards on lesbian relationships. Also, though both Leathers and Allen were African American women, the often-shared stereotype of lesbians and black women as that of masculine and emasculating women may have affected the legal processing and media interpretation of Allen and her capital punishment trial. AllenÊs sexual orientation was also a factor frequently highlighted in community advocacy and media coverage of her case. Though Allen identified as a lesbian prior to her conviction and through much of her incarceration, she stated that through her religious transformation in prison to Christianity, she no longer identified as a lesbian because it is viewed as a sin (Cohen, 2001). Interviews with religious leaders in the black community of AllenÊs hometown revealed skepticism regarding AllenÊs sexual conversion to heterosexuality and believed her declaration to be a ploy to secure support from the black community that would hopefully lead to a gubernatorial commutation of her sentence. Only a short time prior to AllenÊs scheduled execution, Allen was denied a stay of execution by Oklahoma governor Frank Keating. This denunciation followed a lengthy series of failed pleas on AllenÊs behalf to have her conviction overturned or her death sentence commuted to a lesser sentence. Arguments referring to AllenÊs limited intelligence and mental capacity were refuted by Governor Keating and the prosecution who argued that Allen knew her homicidal actions were wrong and that she knew the consequences of such actions. AllenÊs case received increased national attention and was highlighted by death penalty opponents on the eve of her execution. On the execution gurney, Allen proclaimed, „Father forgive them. They know not what they do‰ (Hines, 2001). She was executed by lethal injection minutes later. Allen was 41 years old at the time of her death. Resources Cohen, Aaron Buckley. 2001, March 13. „Who was Wanda Jean?·Black woman executed in the United States.‰ Advocate. Hines, Rochelle. 2001, January 12. „Wanda Jean Allen becomes first black woman executed in United States since 1954.‰ Associated Press.

Hillary Potter

282

| Beverly Allitt

Beverly Allitt (1968–) Beverly Allitt, a female serial murderer, is a classic „Angel of Death‰ type of serial killer who is typically a doctor, nurse, or other health worker. She operated out of the United Kingdom, killing children who attended the Grantham and Kesteven Hospital. She is thought to have suffered initially from Munchausen syndrome, a condition in which a person secretly causes his or her own illnesses or injuries in order to get sympathy and attention, and then later Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a condition in which a person, usually a parent, or in this case, a caregiver, secretly causes illnesses or injuries to another person, usually a child, in order to gain attention and sympathy. Allitt had pronounced personality problems identified as early as age 13. By her late teens she had a history of medical appearances for injuries that where either self-inflicted or appeared to be invented. Doctors commented that many of her illnesses appeared to be psychosomatic. It was eventually concluded that she suffered from Munchausen syndrome. While training for her nurseÊs certificate, she missed 130 days of class and had difficulty finding placement. She eventually settled in Grantham and Kesteven Hospital in Grantham, England. Although she had just qualified to work, she expressed the desire to work as a special care nurse. She was told she would have to get experience working with seriously ill children before she would qualify. Days later, children started to mysteriously collapse on her watch. Her first victim, seven-week-old Liam Taylor, died while receiving treatment for a common cold. The second victim, 11-year-old Tim Hardwick, came in suffering from severe bouts of epileptic shock and passed away under AllittÊs care. It was assumed a prolonged attack was the cause. Three-month-old Becky Philips suddenly stopped breathing and died while being treated at the hospital. Becky was a twin, and therefore her sister was brought in for testing. She was found to be perfectly healthy and normal but then suddenly experienced bouts of being unable to breathe while Beverley was watching her. The last bout arrested her heart, and, although doctors were able to bring her back to life, she suffered irreparable brain damage. AllittÊs last victim was 15-month-old Clare Peck, an asthmatic who stopped breathing April 22, 1991, two hours after being placed under AllittÊs care. Clare PeckÊs death was blamed on asthma. Her blood analysis revealed high levels of potassium. All the childrenÊs deaths had one thing in common: AllittÊs presence on the ward. It was found that the 26 children who had died or become ill had been injected with either insulin or potassium. Allitt was charged with 4 counts of murder, 11 counts of attempted murder, and 11 counts of causing grievous bodily harm. The defense argued that the children had died from natural causes. The prosecution was able to establish that Allitt had committed these acts in order to receive attention and appreciation from staff, as she pretended to care for the children.

Beverly Allitt | 283

Allitt went to live with Tracey Jobson, of Peterborough, while awaiting trial. Although they were considered to be friends, TracyÊs son Jonathan began suffering dizzy spells shortly after her arrival. These spells were accompanied with cravings for chocolate. Allitt offered the teenager a drink, and at the bottom of the glass Jonathan found a chalky substance. He later collapsed, stating that he was unable to see and that he had pains in his stomach and head. Ms. Jobson recalled that Allitt did nothing to help. He survived the attack. It was discovered later that JonathanÊs blood sugar was very low, and he had received diabetic tablets intended for his grandmother. Beverly Allitt was charged with attempted murder of Jonathan, for which she was eventually cleared. The trial was also delayed because Allitt was said to be suffering from severe anorexia; the legal proceedings eventually continued while she was in hospital. Allitt stated she did not wish to testify and maintained her innocence. Before her trial, when being interviewed by police, she stated, „My nursing means more to me than living‰ (Jenkins, 1993a). When further asked about her competence given the accusations she replied, „I am not competent, far from it. I know I am not competent. I am one of the bloody crappiest nurses out. I am the lowest of the low.‰ (Jenkins, 1993a) She then stayed quiet, including for the remainder of the trial process. By October 1993, while beginning to serve 13 life sentences, Allitt admitted to committing nine of the murders (Jenkins, 1993c). She also admitted to smothering some infants when the injection did not produce desired results. Allitt displayed classic symptoms of Munchausen syndrome in her younger years before her murderous career. In essence, she had graduated from faking her own symptoms to injuring others and subsequently attempting to save her victims, her „heroism‰ getting the attention she desperately needed. She could also get attention while offering comfort to bereaved family members. In the condition of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, the offenders stop mimicking symptoms of severe illness in their own bodies and begin to create symptoms in others to gain personal attention. In 2007, a high court confirmed that Allitt would have to continue to serve a minimum of 30 years in prison, the original sentence given in 1993. Resources Jenkins, Lin. 1993a, May 18. „Killings Fed a Craving for Attention.‰ Retrieved July 15, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand. Jenkins, Lin. 1993b, May 29. „Judge Gives Allitt 13 Life Terms for Crimes Against Children.‰ Times (London). Jenkins, Lin. 1993c, October 15. „Serial Killer Allitt Admits None of the Crimes she Denied.‰ Times (London), A3 Kelleher, M. D., & Kelleher, C. L. 1998. Murder Most Rare. New York: Dell.

Hannah Scott

284

|

Casey Anthony

Casey Anthony (1986–) Casey Anthony was one of the most media-scrutinized women criminals of the 21st century. What began as a search for her missing two-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008 swelled into a sensationalized case of the disappearance and homicide of a child whose mother partied rather than grieved while her daughter was allegedly missing for 31 days. The notoriety of this case and its connection to societal ideas about motherhood make it notable. Legally, this case also raises questions about the delicate balance between a fair trial and the right of the public to access key court materials. Casey Anthony was born on March 19, 1986, the second child of George and Cindy Anthony. They lived in Niles, Ohio, where George was a sheriffÊs deputy and Cindy was nurse and stay-at-home mom. Shortly after CaseyÊs birth, George resigned as a deputy and went to work with his father to earn more money for the family. Shortly thereafter, George left employment with his father, took a second mortgage on the home, and started a used car lot. That business failed, the couple declared bankruptcy, and they lost their home. Cindy AnthonyÊs parents had just moved to Florida, and in 1989 the family left Ohio to seek a chance to start over in Orlando, Florida. Casey was three at the time. They purchased the home they would live in through her childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. It was also the home that would become famous later as the home of CaseyÊs missing daughter and the site of the police investigation. Early in her school years, Casey Anthony was an average to good student and did not get into any noticeable trouble. Cindy had taken a job as a nurse, and George worked several different jobs but was rendered disabled at least twice and had financial trouble related to gambling and bad investments. In her senior year of high school, Casey started missing a large number of classes and eventually stopped attending school, resulting in her failure to graduate from high school. She successfully hid this from her parents who prepared for a graduation up until the school notified them a few days before. Casey Anthony took a job with Kodak at Universal Studios after leaving high school. In early 2005, she met Jesse Grund, and they had been dating seriously by June when she revealed to Jesse that she was pregnant and that it was his child. They became engaged even though Jesse was not sure it was his. Her family, on the other hand, appeared to ignore or try to hide the pregnancy. Her mother, Cindy, „didnÊt have a clue‰ (Fanning, 2009: 82), and when Casey appeared at a relativeÊs wedding obviously pregnant, her parents insisted that she was bloated and had female problems. Cindy insisted that Casey couldnÊt be pregnant because she would have had sex to get pregnant, and Casey said she hadnÊt. Casey finally told her parents the truth less than two months before giving birth.

Casey Anthony | 285

Despite the shock, George and Cindy Anthony anxiously prepared for the arrival of their granddaughter and were present at the birth. Cindy Anthony was the first to hold little Caylee Marie, born August 9, 2005. Casey reportedly became upset with her mother about this and began what would be a conflict and rivalry-filled relationship between them over Caylee. Casey would often complain that her parents, particularly her mother, were overbearing and controlling, and she expressed great resentment against them. At the same time, Casey and Caylee both lived in CaseyÊs parentsÊ home. CayleeÊs arrival was initially greeted with happiness as Casey appeared to enjoy being a mother. As time passed, while she was loving and patient when she was with Caylee, Casey appeared more discontent with motherhood and more willing to leave Caylee with family and friends while she pursued her social life. Casey also began engaging in more notable lies to elicit support and money, and she was caught stealing from family members. After Caylee was born, she simply quit going to work at her job and was eventually dismissed for „job abandonment‰ (Fanning, 2009: 90). In June 2006, Casey Anthony broke off her relationship with Jesse Grund. From that point, Casey lied about a job at Universal Studios as an event planner·a job she clearly did not have the education for. She also continued her party life, even suffering from suspected alcohol poisoning in November 2007. Her complaints about motherhood to friends increased, and when she did not leave Caylee with a friend or her parents, she sometimes took Caylee with her to drinking parties overnight at menÊs houses. On March 17 and 21, 2008, disturbing searches attributed to Casey Anthony were done on the family computer. According to prosecutors, the searches involved the terms „chloroform,‰ „alcohol,‰ „neck breaking,‰ as well as other death-related searches, although it was later found that the prosecutors misreported the number of times „chloroform‰ was searched; it was apparently searched only once (Alvarez, 2011). It was in late spring that Casey met Tony Lazarro and began smoking marijuana. She reportedly had sex with Tony while two of TonyÊs friends, strangers to Caylee, were with the little girl in the living room. On FatherÊs Day, Caylee went to visit her great-grandfather with her grandmother Cindy. The visit allegedly ended with a loud argument between Cindy and Casey, and, in one version, Cindy allegedly put her hands around CaseyÊs neck. The next day, Casey told her father that she would be working late, and she and Caylee would be staying with the nanny. That was the last time George Anthony saw his granddaughter. That night, Casey Anthony was recorded on surveillance camera with Tony Lazarro at a movie rental store, and as LazarroÊs testimony at trial would confirm, she spent the night and most of the next day with him. Caylee was not with them and not seen again. For the next 31 days, Casey appeared to go about her daily business

286

|

Casey Anthony

shopping, spending time with friends, and partying at her favorite club. Not one of her friends saw Caylee, but none of them saw Casey upset or distraught. When asked by her friends and family, Casey had a variety of explanation including vacations, being with Zanny the nanny, and so forth. She would not allow her mother, Cindy, to talk to Caylee on the phone. On June 27, her Pontiac was found abandoned and towed. Around July 2, Casey stole money and checks from her friend Amy Huizenga·a crime for which she was later arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty to. On July 2, Casey Anthony received a tattoo with the Italian phrase „Bella Vita‰ (meaning „beautiful life‰). That night, she posted on MySpace the following: „On the worst of days, Remember the words spoken. Trust no one, only yourself. With great power, comes great consequences. What is given, can be taken away. Everyone lies. Everyone Dies. Life will never be easy‰ (Fanning, 2009: 149). On July 15, George Anthony retrieved CaseyÊs towed car from the tow yard, and he noticed a foul smell. Cindy Anthony, trying to remove the smell, found Amy HuizengaÊs number on the front seat. She found Amy, who led her to Tony Lazarro. Casey Anthony came home on the July 16, at the insistence of her parents, to a confrontation about the whereabouts of Caylee. Cindy Anthony called 911 and uttered the now famous words: „ThereÊs something wrong. I found my daughterÊs car today and it smells like thereÊs been a dead body in the damn car‰ (Hewitt, 2008: 48). Casey then told her parents and, later, investigators, that Caylee was taken by the nanny whom she identified as Zenaida Gonzalez. When asked about the length of time before she reported her missing, Casey replied that she was looking for her herself. She was arrested at that point, charged with child neglect, providing false statements to police, and obstruction of justice, and held on $500,000 bond. Casey provided several key falsehoods to the police including her alleged job at Universal, allegedly speaking with two nonexistent coworkers about looking for Caylee, leaving Caylee with Zanny the nanny, and allegedly leaving Caylee at the Sawgrass Apartments to stay with Zanny. Ultimately she was released only to be arrested again in the theft from Amy Huizenga and released again for that trial, resolved in 2010 with a guilty plea. Investigators continued to look into CayleeÊs disappearance, and on October 2, 2008, Casey Anthony was named the prime suspect in the disappearance of her daughter. On October 14, 2008, prosecutors presented their case against Casey Anthony to a grand jury. They returned with an indictment for capital murder, aggravated manslaughter of a child, aggravated child abuse, and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. On October 28, 2008, Anthony entered her plea of not guilty. The trial was set for early 2009, though it would actually not begin until more than two years later. Without the body of Caylee, the search continued for her, while Casey denied any knowledge of her whereabouts. On December 11, 2008, a meter reader found the skeletal remains of Caylee Anthony in plastic garbage bags in a wooded area less than a mile from the Anthony house. As trial

Casey Anthony | 287

testimony would gruesomely detail, the remains had been there for several months, long enough for roots to grow through the skeleton and animals to gnaw at her bones. Duct tape with a heart sticker attached was found on the skull, still attached to small amounts of hair. A tattered Winnie the Pooh blanket identical to the one Caylee had was found with the remains as were other items of hers. As the medical examiner stated on December 19, death was ruled as a homicide by unknown means. Preparation for trial in an already publicized case took on a new intensity. There were two legally interesting aspects to this case. The first involved the massive quantity of investigation documents available to the public prior to the trial. Thousands of pages of statements, photos, reports, and other evidence were released in the discovery phase after the prosecution and defense attorneys had had ample time to study them. This release resulted in media access to every intricacy of the investigation through FloridaÊs unique statute that allows such access. The abundance of information available to the public prior the trial had a potential impact on the jury pool, which ultimately was selected from a nearby county through several days of questioning about knowledge about the trial. Ultimately, a jury was seated and sequestered, but there were many who were excused due to having prior knowledge of the case and forming opinions about it. The second interesting legal aspect to this case was the role of the scientific, expert testimony. Experts were called in to testify not only to the standard forensic characteristics of the scene·status of the body, insect and plant evidence·but also to analysis of the odor coming from the trunk of Casey AnthonyÊs car. This was the first time such evidence about odor had been admitted into a capital murder trial. It was added to an already circumstantial case. The trial began on May 24, 2011. The defenseÊs opening arguments were surprising and unexpected. Jose Baez, lead defense attorney, argued in opening statements that Caylee had actually died of a drowning accident in the familyÊs pool and that George Anthony discovered her and helped cover it up. Casey was a loving mother who lied because she was sexually abused by her father and brother, and this family was good at keeping secrets. Sexual abuse was, however, not substantiated at trial. The defenseÊs case relied heavily upon challenging the foundation of the scientific evidence and raising reasonable doubt about both the cause of death and key players, including CaseyÊs father. The prosecution contended that Anthony killed Caylee because she sought freedom from her responsibilities of motherhood. She was the only one who benefited from CayleeÊs death. They argued that Casey had drugged the child with chloroform, put duct tape over her mouth, and transported the body in her car until she could dump the remains in the woods. Expert testimony would identify the odor of human decomposition and presence of chloroform in the car. The prosecution provided evidence as well about CaseyÊs lies and odd behavior, actions that seemed unlikely for a distraught mother searching for her child. Thirty prosecution witnesses

288

|

Casey Anthony

alone were called to testify, including Casey AnthonyÊs mother, father, brother, and friends. Taking just 10 hours over two days to decide, the jury returned its verdict on July 5: Casey Anthony was acquitted on the most serious charges of premeditated murder, manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse. They returned guilty verdicts on the four lesser charges of providing false information to law enforcement. The judge gave her the maximum possible sentence for the crimes she was convicted of: four one-year terms to be served consecutively. Casey Anthony was returned to jail while her time served for the theft charge (she pled guilty in 2010) and time already served under this case was calculated. Casey Anthony was ultimately released on July 17, 2011, in the very early hours in the morning and whisked away from public sight. Anthony is facing several civil suits connected to the case as well as repaying the cost of the investigation. The Anthony case seems to demonstrate the way society addresses women homicide offenders as either sick or evil. If they cannot be identified as sick somehow, then they are viewed as evil. This is even truer when the female is seen as violating an essential womanÊs nature as mother. The jury acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt around the cause of death, despite strong feelings about her culpability. Despite this acquittal, the case still draws protest from those who refuse to accept the verdict and who call for justice for Caylee. Threats have been hurled at Anthony, her defense team, and even the jurors. It is clear that Anthony, while acquitted by the court, was convicted in the proverbial court of public opinion, which could not forgive or believe a mother who did not report her child missing for 31 days. Resources Alvarez, Lisette. 2011, July 18. „Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial.‰ New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1&ref=caseyanthony. Burke, Cathy. 2011, June 11. „Thrown to Wolves: Tot Bones Gnawed.‰ New York Post, 15. Colarossi, Anthony. 2011, June 2. „Attorneys Question Lead Investigator in Casey Anthony Case as Trial Continues.‰ Orlando Sentinel, B8. Colarossi, Anthony. 2011, May 25. „CaseyÊs Defense: Caylee Drowned.‰ Orlando Sentinel, A1. Fanning, Diane. 2009. MommyÊs Little Girl: Casey Anthony and Her Daughter CayleeÊs Tragic Fate. New York: St. MartinÊs Press. Hayes, Ashley. 2011. „After Nearly 3 Years, Casey Anthony to Stand Trial in DaughterÊs Death.‰ May 23, 2011. www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/23/florida.casey.anthony.trial/ index.html?iref=allsea Hewitt, Bill. 2008, August 11. „Little Girl Lost.‰ People 70: 48ă53. Pafundi, Brian. 2010. „Note: Public Access to Criminal Discovery Records: A Look Behind the Curtain of the Criminal Justice System.‰ 21. University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy. 227.

Anna Aquash | 289

Richey, Warren. 2011, June 5. „Casey Anthony Case Resembles Real-Life CSI Crime Drama.‰ Christian Science Monitor. Richey, Warren. 2011, May 24. „Casey Anthony Trial: Defense Says Toddler Caylee Drowned by Accident.‰ Christian Science Monitor.

Vickie Jensen

Anna Aquash (1945–1975) In the fight for American Indian rights, Anna Mae Pictou Aquash emerged as a memorable figure, an activist whose death exposed the bitter relationship of the people she dedicated her life to and the U.S. government. Even now, decades after her frozen corpse was found on a remote ranch outside the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the slaying of Anna Mae remains shrouded in controversy. Born March 27, 1945, in a small MiÊkmaq Indian village in Nova Scotia, Canada, Anna Mae Aquash was raised by a single mother who had to leave school at an early age. AquashÊs childhood was marked with struggle and poverty. Her mother, Mary Ellen Pictou, raised Anna Mae and two other daughters on her own before marrying again. The family moved to a nearby MiÊkmaq reservation where Aquash grew up in a home without heat, water, or electricity. The family survived on food they grew themselves. Adding to her hardships, Anna Aquash was an activist Aquash struggled with racism when she attended involved with the American Indian school outside the reservation. Movement. Aquash was murAquash eventually found her calling in Boston. dered shortly after a shootout She had moved there with a boyfriend who evenon the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975. (Courtesy: Robert A. tually became the father of her two daughters. She worked in factories to help support her family, atPictou-Branscombe) tending some college. Eventually, she worked at a day care center in an African American neighborhood where she garnered praise for her dedication to the community. The work inspired her to join the growing Indian rights movement where she met Nogeeshik Aquash. A young Anna Mae and her new boyfriend Nogeeshik Aquash traveled together to a protest march in Washington DC in 1972 in which hundreds gathered to express grievances American Indians had with the government.

290

|

Anna Aquash

The needs of the Indians led Anna to the Sioux tribeÊs Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota where Anna and Nogeeshik eventually married. Even now, the Pine Ridge Reservation remains to many in the Sioux community a symbol of broken promises by the U.S. government. Poverty, joblessness, crime, and lack of social services persist. The disconnect between federal agents and the Sioux people who live there contributed to a deeper distrust of the U.S. government, fueling bloody clashes. Tensions between American Indian Movement (AIM) activists, federal authorities, and government factions on the reservation resulted in dozens of deaths. These were the conditions Anna Mae Aquash saw when she arrived in Pine Ridge in the early 1970s, just as the AIM was gaining momentum; AIM called on the U.S. government to acknowledge its broken treaties. Though the civil rights movement had called for equality for all during the 1960s, American Indians remained largely isolated from the national dialogue. Nonetheless, members of AIM had been encouraged by the results. In 1973, members of AIM barricaded themselves in the village of Wounded Knee in South Dakota, the site of an infamous, blood massacre of a century before. A 71-day standoff followed. At the time, Anna Mae AquashÊs role was unique, because the AIM was largely a patriarchal one, but she established herself as a guard and a supply courier. She also caught the attention of agents from the FBI. The FBI considered AIM an extremist organization. To this day, some American Indians believe the FBI was so concerned about AIM that they planted spies within the group to track their moves. After the stand-off, Anna AquashÊs work continued with AIM, and her activism to garner support for AIM took her to various cities, including Los Angeles. However, a shadow of doubt had been cast upon her from those back at Pine Ridge. Some thought Anna Mae Aquash was a snitch because she seemed to always be around when arrests occurred. In June 1975, two FBI agents were searching for a robbery suspect at Pine Ridge. The agents were killed in a gunfight with AIM members. Later that year, police stopped a motor home carrying the alleged shooter, activist Leonard Peltier. Peltier eventually was convicted of the deaths. Aquash was among those riding in the motor home when it was pulled over, and rumors circulated that she had tipped off authorities. She was arrested, but after being released on her own recognizance, she sought refuge at an AIM safe house in Denver. One month later, a small group of AIM members kidnapped Aquash from the Denver home. She was taken to South Dakota then driven to a remote ridge on the reservation and killed. Her frozen body was later found by a rancher. She had no identification on her, only a bracelet that many said Aquash always wore. Her friends back at Pine Ridge began to believe that Aquash had been murdered by the FBI. AquashÊs hands had been cut off by FBI investigators proof, AIM

Susan Atkins | 291

members said, that the agency was trying to cover up her death so that her body could not be identified. The doctor who conducted the first autopsy, W. O. Brown, ruled she had died of exposure. She was buried in an unmarked grave until her friends demanded that her body be exhumed and a second autopsy conducted. The second autopsy showed she had been shot execution-style in the back of the head with a .38-caliber gun. Later, Brown stated that he had unintentionally overlooked the bullet wound. But the investigation into who killed Aquash languished for years. Her friends and some AIM members continued to blame the FBI for AquashÊs death, saying that the agency had begun false rumors that she was an informant. Federal authorities have always denied wrongdoing. Nearly 30 years later, a dogged investigation by a Denver police detective led to two former AIM members as AquashÊs killers: John Graham and Arlo Looking Cloud. Graham, the gunman, was convicted of murder but not first-degree murder, which requires premeditation. He is currently serving a mandatory life sentence in prison. Suspect Thelma Rios continues to await trial in Rapid City, South Dakota, for AquashÊs murder. Arlo Looking Cloud, an accused conspirator, was captured on March 27, 2004, AquashÊs birthday. He was found guilty and is currently serving a life sentence for murder. Another suspect, Richard „Dickie‰ Marshall, was found not guilty in AquashÊs murder in an April 2010 trial in Rapid City. Resources Arrillaga, Pauline. January 11, 2004. „VictimÊs spirit invoked to solve case.‰ Los Angeles Times, A1 Henricks, Steve. 2007. The Unquiet Grave: The FBI and the Struggle for the Soul of Indian Country. New York: Da Capo Press. Sonneborn, Liz. 1998. A to Z of Native American Women. New York: Facts on File.

Susan Abram

Susan Atkins (1948–2009) Susan Atkins is best known as a Manson family member who was convicted of murdering Gary Hinman and Sharon Tate along with six other people in August 1969. Susan claimed for many years that she did not have a big part in the killings and that did not actually kill anyone. However, her own statements revealed that she stabbed Voytek Frykowski in the legs and restrained Sharon Tate while Charles „Tex‰ Watson stabbed her. Atkins served much of her life sentence at the California Institution for Women at Chino, along with Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, other Manson followers and convicted murderers who are also housed there. In 2008,

292 |

Susan Atkins

Atkins was diagnosed with brain cancer and moved to the California Central WomenÊs Facility in Chowchilla where she remained until she died on September 24, 2009. Born Susan Denise Atkins in San Gabriel, California, on May 7, 1948, Atkins moved to Santa Clara when she was just 6 months old. AtkinsÊ youth was marred with parental fa- Susan Atkins is shown as she is about to leave the Los voritism of her brothers, Mi- Angeles County Mens’ Jail after meeting with Charles chal and Steven; sibling incest Manson, in 1971. Manson, acting as his own attorney, had asked to question Ms. Atkins, who was a princi(by Michael); and sexual mopal witness before the grand jury that indicted the hippie lestation by MichaelÊs friends, “family” in the slayings of actress Sharon Tate and six her fatherÊs friends, and ran- others. (AP/Wide World Photos) dom family friends. Both of her parents were alcoholics. Until the age of 15, Atkins lived with her family in the middle-class Cambrian Park area of San Jose, California. A self-conscious, quiet girl, Atkins joined the glee club and choir where she was able to express herself in ways that otherwise she could not. In 1962, AtkinsÊ mother died of cancer. After her death, relatives looked after Atkins and her brothers, but they could no longer pay for her motherÊs hospital bills. AtkinsÊ relationship with her father went sour after he began drinking more heavily. He eventually sold the house in San Jose and moved to Los Banos, California. By this time, Michael had moved out and joined the Navy. Her father eventually left Atkins with her younger brother Steven. Depressed and wanting to be on her own, at age 18, Atkins eventually left high school to support herself. She eventually moved to San Francisco where she took a variety of jobs, including as a secretary and a topless dancer. Depressed and lonely, she got involved with the drug and hippie crowd in Haight-Ashbury; she especially liked marijuana and LSD, and after hanging out with some sailors one evening, her Crazy Sadie identity was born. It was in 1967, at the age of 19, that Atkins met Charles Manson, who visited the house she shared with friends and played guitar. A few weeks later, police raided the house, leaving Atkins homeless. She joined Manson and others who planned a summer road trip to Los Angeles. While creating a fake ID for Atkins, Manson and another man gave her the nickname Sadie Mae Glutz. Manson and his family eventually settled at Spahn Movie Ranch, which was located in the San Fernando Valley in Southern California. Atkins had learned about men at a young age but not about love. She felt that she learned and received that

Susan Atkins |

293

from Manson. „Getting hit by the man you love is no different than making love to him . . . Charlie gives me what I need‰ (Watkins, 1979: 73). On October 7, 1968, Atkins gave birth to a son whom Manson named Zezozece Zadfrack Glutz. The boyÊs father was Bruce White, whom Atkins met while the family was traveling through New Mexico in 1967. White came along and lived with them for about a month in the Topanga Canyon area but left just before the family eventually settled at Spahn Ranch. Once convicted, AtkinsÊ parental rights were immediately terminated. None of her family took in the child. He was adopted later on by a family who renamed him „Paul.‰ Atkins had no contact with her son after her incarceration in 1969. In the summer of 1969, the Manson family came under the suspicion of law enforcement for auto thefts and harboring runaways. Manson encouraged drug dealing in order to make money; in fact, many of the women were used as „entertainment‰ for the dealers who frequented the ranch. During this time, Manson talked about „Helter Skelter,‰ the inevitability of a race war which he described as an apocalyptic battle in which blacks would rise up against their white oppressors and kill them. Influenced by the BeatlesÊ White Album, which he played endlessly, Manson claimed that during the war, the family would be safe. At the end of this war, family members would be made into gods and eventually rule the Earth when blacks realized that they could not do it by themselves. Though the plans undoubtedly sounded insane to outsiders, everyone in the family believed anything that came out of MansonÊs mouth. At that time, someone suggested to Manson that he contact Gary Hinman who had just received a large monetary inheritance. Manson wanted Hinman to join the family and share his newfound wealth. On July 25, 1969, Manson sent Atkins, Bobby Beausoleil, and Mary Brunner to meet with Hinman. When Hinman confirmed that he did not inherit any money (which turned out to be true), Beausoleil beat him severely. Manson later showed up, infuriated that Hinman still claimed he had no money. In a rage, he sliced HinmanÊs face with a sword and cut his ear. Then, Manson ordered Atkins and Brunner to remain with Hinman and help him. According to Mary BrunnerÊs testimony, two days later, Beausoleil returned to HinmanÊs residence and killed him while Brunner and Atkins watched from the kitchen. Atkins claimed to have put a pillow over HinmanÊs face, but Brunner denied witnessing that. After HinmanÊs death, Beausoleil left a bloody handprint and other revolutionary words on the walls to deflect attention away from Manson and onto the Panthers. The Hinman killing did not seem enough for Manson so he contemplated other murders. On August 9, 1969, Atkins accompanied Charles „Tex‰ Watson, Linda Kasabian, and Patricia Krenwinkel to the Tate residence where Manson had indicated something ominous was going to happen. During the grand jury testimony, Atkins insisted that while she remained in the car, Watson told everyone there that they were to get the money from the people inside and then kill them. Atkins assisted

294 |

Susan Atkins

with tying up the victims. She struggled with Voytek Frykowski and stabbed him repeatedly in the legs. While waiting for Watson, Atkins also restrained Sharon Tate. Later, with TateÊs blood, she scrawled „Pig‰ on the front door. But Watson testified that he alone stabbed and killed Tate. Atkins claims that her role in the murders was mostly passive. However, many people argue that it was much more serious that she would admit. The next night, August 10, Manson told his crew that the murders of the previous night were too messy and that he needed to show them how to do it correctly. So, Manson gathered up Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Watson, Linda Kasabian, Leslie Van Houten, and Steve Grogan, who all eventually found themselves at the home of wealthy grocers Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles. Manson and Watson went inside the home and tied up the couple. He then sent in Krenwinkel and Van Houten, demanding that followed TexÊs orders. Manson told them to write on the walls with the victimsÊ blood and then to make it back to Spahn Ranch. Manson took Atkins, Kasabian, and Steve Grogan to Venice Beach to murder an acquaintance, actor Salidin Nader, whom Kasabian had met previously while hitchhiking. While dropping them off, Manson instructed them to kill Nader and then come back to the ranch. Nader was not killed because Kasabian went to the wrong apartment. Eventually, Manson and his followers left Spahn Ranch and relocated to Baker Ranch in Death Valley. However, in October 1969, police raided this ranch and family members were arrested for arson and auto theft. The charges were dropped, and everyone except Atkins could go. While in prison, a former family member, Kathryn Lutesinger, had suggested that Atkins was a part of the Hinman murder. Atkins went to another prison, where she bragged to her cell mates, Ronnie Howard and Virginia Graham, about the familyÊs involvement in the TateăLaBianca murders. Atkins shared with these women that she killed Sharon Tate, but later, she asserted that she said it only to show how tough and bad she was. Eventually, police arrested Manson, Watson, and Krenwinkel, based on the information they received. They issued a warrant for Kasabian, but she could not be located at the time. Hoping to avert the death penalty, Atkins testified before the Los Angeles grand jury that Manson ordered them to go to the house in „creepy-crawly outfits‰ and to kill everyone there. Atkins told the grand jury how she restrained Sharon Tate while she begged for her and her babyÊs life. When asked if she killed Tate, Atkins denied it. She claimed she watched Watson stab her to death. However, Atkins claimed that she stabbed Frykowski in the legs. In exchange for this testimony, the Los Angeles DAÊs office proclaimed that AtkinsÊ statements had been very helpful to police. Yet, right before the trial, Atkins recanted that testimony, claiming it was not true. However, years later, she maintained that it was a truthful accounting of what had occurred in the Tate residence that night.

Susan Atkins |

295

There was a global reaction to the Manson murders and subsequent trial. From the very beginning, the media exposure reached unprecedented levels. Atkins was later tried with Manson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten on charges of first-degree murder. The three girls shaved their heads, carved an „X‰ in their foreheads, and continually disrupted the courtroom with giggling in order to show solidarity and loyalty to Manson. In March 1971, the group was convicted and given the death penalty. Following this trial, Atkins was tried for the Hinman killing. Sharing the truth about that crime, Atkins also received another death sentence. However, in 1972, the California Supreme Court, in People v. Anderson, ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, leaving Atkins with a life sentence in prison. Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten were housed at the California Institution for Women at Frontera. Atkins did not maintain close contact with either woman, both of whom had ignored Atkins for many years immediately following the trial. Nonetheless, during her time in prison, Atkins involved herself in nearly every type of programming the prison offered. Her goal centered on selftransformation, for she always worked toward successful re-entry into society once on parole. She became a born-again Christian in 1974, involved herself in 12-step programs, and over her last four decades made significant contributions to community programs. Atkins helped save the lives of inmates and was awarded two commendations for these efforts. Atkins married twice while in prison. She first wed Donald Lee Laisure in 1981. From 1987 until her death, she was married to James Whitehouse, a Harvard-trained lawyer who represented Atkins at her parole hearings in 2000 and 2005. Atkins had some difficult times during her incarceration, especially with psychiatrists. Despite several negative reports, she was considered a model prisoner by many supporters including reformed inmates whom she helped; prison teachers who enjoyed her as a student; and prison clergy and counselors impressed by her abilities to be a role model for others. Diagnosed with brain cancer in 2008, Atkins was eventually transferred to the California Central WomenÊs Facility in Chowchilla. Despite her progress, Atkins had been continually denied parole, including at one hearing on September 2, 2009, where she had been wheeled into the hearing room on a hospital gurney. Susan Atkins was near death from her cancer at this point, finally dying on September 24, 2009. See also Good, Sandra; Kasabian, Linda; Krenwinkel, Patricia; Van Houten, Leslie Resources Atkins, Susan, with Bob Slosser. 1978. Child of Satan, Child of God. New York: Bantam Books. Bugliosi, Vincent, and Curt Gentry. 1974. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

296 |

Susan Atkins

CNN.com/Crime. 2009, September 25. „Ex-Manson follower Susan Atkins dies.‰ http:// www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/25/california.manson.atkins/index.html, accessed July 2, 2010. Sanders, Ed. 1989. The Family: The Manson Group and Its Aftermath. New York: New American Library/Signet. Schiller, Lawrence. 1970. The Killing of Sharon Tate: The Exclusive Story of Susan Atkins. New York: Signet. Watkins, Paul, and Guillermo Soledad. 1979. My Life with Charles Manson. New York: Bantam Books. Woo, Elaine. 2009, September 26. „Charles Manson follower Susan Atkins dies at 61.‰ Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/26/local/me-susan-atkins26, accessed July 2, 2010.

Sue Cote Escobar

Axis Sally. See Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk

B Josephine Baker (1906–1975) Josephine Baker (1906ă1975) was a legendary multiracial American-born dancer, singer, actor, entertainer, and civil rights activist. She served as an undercover agent for the French Resistance during World War II. In the 1950s, the FBI kept extensive files on her alleged un-American activities. Baker was born on June 3, 1906, as Freda Josephine McDonald in St. Louis, Missouri. According to her personal and official autobiography, her childhood was characterized by poverty and racism. She received little formal education and had to work as a cleaner to support her family. She became a street performer at a young age, and her professional career began as she toured with the Jones Family Band and the Dixie Steppers. In New York, Baker quickly earned fame and fortune at the Plantation Club. She traveled to Europe in 1925 and became an instant sensation. Her popularity soared in Paris for her exotic and erotic act. Her French audiences were awed by her sexuality, stage presence, and elaborate productions. Baker later settled in France and was declared a French citizen in 1937. During World War II, Baker was active in the French Resistance. She performed extensively for French troops in various locations, and she even served in the French Auxiliary Air Force as a sublieutenant. In addition, Baker worked undercover for the intelligence branch of the French Resistance and smuggled secret messages coded in her sheet music from Portugal. Baker received the Croix de Guerre and the Legion dÊHonneur for her service during the war. The FBI compiled a 359-page file on Josephine Baker in her lifetime, though she was never proven to have engaged in any criminal activities, and she was never charged or convicted for any wrongdoings. The files contain various pieces of information, memos, letters from the public, newspaper and magazine articles, and other items that contain information on BakerÊs political activities. The intersection of racial and Cold War politics in the 1950s United States triggered the FBI to keep an extensive file on Baker. Her active involvement in the Civil

297

298 |

Josephine Baker

Rights Movement and her international fame and exposure were argued to be the prime cause for the FBIÊs scrutiny. Baker first came under the FBIÊs attention in the early 1950s when she was initially refused service at the Stork Club in New York City. She subsequently received very slow service, and she left the club angrily. She believed that the incident was racially motivated. She decided to initiate a boycott of the club, and she received support from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). To generate public support, the NAACP Josephine Baker, a young dancer from New appealed to Walter Winchell, a newspaper York City’s Harlem neighborhood, was the columnist who was regarded as an ally of star attraction in the 1920s at the Folies the NAACP and the African American Bergères in Paris. (Library of Congress) community. Instead, Winchell attacked Baker and labeled her as a fascist and a communist sympathizer, and he further commented on her act as being morally indecent. Baker filed a libel law suit against Winchell and the Hearst newspaper corporation in return. The case became a sensation, and the FBI began to collect information on Baker. According to Regester (2000), the FBI files contain detailed documentation of her professional as well as personal activities to discredit her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement and her international popularity. According to one of the files, she had a Russian maid, and the FBI used the maidÊs racial background to claim that Baker secretly wanted to deny her racial identity. In other files, Baker was also labeled as anti-American when she gave lectures in various countries on racial segregation and racism in America. BakerÊs international fame and support, along with her staunch position on the Civil Rights Movement and Cold War politics, have been suggested as the primary causes of the intense investigation by the FBI. BakerÊs leadership role in the formation of the World League Against Racial Discrimination further fueled the FBIÊs claims that she was involved in un-American activities and was a threat to national security. The organization was to establish branches in Cuba, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and these nations were regarded as the top enemies of the United States. The FBI also used her visit to Cuba and her meeting with Fidel Castro as confirmation of her anti-American stands. Ultimately, the FBI was effective and successful in portraying Baker as communist sympathizer and a significant threat to the national security of the United

Velma Barfield | 299

States. The State Department also kept records of her travels and activities overseas. The mainstream press appeared to be significantly influenced by the FBIÊs effort. However, no charges were ever filed against Baker, and her alleged anti-American activities were never substantiated by any solid evidence nor formally charged in the courts. Resources Baker, Jean-Claude, and Chris Chase. 1993. Josephine: The Hungry Heart. New York: Random House. Baker, Josephine, and Joseph Bouillon I. 1976. Josephine. New York: Harper & Row. Dudziak, Mary L. 1994. Josephine Baker, Racial Protest, and the Cold War. Journal of American History, 81: 543ă570. Regester, Charlene. 2000. The Construction of an Image and the Deconstruction of a Star· Josephine Baker Racialized, Sexualized, and Politicized in the African-American Press, the Mainstream Press, and FBI Files. Popular Music and Society 24: 31ă84. Wood, Ean. 2000. The Josephine Baker Story. London: Sanctuary.

Kay Kei-ho Pih

Velma Barfield (1932–1984) Velma Barfield is 1 of only 50 women executed in the United States between 1900 and 2006. She was put to death for the poisoning murder of her husband, and she confessed to killing three other people. Margie Velma Bullard, born in North Carolina on October 29, 1932, was the second of nine children born to Lillie and Murphy Bullard. Velma, as her parents always called her, had a troublesome childhood. Her father was abusive towards her and very violent towards her mother and older brother, Olive. According to Barfield, her father raped her when she was 13 years old. She also felt rejected and unloved by her mother. In December 1949 when she was only 17, Velma married Thomas Burke, whom she began to date the year before at age 16. Condemned murderer Velma Barfield is Their son Ronald Thomas was born on shown during the taping of an interview in December 15, 1951, and their daughter Kim was born on September 3, 1953. October 1984. (AP/Wide World Photos)

300

|

Velma Barfield

Around the age of 30 when Velma began to have trouble with anxiety, Thomas began to drink heavily. In 1966, ThomasÊs father died suddenly from a heart attack at the age of 60, and Thomas turned to more alcohol to cope. Velma was fearful of Thomas when he drank. In 1967 when Thomas was arrested for drunk driving, Velma had him committed to Dorothea Dix State Hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina. After he signed himself out, he continued to drink. In 1967, Velma suffered a nervous breakdown, was taken to a hospital, and was given vitamin shots and sedatives. She was released after a week with a prescription for tranquilizers. This was the beginning of her addiction to prescription medications including tranquilizers, painkillers, Valium, and sleeping pills. Velma went to various doctors who all prescribed her medications without knowing she was getting prescriptions elsewhere. As ThomasÊs drinking problem escalated, Velma threatened to divorce him. In April 1969, Thomas came home drunk, started smoking, ignited a fire, and died of smoke inhalation. After his death, Velma increased her abuse of prescription medications. Velma married Jennings Barfield, the widower of one of her co-workers, in August 1970. She continued to take pills and overdosed several times. Jennings, who was sick with emphysema and diabetes, refused to follow doctorÊs orders. Approximately six months after they were married, Velma poisoned him. She tried to convince herself that he died because of pre-existing medical conditions. After the death of two husbands, Velma experienced another great loss when her father died at the age of 61 from lung cancer. Despite the lack of a good relationship with her father, she was devastated by his death. Soon after, she moved in with her mother and began to take out loans to pay for medications using her motherÊs home as collateral. Drugs controlled VelmaÊs life. In 1974, Velma poisoned her mother. The autopsy did not reveal poison; the cause of death was ruled a heart attack. Once again Velma denied that the death was a result of the poison. After her motherÊs death, Velma moved in with her daughter and son-in-law. As her money dwindled, she began to write checks on a closed account and was arrested and served four months in jail for check fraud. In 1976, Velma Barfield accepted a job caring for Montgomery Edwards, a 94-year-old blind and bedridden man. His 84-year-old wife Dollie paid Barfield $75 a week and gave her room and board. In September 1976, Barfield met their nephew, Stuart Taylor, whom she started dating despite him being married. Over time, Dollie Edwards became critical of Barfield. In January 1977 when Montgomery Edwards died at the age of 95, Barfield stayed with Dollie although their relationship was quite tense. Four weeks after MontgomeryÊs death, Velma Barfield poisoned Dollie Edwards who died in the intensive care unit of the hospital in February. Dollie Edwards was VelmaÊs third victim. One week after DollieÊs funeral, a young woman asked Barfield to care for her mother, 76-year-old Record Lee, and her father, 80-year-old John Henry Lee. To

Velma Barfield | 301

cope with the bickering between John Henry and Record, Barfield was taking numerous drugs a day. After only a few weeks working for the Lees, Barfield used one of their checks to pay for a prescription for herself. John Henry contacted police about the forged check, but no one suspected Barfield. Velma Barfield began to poison John Henry Lee in April 1977, and he died June 4, 1977. Since the medical report said he died of a heart attack, Barfield convinced herself that he was old and had problems; it wasnÊt the poison that killed him. Barfield continued to care for Record for a few months before quitting. At that time she again started to date Stuart Taylor, whose wife had since died from kidney disease. After the two became engaged, Barfield stole one of his blank checks and forged his name. When Stuart found out, he forgave her. Stuart Taylor died on January 31, 1978, at the age of 56. Velma Barfield agreed to an autopsy because she didnÊt think any poison would be discovered, and she already convinced herself that though the poison that she had given him made him sick, he really died from the flu. TaylorÊs autopsy revealed arsenic poisoning, and Velma Barfield was suspected. BarfieldÊs son Ronnie convinced her to confess in March 1978. She confessed to also poisoning Lillie Bullard, Dollie Edwards, and John Henry Lee. JenningsÊs body was exhumed and traces of poison were found, but Velma never confessed to poisoning him. She was charged only with the first-degree murder of Stuart Taylor and pled not guilty by reason of insanity. Velma Barfield took the stand in her defense, testifying that she never meant to kill people·she just wanted to make them sick. She was found guilty and sentenced to death in 1978. VelmaÊs son and daughter blamed drugs for their motherÊs actions, and both supported her during the trial proceedings and while she was on death row. In prison Barfield became religious and was convinced she never would have killed anyone if not for the pills. While in prison, she stopped taking prescription medications and is said to have helped many other inmates. In the six years Velma Barfield was on death row, her sentence was unsuccessfully appealed numerous times and she received several stays of execution. She was executed by lethal injection on November 2, 1984. She was the first woman to be executed in the United States since 1976. Resources Barfield, Velma. 1985. Women on Death Row. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson Books. Bledsoe, Jerry. 1998. Death Sentence: The True Story of Velma BarfieldÊs Life, Crimes and Execution. New York: Dutton. Kelleher, Michael D., and C. L. Kelleher. 1998. Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Shana Maier

302 |

Ma Barker

Ma Barker (1871–1935) In a time when women still were expected to be docile and caretakers, remaining in the home, Ma Barker rose to notoriety as the mastermind behind the Barker-Karpis Gang and was named a female public enemy by the FBI. Arizona „Ma‰ Barker was born near Ash Grove, Missouri, on October 8, 1871. She later moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma, when her mother, Emma Reynolds, remarried Reuben Reynolds (aka James Reynolds) who was a watchman and worked at an oil exposition there. Barker grew up with her four sisters, one half-sister, and one half-brother. Barker had several aliases, including „Effie Gordon,‰ „Ma,‰ „Mother,‰ „Arrie,‰ and commonly „Kate.‰ Under the name „Arrie Clark,‰ she married George E. Barker, a filling station operator, on September 15, 1892. They had four sons: Herman, Lloyd, Arthur („Doc‰), and Fred. The Barkers were relatively poor, relying on GeorgeÊs low salary, and Ma left George in 1928 amid speculation of her infidelity. Ma Barker later was associated with Arthur Dunlop (also known as George Anderson) whom the FBI speculated was murdered by MaÊs son Fred and Alvin Karpis for allegedly tipping off the police. There is no indication that George was involved in the criminal activity of his family, although he profited from it. The FBI reported that George was fearful for his life, that he was afraid of Ma Barker and the boys. Ma BarkerÊs sons were involved in quite a bit of delinquency as juveniles, quickly escalating to bank robbery, burglary, and homicide. Between 1915 and 1935 throughout Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, the Barker boys were involved in numerous crimes. One of the earlier crimes recorded was a highway robbery arrest of Herman on March 5, 1915, in Joplin, Missouri. While there is some dispute about the extent of MaÊs participation in the criminal activity of her sons, there is no doubt that she knew what they were doing, and she clearly benefited from the „proceeds‰ of their crime. While in prison on a burglary charge, Fred (the youngest and reportedly MaÊs favorite son) met Alvin Karpis, who came home with Fred upon release, and together they formed the Barker-Karpis Gang including the other Barker brothers (when they were not incarcerated) and other associates they met in the penitentiary or while on the run. Ma moved with the gang throughout Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas, and finally to Florida. Ma Barker. (UPI/Bettmann/Corbis)

Sydney Barrows | 303

The FBI referred to Ma Barker as the mastermind of the gang, planning their crimes of bank robberies and kidnappings. However, in his biography, Karpis disagreed, claiming Ma was merely a caretaker, never involved with the crimes; Karpis said that, in fact the gang sent Ma to the movies when they engaged in criminal activity. Given that Ma downplayed the importance of education to her sons, the FBI speculated that she was the most intelligent of the gang·and the only one capable of plotting their crimes. One of the final crimes committed by the gang was the kidnapping of a bank president, Edward George Bremer, on January 17, 1934, for which they received $200,000 ransom. Ma did not accompany the boys in this criminal endeavor; instead, she and the other women of the gang stayed behind in their apartments. She and a couple members of the gang did, however, move the ransom money from the kidnapping from its hiding place to FredÊs Ohio apartment. Despite her involvement with the Barker-Karpis Gang, Ma Barker was never tried or convicted. On January 16, 1935, when the FBI tried to execute a warrant on Ma and her son Fred in their cottage near Oklawaha, Florida, Ma and Fred began a gun fight which resulted in their deaths. The FBI reports finding a machine gun next to Ma BarkerÊs left hand. The other Barker brothers were either killed or imprisoned. In a time when women were fighting for the right to vote and were expected to remain in the home, Ma Barker violated gender stereotypes by leading a criminal gang. She was labeled by the FBI as a „female public enemy‰ in a press release for Every Week Magazine, making Ma Barker a household name. Resources deFord, Miriam Allen. 1970. The Real Ma Barker: Mastermind of a Whole Family of Killers. New York: Ace. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1936. „Barker-Karpis Gang (summary).‰ FBI Records: The Vault. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://vault.fbi.gov/Barker-Karpis%20Gang%20Summaryy Hornberger, Francine. 2002. Mistresses of Mayhem: The Book of Women Criminals. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha.

Jennifer C. Gibbs

Sydney Barrows (1952–) The story of Sydney Biddle Barrows, otherwise known as the „Mayflower Madame,‰ demonstrates that people from all walks of life can and do break laws. A descendent of William Brewster, an English separatist who sailed to America

304 | Sydney Barrows

on the Mayflower, Barrows was formally charged with the crime of promoting prostitution on October 16, 1984. Her legal transgressions also call attention to the relationship between gender roles and womenÊs crimes. In a society that places an inordinately high premium on a young womanÊs ability to present oneself in a sexual and desirable manner, her sexuality became a valuable commodity·something that could be bought and sold within the context of a lucrative but illegal sex market. Though Barrows was born into a family whose names were listed on the pages of the social registry, she was far from rich. At the time of her high school graduation, she learned that the money set aside for her college tuition had been used to pay her boarding school expenses. Undeterred, she enrolled in a fashion buying and merchandising program at the New York City Fashion Institute of Technology, paying her tuition with the use of student loans and the money she earned through part-time employment. Finishing at the top of her class, she readily landed a number of retail positions. But after losing one such job, and in desperate need of money, she found work as a part-time receptionist at a local escort service. As she answered phones, and saw that the poorly run service was owned and operated by an individual who habitually defrauded his female employees, she began to envision a well-run escort service that was not only profitable but treated its workers fairly. Partnering with Gina, a friend and fellow receptionist, she instituted Cachet, an exclusive and upscale escort service. Providing an alternative to the typical shady escort operations found in and around New York City, Barrows took pride in the way she treated her „girls.‰ She paid them 60 percent of their fees, allowed them to keep all of their tips, and supplied them with health care. Male patrons were carefully screened, and her young female employees could refuse to spend time with any man they were uncomfortable with. Landing a job with Barrows was not easy. Unattractive young women lacking in poise and diction were turned away, making this humane alternative to the typical escort service open only to a select few. The „young ladies,‰ as they were referred to, were expected to acquire a sophisticated wardrobe, practice careful grooming, and maintain an appropriate weight. She did, however, hire as many as 172 young escorts over the course of the four-and-a-half years she was in business. Why did such bright and competent women, who were often drawn from the ranks of college students and business professionals, moonlight as professional escorts? Money! „Manhattan is an appallingly expensive place to live,‰ Barrows wrote in her 1986 autobiography Mayflower Madame: The Secret Life of Sydney Biddle Barrows, „and even a girl making $25,000 in an executive training program would have a difficult time paying her bills without a second income. [And] hour for hour, our girls were among the highest-paid professional women in the country‰ (168). Barrows became sole owner of Cachet after her partner opted out of the business. Barrows came to the attention of the New York City vice squad after the

Sydney Barrows | 305

disgruntled owner of the townhome that served as her business headquarters tipped off the police. Vice officers, posing as „johns‰ attempting to render services, arrested four of her employees, and these arrests led to the eventual raid of CachetÊs townhome headquarters. Learning of the arrest warrant issued for her the very next day, she acted upon the advice of her attorney and surrendered to district attorney officials several days later. The half day Barrows spent in police custody on October 16, 1984, stands in sharp contrast to the upper middle class lifestyle was accustomed to. Fingerprinted and handcuffed upon surrender, she was transferred to a grimy holding pen for a total of five hours before being forced to join a line of 12 women handcuffed to a long chain. The entire group was eventually loaded into the small windowless back compartment of a police van. They were forced to sit on each otherÊs laps or on the floor prior to being driven to the courthouse in cramped unventilated darkness. Once in court with her legal team, Barrows was formally charged with promoting prostitution. Pleading „not guilty‰ to the crime, she was released on $7,500 bail. Although the prosecutionÊs case against her was weak·running an escort service is not a crime in that clients paid for a young womanÊs time rather than for any particular sexual act·she reluctantly accepted a plea bargain for taking the case to trial would not only add to her already exorbitant legal fees but also introduce the slight possibility of jail time. WhatÊs more, a trial would force her former clients and employees to break their anonymity when ordered to testify against her in court. So on July 19, 1985, Barrows pled guilty to the crime of prostitution in the third degree and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine·a penalty her attorney Risa Dickstein described as a „kiss on the wrist‰ (Barrows, 1986: 358). In the weeks and months following her arrest and subsequent plea, BarrowsÊ story was covered by both the tabloids and news organizations alike, making her an instant celebrity, and her best-selling autobiography Mayflower Madame (1986) was later turned into a television movie. BarrowsÊ her newfound celebrity status was not without drawbacks. The stigma of her arrest made it difficult to find work, and the money earned from her autobiography went to pay her legal fees. A second book, Etiquette for Consenting Adults (1990), did not sell well at all. As a result, she could not make ends meet. She was not down for long. She married legal scholar and TV producer Darnay Hoffman in 1994, and her third book, Just Between Us Girls (1996) served as a springboard for a successful lecture series for wives intent on keeping their husbands from seeking sexual solace with the use of high-class prostitutes. How does Barrows make sense of her foray into the illegal world of prostitution? She steadfastly contends that U.S. prostitution laws are in desperate need of reform. As she wrote in her 1986 biography, the illegal nature of prostitution provides an „attractive operating ground for gambling, drugs, violence, and even organized crime‰ (366). Likening sex work to one of the many service industry jobs she

306 |

Elizabeth Bàthory

asserts, „Like their counterparts in the other helping professions our girls brought tenderness and comfort into our clientsÊ lives‰ (365). It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that Barrows does not believe she did anything wrong. Resources Adler, J., and Johnson, P. 1984. The Mayflower Madame. Newsweek. October 29. Barrows, S. B. 1986. Mayflower Madam: The Secret Life of Sydney Biddle Barrows. New York: Arbor House. Biography. 1995. Mayflower Madame: The Sydney Biddle Barrows Story. A&E. DVD. Goldman, David. 1996. Love for Sale: The Sydney Biddle Barrows Case. Biography 1(9): 14. Stanley, A. 1984. The Classy Madame. Time. October 29.

Kristyan M. Kouri

Elizabeth Bàthory (ca. 1560–1614) Countess Erzsebet (Elizabeth) Bàthory was a legendary female serial murder who either murdered her victims or directed other women in her employ to kill on her behalf. Even though she operated around the turn of the 17th century, she remains one of the most significant and prolific murderers of all time. She is also, as of this writing, the earliest documented case of a female serial murderer. Although she was tried for killing over 80 people, several claims put her victim count from 300 to 600 or more individuals. According to Seagrave (1992), Bàthory was born to Gyorgy, a soldier, and Anna the sister of the king of Poland, in 1560. She was promised to Count Ferencz Nadasdy at age 11. Many of the Bàthory family were described as drunks; Satan worshippers, and incestuous, murderous sadists who tortured servants. Penrose (1970) documents quite eloquently that the family was notorious for their torture activities. There is substantial evidence that the environment in which Erzsebet Bàthory grew up in may have played a role in her choice of entertainment. The countess was also prone to „fits.‰ She often complained of stabbing pains both in her head and behind her eyes. It has been suggested by Seagrave (1992) that these fits may have been bouts of epilepsy, something the family was also known to suffer from. She married Count Nadasdy on May 8, 1575, at the age of 15, retaining her maiden name of Bàthory, thus signifying her familyÊs higher status. They moved into the Castle of Csejthe in northern Hungary. Before her husbandÊs death in 1604, she was known to have tortured many of the female servants of the castle. She eventually incorporated a variety of barbaric implements and built torture chambers wherever she moved to. In her collection were a number of long pins, a pair of flesh-tearing silver pincers, and a torture manual

Elizabeth Bàthory | 307

her husband had acquired while fighting the Turks. She would pierce, cut, sear, and burn all parts of the body including breast and vaginal areas, or she would have her trusted servants do it for her while she watched, screaming expletives and insults at her victims until she passed out. She also enjoyed flagellation, something taught to her by her aunt. Women victims were taken from the lower classes, so as to not attract attention from the existing authorities. If these women went missing, the disappearance was rarely investigated especially if a member of the aristocracy was implicated. Some young women were convinced to come willingly with the enticement of employment as maids. Still others were simply drugged, or physically overpowered, and taken to the castle. Those who were brought to Bàthory were said never to leave the castle. The dead were buried, left to rot, or sometimes thrown over the castle walls to be eaten by wild animals. Eventually, she sought women from non-peasant classes. At some time directly after the turn of the century, her husband died. By this point, it was believed that Erzsebet Bàthory was quite mad. It is unclear whether she was as active torturing young women before his death, but it was remarked that after he died, her activities were at a feverish level. As her need to torture grew, so did her need for victims. She moved to torturing strangers when her supply of local servants ran out. Before she was caught, she would direct a number of trusted servants to bring victims to the castle. With pressure from his public, King Matthias of Poland, whose father attended the Bàthory wedding, was forced to order an investigation. Count Thurzo, BàthoryÊs closest neighbor conducted a raid on the castle on December 29, 1610. She and her dedicated servants were caught in the midst of a torture session. Countess Elisabeth Bàthory was put on trial January 2, 1611. She was accused and convicted of killing 80 young women, a number related to the number of individual remains found at the scene by the raiders. It is estimated that she killed many more over the years that she was operating. Although three of her assistants were put to death, Countess Bàthory, protected by birthright, was allowed to live. Parliament decided that she be confined to a room in her own castle. She died there three-and-a-half years later on or around August 21, 1614. Despite the many accounts of her crimes and her significant victim pool, she was not recognized as being in the serial killer class of offenders until the early 1990s. She is a prime example of how gendered stereotypes can interact with social class. Before this time she was most often not included in many popular encyclopedias on this subject. Where her actions were documented, she remained unclassified as a serial murderer or labeled erroneously as a „Black Widow,‰ even though she did not murder her husbands or lovers. The activities of Countess Bàthory have been recounted in several books. Some of these documents include a grotesque legend of the countess and her activities that had built up over the centuries. The legend was that Erzsebet Bàthory initially

308 |

Betty Beets

got the blood of a young servant girl on her skin and supposedly became convinced that her skin, under the blood, looked younger. It was stated that, aided by her servant Doretta Szentes, or Dorka, and two others, Countess Bàthory began bathing at four every morning in the blood of virgins. She was said to either drink the blood directly out of the body or to drain it into her bathing tub. This version of events, as with many legends, is almost wholly false. The legend, however, is revealing in that it suggests that she killed to protect beauty and youth, not to gain power or experience pleasure through violence. The former reflects traditionally feminine sources of power, while the latter being masculine. Trial documents do state that some exsanguination of victims was performed, but this was due to BàthoryÊs practice of alchemy and rituals of „black magic‰ as opposed to warding off old age. Resources Penrose, V. (1970). The Bloody Countess. London: Creation Books. Seagrave, K. (1992). Woman Serial and Mass Murderers: A Worldwide Reference, 1580 through 1990. London: McFarland & Company.

Hannah Scott

Betty Beets (1937–2000) Betty Lou Dunevant, born March 12, 1937, in North Carolina, was the second of four children born to James and Louise Dunevant. Louise Dunevant had severe mental health issues, and BettyÊs father James drank heavily and was physically abusive towards Betty Lou. At the age of 15, Betty Lou met Robert Franklin Branson. She married him in 1952, right after completing ninth grade, and they had their first child Faye one year later. Betty Lou and Robert had marital problems, and Betty Lou even attempted suicide. However, they continued to have children together. After the birth of their second daughter, Connie, Betty Lou and Robert moved to Texas. Their third daughter, Shirley, was born in 1959, followed by the birth of Phyllis in 1962, Robert Franklin II in 1964, and Bobby in 1966. In 1969, after 17 years of marriage and six children, Betty Lou and Robert divorced. Betty Lou received custody of the children. One year later, in 1970, Betty Lou married Billy York Lane. Billy York Lane abused Betty Lou, and the two divorced within one year. After the divorce, Billy saw Betty Lou at a bar dancing with another man and became jealous. Betty Lou told police that Billy followed her home that evening and threatened to kill her so she shot him twice. She claimed it was self-defense. However, both shots were in BillyÊs back. Billy, who survived the shooting, at first told police a story very

Betty Beets | 309

different from BettyÊs account of the night. Billy claimed that Betty Lou called him at his daughterÊs house and asked him to come over. He later recanted his story and told police that he had threatened Betty Lou. As a result of the incident, Betty Lou received only a fine, and Betty Lou and Billy York Lane married for a second time. They divorced again after one month. In 1978, Betty Lou married Ronnie Threlkeld (her third husband and fourth marriage), and they moved to Arkansas. At that time, Betty LouÊs youngest son Bobby, who was still living with her, started to notice his motherÊs mental instability. Ronnie Threlkeld soon left Betty Lou, and she filed for divorce. Betty Lou soon met Doyle Wayne Barker at a gas station, and the two married in October 1979. She divorced him in January 1980, but he returned to Betty Lou, and the two married for a second time in 1981. According to Betty Lou, Barker was abusive so she shot him in 1981, stuffed him in a sleeping bag, and stuffed him in the closet. She then called her daughter, Shirley, and confessed the murder. Shirley helped her mother bury Doyle Wayne Barker in the backyard, and Betty Lou told friends, family, and neighbors that Barker simply disappeared. While working in a club, Betty Lou met James Donald Beets. The couple married in Texas in August 1982, and although Jimmy DonÊs son Jamie did not like Betty Lou, Betty LouÊs children were fond of Jimmy Don and claimed that he was never abusive towards their mother. Betty Lou soon began to take out life insurance policies on Jimmy Don listing herself as the beneficiary. She told her son Robby that she planned to kill Jimmy Don to collect the life insurance money. Betty Lou shot Jimmy Don Beets with a .38 Colt revolver while he was asleep in their home on August 6, 1983. She confessed to her son Robby and daughter Shirley, and Robby helped Betty Lou bury Jimmy Don in the yard. Betty Lou called the police to report Jimmy Don missing. The next day, she and Robby put Jimmy DonÊs empty fishing boat in a nearby lake, spilling Jimmy DonÊs heart medication in the boat; they wanted to make it look like Jimmy Don had a heart attack and fell overboard, although Jimmy DonÊs son Jamie never believed that story. The police found the empty boat on August 12, 1983. After having too much to drink, Betty Lou told Gerald Albright, a man with whom she was having an affair, that one of her husbands was buried in her yard. Albright reported this to the police who obtained a search warrant for her yard. They found the bodies of Jimmy Don Beets and Doyle Wayne Barker and arrested Betty Lou Beets on June 8, 1985. Bail was set at $1 million. Betty LouÊs daughter Shirley was also arrested in connection with the murders. Both Shirley and Robby confessed their involvement in the murders; Shirley reported to the police that while she was incarcerated in a cell next to her mother, Betty Lou confessed to killing Jimmy Don Beets. Betty Lou Beets pled not guilty to the murder of Jimmy Don Beets but was indicted for murder on June 11, 1985. Robby and Shirley testified against their mother.

310

|

Mary Bell

Despite the efforts on Betty LouÊs defense attorney, E. Ray Andrews, Betty Lou Beets was found guilty and sentenced to death for the murder of Jimmy Don Beets in a Texas court in October 1985. Although she was charged with the murder of Doyle Wayne Barker, she never went to trial for BarkerÊs death because of the death sentence that was imposed on her for the murder of Beets. Betty Lou Beets, who claimed her father and all five husbands abused her, appealed the courtÊs ruling, claiming the jury should have been allowed to consider her history of abuse. Battered womenÊs advocates agreed that her history of abuse should have been entered as mitigating evidence. She also claimed her counsel, E. Ray Andrews, was ineffective. Despite her appeals and a few stays of execution, Betty Lou Beets was executed by lethal injection in Texas on February 24, 2000. She was 62 at the time of the execution, and she was the fourth woman to be executed in the United States since 1976. Resources Fox, James A., and James Levin. 2005. Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pence, Irene. 2001. Buried Memories: The Chilling True Story of Betty Lou Beets, the Texas Black Widow. New York: Pinnacle Books.

Shana Maier

Mary Bell (1957–) Mary Flora Bell was a child convicted of manslaughter in the cases of two other children. Her actions caused a sensation in 1968 when she was convicted, at 11 years of age, for the murders of two boys in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. Mary Bell murdered four-year-old Martin Brown by strangulation on the day before her 11th birthday, May 25, 1968. It is believed she was alone during this incident. The second murder, on July 31, 1968, also involved the strangulation of a young boy·threeyear-old Brian Howe. Though it is believed both Mary and her friend Norma Bell (no familial relation) were present during the murder, only Mary was convicted for HoweÊs death. Mary Flora Bell was born on May 26, 1957, in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England, to 16-year-old Betty Bell. MaryÊs father is unknown. It is believed that Betty Bell attempted to kill her daughter several times, usually by drug overdose, within the first several years of her life. Additionally, relentless abuse was the norm within the home in which Mary was raised. Betty Bell engaged in prostitution and often used Mary as a sexual prop during these encounters. Many believe that the brutality of her mother, the unknown genetics of her father, and the damage caused by the numerous drug overdoses Mary suffered may have been catalysts to her violent actions.

Mary Bell | 311

Although Mary was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of Martin Brown and Brian Howe, her friend Norma Bell was acquitted of both deaths. On the day four-year-old Brown was found dead in an abandoned house (May 25, 1968), it was Mary and Norma who informed his aunt of the horrible tragedy. When Martin was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead, the pathologist conducting his autopsy could not determine a cause of death. There were no external injuries, except for a small bruise on his knee. The doctor believed the boyÊs death might have occurred from poisoning, but this was ruled out once test analyses showed no signs of chemicals or drugs within the boyÊs system. Following MartinÊs death, several incidents served to illuminate MaryÊs interest in violence and her involvement in MartinÊs deaths. First, Mary and Norma approached MartinÊs family members to ask morbid questions, including whether Martin was missed. Then the girls asked if they could see the little boyÊs body in the casket. Additionally, on the day following MartinÊs death (MaryÊs 11th birthday), Mary was found strangling NormaÊs younger sister. NormaÊs father intervened. Then, on the morning of May 27, 1968, it was discovered that the local day nursery (day care center) had been broken into, and messages related to MartinÊs murder had been left behind. A security alarm was promptly installed in the building. On Friday of that same week, Mary and Norma set off the building alarm and were caught by the police. They denied ever having broken in before and were sent home with their parents to await an appearance date in juvenile court. A final incriminating incident focused on MaryÊs visit to Brian HoweÊs home a few days prior to his death. During that visit, she told the Howe family that Norma had strangled Martin Brown, and she even demonstrated how Norma had done it. Only days later, Mary strangled Brian Howe exactly as she had described the strangulation of Martin BrownÊs. Unlike Martin, however, Brian had puncture wounds in his thighs, his genitals were partially skinned (a pair of scissors was found near the scene), and a razor had been used to scratch „M‰ into his stomach. The physical wounds found on BrianÊs body, compared to the lack of violence on MartinÊs body, illuminate the fact that Mary, similar to many individuals who murder multiple times, had become more violent during her murders. The nine-day trial against Mary Bell and Norma Bell began on December 5, 1968. The prosecutor suggested that whoever had killed Martin Brown had also killed Brian Howe. He furthered his case by describing the suspicious behaviors of both Mary and Norma. Norma first took the stand during the trial. She told the court that Mary had shown her how to kill a little boy or girl and that Mary had also told her about the „accident‰ of Martin Brown. When Mary was called to the stand, her odd and violent behavior following MartinÊs death was immediately questioned. In addition, handwriting experts analyzed the notes left behind at the day nursery; their analysis indicated that both girls had participated in writing those notes.

312

|

Catherine Bevan

As the trial proceeded, Mary and Norma continually told opposing stories. Though both girls denied having a role in the death of Martin Brown, each admitted that they had been together with Brian Howe at the time of his death. However, their testimonies conflicted regarding how Brian was killed. Mary claimed that Norma killed him, while Norma accused Mary of BrianÊs murder. The jury took under four hours to return a verdict. Norma was judged „not guilty‰ of manslaughter in both cases; Mary was found guilty of manslaughter in both MartinÊs and BrianÊs deaths. At the time of judgment, British authorities were unsure where Mary should serve her sentence. She eventually was remanded to an „all boys‰ facility, the Red Bank Special Unit, from February 1969 until November 1973. Later, in 1977, she was moved to a less secure facility, from which she escaped, though she was recaptured after only a few days. Shortly before her parole in 1980, Mary was moved to a hostel where she met, and became pregnant by, a married man. She was officially released on May 14, 1980, at age 23. At the time of her initial incarceration, Mary Flora Bell was judged to be a severe risk to other children. Though diagnosed with a psychopathic disorder, Britain had no treatment or hospital suitable to provide appropriate care for Mary. Consequently, she was imprisoned without treatment. After rendering a decision, Mary BellÊs trial judge commented that he hoped the matters they had all had to deal with would be put behind them and forgotten. The judgeÊs comments, coupled with the lack of adequate treatment resources and ageor gender-appropriate incarceration facilities, might have reflected a larger societal problem in the denial that young female children were capable of such aggression and violence. Resources Scott, Shirley Lynn. Mary Bell. Court TV, Crime Library, Retrieved August 10, 2007. http:// www.crimelibrary.com/about/authors/scott/ Sereny, Gitta. 1995. The Case of Mary Flora Bell: A Portrait of a Child Who Murdered. London: Pimlico. Sereny, Gitta. 1998. Cries Unheard. London: Macmillan.

Devon Thacker Thomas

Catherine Bevan (1680–1731) Catherine Bevan was accused of killing her husband, Henry Bevan, with the help of their servant Peter Murphy. She was burned for her crime, a punishment typically reserved for black slaves (though she was white), whereas her alleged partner

Catherine Bevan |

in crime, a white indentured servant, was hanged (Williams 1999, 22). The legal reason for the separate sentences is that a woman killing her husband was considered „petit treason‰ (Loyd 1908, 36). Catherine BevanÊs execution is a significant event in American history as it illustrates the differential societal expectations of men and women in early America. Her case exemplifies that, among other formal and informal social mechanisms, white male power was maintained through the disparate treatment of men and women in the criminal justice system. While little has been written on her life, her ostensibly heinous demise caused some scholarly inquiry and speculation regarding her guilt. Her account of the event was not documented. The treatment of her execution by the news media of that day, and earlier historians, exemplifies the patriarchal approach to crime. During separate interrogations, Peter Murphy accused Catherine Bevan of the murder, claiming that she had sent him off to buy vitriol, which she then mixed into her husbandÊs wine (Jones 1996, 37). According to Peter Murphy, when Henry Bevan did not immediately die after drinking the poisoned wine, Catherine Bevan ordered him to beat Henry Bevan to death. He claimed to have refused and was dispatched to find the neighbors on the false pretense that her husband had taken ill (37). Peter Murphy asserted that, during his absence, Catherine strangled Henry Bevan to death. Peter Murphy maintained this story, until the day of the trial, when he confessed that he lied about the aforementioned, saying only that Catherine Bevan had not disapproved of the murder (37). No real detail exists on the circumstances of Catherine BevanÊs relationship with Peter Murphy nor the nature of the relationship with her husband. Some evidence suggests that the community did not feel as much malice towards her as, for example, sentiments printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette. There was a clear suspicion that Peter Murphy was as responsible as Catherine Bevan was, but little record of this possibility exists other than his retraction on the day of the trial. By some accounts, Henry Bevan had allegedly told neighbors that he was being abused by both Catherine Bevan and Peter Murphy (Jones 1996, 36). Perhaps due to these rumors, a magistrate had ordered an exhumation, and upon opening the coffin, it was discovered that Henry Bevan was covered in bruises (Jones 1996, 36). It has largely been assumed that she was having an affair and, together with her lover, she murdered her husband. Catherine BevanÊs historical treatment is testament to the timelessness of stories involving love affairs and murder. Another motive has not been considered. Sentenced by the Court of New Castle County in Delaware, Catherine BevanÊs fate was to be burned in New Castle on September 10, 1781. The Pennsylvania Gazette reported that she was unrepentant as opposed to her accomplice who expressed remorse (September 23, 1971). Indeed, she was said to deny any part in the crime up until the very end. It seems that Peter Murphy might have confessed to the murder (Loyd 1908), though little else is known about the trial. What is known is that her execution was unique. Apparently her demise was to be quickened by the noose

313

314 |

Amy Bishop

that had been tied around her neck (Fiske 1902, 381). Unfortunately for Catherine, the rope either broke or was tampered with because she fell into the fire. She managed to slip out of her hand and foot constraints but, upon attempting to jump out of the fire, she was thrust back in by the sheriff who had to hold her there until she died (Browning 1912, 170). The nature of her demise, whether fairly sentenced or not, was severe enough to cause a reevaluation of the efficacy of public burnings, at least pertaining to white men and women. Peter Murphy was hanged and Catherine was burned, meaning she was treated more punitively because burning is not only more excruciating, but also a desecration of the body (Banner 2003, 71). Her account of the events is not available suggesting that, when it comes to the murder of a husband where the circumstances appear unambiguous, the testimony of the wife was not considered important. Nevertheless, her suffering appeared to change early American society because hers was the last public burning on record (Walker 1998). Resources Banner, Stuart. 2003. The Death Penalty. Harvard University Press. Browning, Charles. H. 1912. Welsh Settlement of Pennsylvania. Press of Devine Co. Fiske, John. 1902. The Historical Writings of John Fiske. Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Jones, Ann. 1996. Women who Kill: With Previously Unpublished Material on the „Battered WomenÊs Syndrome. Beacon Press. Loyd, William H. Jr. 1908. „The Courts of Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century prior to the Revolution.‰ University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register. University of Pennsylvania Dept. of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Walker, Samuel. 1998. Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. Williams, William H. 1999. Slavery and Freedom in Delaware, 1639ă1865. Rowman & Littlefield.

Corina Schulze

Amy Bishop (1965–) Amy Bishop came to widespread attention in the United States in February 2010 as the perpetrator of a series of deadly workplace shootings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH). Bishop, a mother of four and a researcher with a PhD from Harvard University, was accused of murdering three of her colleagues and wounding three others during a routine faculty meeting. The killings were allegedly motivated by BishopÊs failure to receive tenure and the likely termination of her job as a professor. Homicides committed by women are relatively rare, and mass

Amy Bishop | 315

homicide with firearms, such as the one allegedly perpetrated by Bishop, is nearly unheard of, especially in a school or college setting. While the rarity of this event is enough to proclaim Bishop an important woman criminal, Bishop also provides an example of the importance of intersections of race, class, and gender in the criminal justice treatment of previous incidents including her involvement in the shotgun death of her brother, violent confrontations in public, and an alleged bombing plot. BishopÊs middle-class status as a white woman clearly had an influence on how those cases were handled. Bishop was born on April 24, 1965, in Braintree, Massachusetts, into an uppermiddle-class background. She is the daughter of Samuel and Judith Bishop. Not much is specifically known about her childhood except that she was raised in a highly educated home with the general expectation that she would go to college and become part of the community of educated citizens. Bishop had her first brush with the law in 1986, at age 20, when she fatally shot her 18-year-old brother Seth with a shotgun in their family home in Braintree. Bishop was briefly detained and questioned in connection with the shooting, but police at the time ruled it an accident and released Bishop into the custody of her mother. No charges of any sort were filed against Bishop at the time with regard to the death or the discharge of the weapon. The investigation into the 1986 shooting was reopened in the wake of the UAH killings. Braintree officials first claimed that the original police report had been lost, but it was later rediscovered. According to the original report and other law enforcement documents, shots had been fired in several different rooms of the BishopÊs home. Following the shooting, Bishop tried to steal a car at gunpoint from a local car dealer, claiming her husband was trying to kill her. Investigators also found a news clipping in BishopÊs room about a woman who killed a family member with a shotgun and then stole a car to make her getaway. After the UAH shootings, officials in Braintree revisited the case of Seth BishopÊs shooting death. On June 16, 2010, after review of the evidence, Bishop was indicted in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, for the murder of her brother. The incident created a statewide scandal in Massachusetts with accusations that BishopÊs initial release, the subsequent loss of police records, and her later indictment were all politically motivated. BishopÊs status as a woman may have also contributed as she did not fit the profile of a „dangerous‰ killer. This lack of concern about BishopÊs dangerousness is underscored by the fact it took police 11 days to interview her after the shooting. Despite her role in the shooting death of her brother, Amy Bishop went on to receive her bachelorÊs degree in biology in 1988 from Northeastern University in Boston. In 1989, Bishop married James Anderson, whom she had met at a science fiction convention while they were undergraduates at Northeastern. She earned a PhD in genetics from Harvard University in 1993 and continued to teach and

316

|

Amy Bishop

do research at Harvard until 2003, notably as an instructor at the Harvard Medical School. In 2003, Bishop was hired into a tenure-track position as an assistant professor of biology at UAH. BishopÊs career in biology has included several achievements, including at least one patent associated with her research. She and her husband, James Anderson, also worked together to develop a „portable cell incubator‰ intended as an alternative to growing cell cultures in Petri dishes. Anderson raised $1.25 million from his employer, Prodigy Biosystems, to fund the research. Bishop had also written several unpublished novels, had found a literary agent, and was reportedly very serious about getting her novels published. Some described Bishop and her husband as Star Trek lovers („trekkies‰) and „nerdy.‰ As of February 2010, they were the parents of four children, including a son who was a sophomore biology major at UAH. Beneath the seemingly idyllic surface, Bishop was suspected of or directly involved with several encounters that would be discussed, in retrospect, as potential red flags of trouble ahead. In 1993, Bishop and her husband, James Anderson, were investigated in a failed mail-bomb attack on Dr. Paul Rosenberg, BishopÊs former boss at ChildrenÊs Hospital Boston. According to documents at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Rosenberg had forced Bishop to resign her job in the neurobiology lab for not meeting the jobÊs requirements. According to the same documents, Bishop was extremely upset over the loss of her job, and Anderson told witnesses of his desire to do physical harm to Dr. Rosenberg. Search warrants were issued against Bishop and Anderson, and both of them were questioned repeatedly by ATF investigators, but no one was ever charged in the incident. The case was reopened for further investigation after the UAH shootings but, again, resulted in no charges. In 2002, Bishop became enraged at another mother in a Massachusetts International House of Pancakes restaurant who had taken the last child booster seat available. Bishop punched the woman, was charged with assault, and was sentenced to probation and mandatory anger management classes. Accounts that emerged after the UAH shootings painted a picture of a woman who screamed at people who crossed her and called police to report individuals who bothered her, including children who rode bicycles too close to her homes in both Massachusetts and Alabama. Colleagues and others, after the fact, claimed that she couldnÊt get past slights against her and that she was filled with a rage that boiled just below the surface. In March 2009, Bishop was denied tenure at UAH, a decision that would result in the loss of her job. She appealed the decision in November of that year, spending many hours writing letters and talking to colleagues, but her appeal was rejected. Her colleagues at UAH cited poor teaching, frequent complaints from students, and insufficient research and publication as the reason for the denial. According to family members, Bishop saw the loss of tenure as the „end of the world.‰

Amy Bishop | 317

On February 12, 2010, Bishop is alleged to have shot several of her colleagues during a routine meeting of the biology faculty. What follows is a description of the alleged events that has not been legally substantiated in the court system. Bishop is described as removing a 9 mm handgun from her purse and methodically shooting her fellow professors. She was described as being cold and unemotional as she shot them one by one. One colleague of BishopÊs, Debra Moriarty, crawled under the table when the shooting started. During a pause in the shooting, she grabbed BishopÊs leg and begged her to stop. Instead, Bishop turned the gun on her and chased her from the meeting room into the hallway. She pointed the gun at MoriartyÊs face and pulled the trigger, but it had either run out of ammunition or malfunctioned and did not fire. Moriarty then ran back into the meeting room and locked the door. By this time, survivors in the room had already called the Huntsville police. Bishop left the gun in a nearby bathroom and surrendered herself to police minutes later outside the building. When it was over, three colleagues were killed, and two colleagues and a staff assistant were wounded. Killed in the shootings were professors Gopi Podila, Maria Ragland Davis, and Adriel D. Johnson, Sr. Professors Luis Rogelio CruzVera and Joseph G. Leahy and staff assistant Stephanie Monticciolo were also shot but survived the attack. As of September 2011, Bishop was still in the Huntsville jail awaiting trial for capital murder for the UAH killings, as well as facing a Massachusetts murder charge for the shooting death of her brother in 1987. The trial date for Bishop in Alabama has been set for March 2012 when the state will pursue the death penalty. BishopÊs defense team filed court papers indicating their pursuit of a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, requiring the demonstration of both mental illness or defect and the inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. As of June 2011, psychological examination and testing was underway with respect to BishopÊs legal sanity. Authorities decided not to press further with the case of the alleged bombing plot. Amy Bishop provides one picture of how race and class privilege interact with gender. The fact that Bishop is a woman from a middle/upper-class background and is white appears to have made it more difficult for authorities to see her as fitting the model of a dangerous criminal, and she was given consideration that men and nonwhite women of working and lower classes may not have been given in the same circumstances. This case is still progressing, and more influence of race/ class/gender will undoubtedly be noticeable as the judicial process moves forward. This case has also raised questions related to the structure and stress of the tenure system in many U.S. universities, a system that challenges many women and men in academia. While there can be gender overtones to the system of tenure, BishopÊs alleged violent response to being denied tenure stands as the only known case of violent retaliation committed by a woman in this setting.

318

|

Lorena Bobbitt

Resources Amy Bishop Faculty Web Page. http://www.web.archive.org/web/20070820140857/www. uah.edu/colleges/science/biology/amy/amy.htm. Retrieved October 8, 2010. Associate Press. 2010a. „Accused UAH Shooter Amy Bishop WonÊt Be Charged in 1993 Art Bombing.‰ http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/09/accused_uah_shooter_amy_bishop.html. September, 30, 2010. Retrieved October 8, 2010. Associated Press. 2010b. „1986 Shooting by Professor Reexamined.‰ New York Times. June 6, 2010. A22. Associated Press. 2010c. „ProfessorÊs Killing of Brother Will Be Focus of an Inquest.‰ New York Times. February 26, 2010. A 16. Dewan, Shaila, Stephanie Saul, and Katie Zezima. 2010. „For Professor, Fury Just Beneath the Surface.‰ New York Times. A1. Harlow, John. 2010. „Professor in Campus Killing Spree had Been Rejected for Job.‰ Sunday Times (London England). February 14, 2010. 33. „IÊm Mad as Hell and IÊm Not Going to Take This Anymore!‰ 2010. Women in Higher Education 19(3): 28. Jonsson, Patrik. 2010. „Amy Bishop Case: Why No Red Flags Were Waved Before Shooting Spree.‰ Christian Science Monitor. February 17, 2010. Meadows, Bob. 2010. „Murder on Campus A ProfessorÊs Rage.‰ People Weekly. March 8, 2010. 123. Jonsson, Patrik. 2010. „Beat-Up Cars and Neuron Computers: Broken ÂDreamÊ of Amy Bishop?‰ Christian Science Monitor. February 18, 2010. Kolata, Gina. 2010a. „A Case for Tenure that Some See as Falling Short.‰ New York Times. February 21, 2010. A18. Kolata, Gina. 2010b. „A Murder SuspectÊs Worth to Science.‰ New York Times. February 23, 2010. D4. Roop, Lee. 2010. „Amy Bishop to Face Capital Murder Charge in HuntsvilleÊs First.‰ http:// blog.al.um/breaking/2010/06/army_bishop_to_face_murder_char.html. June 16, 2010. Retrieved October 8, 2010. „Science and Violence: The Career of Amy Bishop.‰ 2010. Chronicle of Higher Education 56: 25. Tanenhaus, Sam. 2010. „Violence that Art DidnÊt See Coming.‰ New York Times. February 28, 2010. AR1. Wadman, Meredith. 2010. „Life After Death.‰ Nature 465: 151ă155. Zezima, Katie. 2010. „Police are Criticized in 1986 Shooting.‰ New York Times. February 23, 2010. A15.

Christopher Volak

Lorena Bobbitt (1970–) Lorena Bobbitt was involved in one of the more sensational televised court cases of the 1990s. Her singular attack against an abusive husband, and its aftermath,

Lorena Bobbitt | 319

revealed a disconnect between men and women and their respective attitudes towards marital violence and genderbased revenge. Born Lorena Leonor Gallo in 1970, she was raised in a working-class family in Caracas, Venezuela. In 1986, she and her family decided to immigrate to the United States. While her family eventually went back Lorena Bobbitt meets reporters in Virginia after her acquittal, in 1994. (AP/Wide World Photos) to Caracas, Lorena decided to stay. She made plans to attend school, eventually ending up employed at a friendÊs nail salon. During an outing with friends, she met a handsome marine, John Wayne Bobbitt. They were married on June 18, 1989, and set up house in Manassas, Virginia. In a 1993 Vanity Fair interview, she described the marriage as troubled from the start. Over the next few years, there were conflicts over JohnÊs drinking and heavy spending (not helped by his fitful employment after departing the Marines), his infidelity, and his violent attacks beginning in the first month of their marriage. At one point, Lorena became pregnant, but she reports that John pressured her into having an abortion. Over the ensuing years, police, neighbors, and friends would be asked to intervene in the coupleÊs violent arguments. On the early morning of June 23, 1993, Lorena reported that a drunken John woke her out of a sound sleep and raped her. According to her own account, she went to the kitchen in a daze, got a knife, returned to the bedroom, and cut off a sizable chunk of her husbandÊs penis. She subsequently threw the „body part‰ out of a car window while fleeing the scene. She wound up at the home of her best friend, where the police were notified. The police retrieved the organ and took it to a local hospital where John Wayne Bobbitt was waiting. He underwent 9.5 hours of surgery to have it reattached. Lorena Bobbitt was charged with malicious wounding, with conviction creating the potential of a 20-year prison sentence. John Wayne was also charged with committing marital sexual assault, which carried the same penalty. Interestingly, the prosecutor tried both cases with jury trials. John WayneÊs trial, which ended occurred first, ended in an acquittal. LorenaÊs trial, which was videotaped, occurred later, in January 1994. Her defense attorney argued that she was rendered temporarily insane as a result of the rape, combined with years of marital abuse, and thus was unable to restrain the „irresistible impulse‰ (Margolick, 1994, para 18) to injure her husband. The term „irresistible impulse‰ refers to a crucial element in VirginiaÊs insanity defense. The prosecution

320

|

Lorena Bobbitt

introduced into evidence statements Lorena made to police at the time of the event, when she said, „He always have orgasm and he doesnÊt wait for me to have orgasm. HeÊs selfish, I donÊt think itÊs fair, so I pulled back the sheets and I did it‰ (Margolick, 1994, para 22). Also brought up were information on her past thefts from an employer and a department store. The defense countered with experts on battered womanÊs syndrome, as well as evidence of JohnÊs past physical abuse of Lorena. This last point was conceded by the prosecutors who argued that it did not justify her attack. On January 21, after brief deliberations, the jury acquitted Lorena Bobbitt of all charges, finding her temporarily insane in the attack on her husband. She was ordered to submit to court-imposed psychiatric evaluation and was placed in a mental facility for a few weeks, after which she was released. There was tremendous societal response to LorenaÊs act and to her trial. Everything about the case was analyzed from various angles, in both public and private settings. Overall, the incident was viewed as a dramatic expression of the so-called battle between the sexes. Accordingly, media accounts tended to contrast sympathetic female responses with horrified male ones. Battered womenÊs advocates regarded both Bobbitt trials as indicators of American attitudes towards violence against wives (marital rape in particular), as well as on the acceptability of female revenge. In other quarters, questions were raised about the use of the battered womenÊs syndrome to explain LorenaÊs actions. Allen Dershowitz (1994) viewed her defense as exemplifying the so-called abuse excuse, decrying it as an unacceptable method of avoiding criminal responsibility. Lorena BobbitÊs trial also reinforced a shift toward more prodigious media coverage of certain types of court cases, in particular on television. Another effect was the mainstreaming of explicit discussions of the male anatomy, previously a forbidden topic in mass media. A key component of reaction to the case involved humor. From famous comedians to people on the street, jokes, limericks, one-liners, and so forth about the Bobbitt incident were traded with abandon. Linda Pershing describes how these jokes reflected complex societal responses, along dimensions of gender, class, and ethnicity, to the event and its participants. Feminist reaction to the incident was conflicted. Some thought Lorena Bobbitt should not be lionized for committing violence. Others were unhappy about the use of insanity defense, as it made her appear weak and lacking agency, thus reinforcing traditional female stereotypes. Still others deemed her a „symbol of innovative resistance against gender oppression,‰ as quoted in one New York Times letter to the editor (Morris, 1994, para 3). Many feminists viewed the negative responses to Lorena Bobbitt as reflecting class and ethnic bias. The years subsequent to the incident were a mixed bag for both John Wayne and Lorena. He parlayed his misfortune into a minor degree of fame, appearing on the

Cecile Bombeek | 321

Howard Stern show and later becoming a porn actor. In 2003, he was convicted of domestic assault on Joanna Farrell, his third wife. Lorena Bobbitt maintained a lower profile. Thrust into sudden celebrity, she was named one of People MagazineÊs most intriguing people of 1993. A candidate for the presidency of Ecuador (the land of her birth) famously took her to lunch. After the coupleÊs divorce in 1995, she reclaimed her maiden name. However, in 1997, she was arrested for hitting her mother but was acquitted of the charge shortly afterwards. Since then, she has stayed out of the public eye. Nevertheless, Lorena BobbittÊs particular response to marital abuse ensures she will not soon be forgotten. Resources Court TV. 1997. Trial of Lorena Bobbitt. Winstar. Videocassette. Dershowitz, Alan. M. 1994. The Abuse Excuse And Other Cop-Outs, Sob Stories, and Evasions of Responsibility. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Filetti, Jean S. 2001. From Lizzie Borden to Lorena Bobbitt: Violent women and gendered justice. Journal of American Studies 35: 471ă484. Margolick, David. (1994, January 22). Lorena Bobbitt acquitted in mutilation of husband. New York Times, 1, 7. Masters, Kim. 1993. Sex, lies, and an 8-inch carving knife. Vanity Fair 56: 168ă172. Morris, Stephanie. (1994, January 19). Mrs. Bobbitt is a symbol of feminist resistance [Letter to the Editor]. New York Times. A20. Pershing, Linda. 1996. His wife seized his prize and cut it to size: Folk and popular commentary on Lorena Bobbitt. NWSA Journal 8: 1ă35.

Angela Taylor

Cecile Bombeek (1933–) Cecile Bombeek was an atypical serial murderer who targeted elderly people in a geriatric wing of CPAS Wetteren Hospital in Belgium. Bombeek, who sought out victims who were in her care, is an angel of death type of serial murder. This serial killing form is a play on words taken from the phrase „angels of mercy,‰ a euphemism for nurses, who often provide comfort while someone is suffering. Although Bombeek appeared to be nursing her targets back to health, she was actually killing them. Eventually, it was revealed that she was a morphine addict who stole from her clients and who admitted to killing three elderly patients in her care with insulin overdoses, but she is suspected of several more. Cecile Bombeek, also known as Sister Godfrida of the Apostolic Congregation of St. Joseph, had a marked behavior change after surgery to remove a brain tumor in 1975. After the surgery Bombeek developed consistent and severe headaches

322

|

Cecile Bombeek

for which she was given pain medication and to which she became addicted. In 1977, while Bombeek was employed at the hospital, the 38-bed ward experienced higher than normal death rates. The nurses on the ward decided to keep a diary and, through their entries, realized that all the deceased had died while under Sister GodfridaÊs care. They also documented that Bombeek would administer „tortures‰ like roughly ripping out patientsÊ catheter tubes. The hospital suspected the nun of misdeeds and attributed them to her drug addiction, which was a criminal offense in 1977 in Belgium. By August 1977, they had sent Sister Godfrida for drug rehabilitation, for a third time, which proved unsuccessful. After being released from rehabilitation, she expressed interest in coming back to the hospital and to her nursing career. Fearing more deaths, the hospital confronted her with the crimes to which she partially confessed. Sister Godfrida had been charged with theft initially, stealing almost $30,000 from her elderly clients to support her addiction to morphine. Community members also noted that she shared a rather lavish lifestyle with her roommate, a nun who taught school in the same town. Townspeople suspected that Cecile Bombeek had affairs, including one with her roommate and another with a retired priest. She later confessed to killing three of her clients because they were „too difficult at night‰ (A NunÊs Story, 1978). A judge ordered the three bodies exhumed, along with two others. Governing board member Dr. Jean-Paul De Corte commented, „It could just as well be 30 people as three‰ (A NunÊs Story, 1978). In the year she worked at the facility, 21 of 38 elderly people died while she was on shift. In March 1978, Cecile Bombeek was sent for psychiatric evaluation. She was found not fit to stand trial and, subsequently, interred in a psychiatric facility. This case is interesting as the hospital tried to deal with this threat internally by sending Bombeek to addiction counseling. Had this worked, the case probably would never have become public. It was BombeekÊs lack of rehabilitation that forced the hospital to seek charges against her, thus bringing negative attention to the hospital. Although a somewhat marginalized case of serial murder committed by a female, it is one of the few recorded cases in Belgium. Resources Dodende susters bij ons [Killer nurses among us] (2010, Mar. 28). Nieuwsblad.be. Retrieved June 24, 2010, from http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=O32O54H8. The NunÊs Story (1978, March 13). TIME Magazine [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919411,00.html. Yorker, B. C., Kizer, K. W. Lampe, P., Forrest, A.R.W., Lannon, J. M., and Russlee, D. A. (2006). Serial murder by healthcare professionals. Journal of Forensic Science 51(6): 1362ă1371.

Hannah Scott

Anne Bonny | 323

Anne Bonny (ca. 1697–1720?) Anne Bonny was thought to be a headstrong, independent woman who was ahead of her time. Her actions, breaking conventional wisdom of what a woman could do during the 1800s, are evidence of this. Women of this time were expected to behave in a sedate, subservient manner, but Anne Bonny rebelled against society and its male-dominated world. She became a pirate, a plunderer, and a sailor. The exact details of Anne BonnyÊs birth is unknown, but she is believed to have been born around 1697 to 1700 in Country Cork, Ireland. She was the daughter of a prominent lawyer, William Cormac, and his wifeÊs maid, Mary Brennen. When the scandal of William Cormac having an affair with his wifeÊs maid became public, all three of them left Ireland for America. In the New World, they established themselves as successful plantation owners in South Carolina. When Anne was 16 years old, she married a man named James Bonny, who was an opportunist and small-time pirate. He thought by marrying Anne that he would eventually own the family plantation. AnneÊs father disowned her before James Bonny could get to fulfill his plans for the family plantation. James and Anne left for New Providence, known as „a den of iniquity‰ and „a pirateÊs paradise‰ (Anne Bonny, 2011). Marriage for Anne was not a pleasant life experience. At first, she was a dutiful wife waiting for her husband to return from sea. Even after he gave up pirating and became an informer for Governor Woodes Rogers, Anne was discontented. Most of AnneÊs friends on the islands were pirates and earned their livelihoods from piracy. When Anne Bonny saw that her friends were being arrested for the rewards offered to informers, she was even further disenchanted with the new life chosen by her husband. Captain Jack Rackham (known as Calico Jack) offered Anne Bonny a chance to get away from her husband. She escaped her marriage with him and disguised herself as a man on CalicoÊs ship. During the journey, Anne stayed Anne Bonny and Mary Read were convicted on the isin disguise for a long time, land of Jamaica in 1720 for acts of piracy. Both were found to be pregnant while awaiting execution and were mainly because sailors of the spared hanging, though Read died in prison. (Library of time thought that a woman on a ship was bad luck. It is said Congress)

324

|

Anne Bonny

that she was so vicious and fought so well with both pistol and cutlass that no one questioned her. The one fellow pirate who did challenge her lost his life with the tip of her cutlass. However, when she became pregnant, her gender was revealed. Jack and Anne agreed that the pirateÊs life and a ship was no place to give birth to a baby. They sailed to Cuba, where Anne stayed with friends until she had the child. Unfortunately, the baby was born two months premature and died one hour after birth. This loss crushed Anne. Her former husband, who still lived on the island, discovered that Anne and her new pirate husband Calico Jack were in the vicinity in the town of New Providence. He sent troops to arrest them both for piracy. They were dragged before the governor in the middle of the night. He was angry and refused to be merciful or allow others to show mercy to the couple. He wanted the two pirates to be hanged. Governor Woodes Rogers commanded that Anne be whipped and returned to her rightful husband. He also allowed Calico Jack to be set free. The next evening Anne and Jack escaped and returned to piracy. This time Anne Bonny was not the only woman on board JackÊs ship as Mary Read joined the crew. In October 1720 Anne BonnyÊs life of piracy came to an end. Governor Lawes of Jamaica heard of their presence in his jurisdiction and sent troops to commandeer their ship and bring them to trial. The crew was unprepared for the assault. LawesÊs troops did not strike until the day after Jack had captured a commercial vessel, and he and all the men aboard ship were in a postcelebration drunken state. Their incapacitation left only Anne and Mary to fend off the troops. The two women became so disgusted with the men for not fighting back that they periodically turned their guns on their own crew before they were all captured. The whole crew was condemned to hang, but Anne and Mary received a stay of execution because they were both pregnant. Mary died in prison along with her unborn child. Anne, however, survived, and when Jack received permission to speak to her before his hanging, she said to him „IÊm sorry, Jack, but if you had fought like a man you would not now be about to die like a dog. Do straighten yourself up‰ (Carlova 1964, 194). Anne Bonny never was executed, but there is some disagreement about what happened to her. The most common story is that her father intervened through his powerful connections. Yet another version was that she escaped with an unknown lover. What actually happened to Anne Bonny will probably never be known, but given her life and actions, she was a woman who embraced an alternative life, one of adventure and piracy, both unusual qualities for a woman of that day and time. Resources Anne Bonny: Fearless Female Pirate. http://www.essortment.com/anne-bonny-fearlessfemale-pirate-21541.html. Carlova, John. (1964). Mistress of the Seas. New York: Citadel Press.

Lizzie Borden | 325

Defiant Women: Pirates. Anne Bonny. members.tripod.com/cathreese/DefiantWomen/ pirates/abonny_mread.html. Gooch, Steve. (1978). The Women Pirates, Ann Bonny and Mary Read. London: Pluto Press. Jones, Deanna J. Ahoy, Matey! That Pirate Has Breasts! Pirates, Fact and Legend. www. piratesinfo.com/biography/biography.php?article_id=26.

James David Ballard and Nune Sogomonyan

Lizzie Borden (1860–1927) Lizzie Borden took an axe And gave her mother forty whacks. And when she saw what she had done, She gave her father forty-one. ·Victorian playground verse Lizzie Borden was tried for and acquitted of the brutal murders of her father and stepmother in 1892. The case signified the power of wealth in the court of law as well as the court of public opinion, and it was the first to gain national media coverage in the United States. Also significant to the Borden murders was the fact that the accused was a well-respected woman during an era when women of LizzieÊs background were viewed as morally superior. Lizbeth Andrew Borden, also known as Lizzie Borden, was born in Fall River, Massachusetts, on July 19, 1860. Sarah Borden, wife of Andrew Borden, gave birth to two girls, Lizzie and Emma, but died of complications from uterine congestion in 1863. Soon after, Andrew married his second wife, Abby Durfee Gray, to whom he was devoted. While Lizzie and Emma lived most of their lives with their stepmother, Lizzie was not particularly fond of her stepmother and was known to call her „Mrs. Borden.‰ The Borden family was one of the wealthiest Lizzie Borden, defendant accused in Fall River. Andrew Borden was an under(and acquitted) of murdering her par- taker whose successful investments made him a rich man. Nevertheless, the family of four ents. (Chaiba Media)

326

|

Lizzie Borden

lived in a small four-bedroom house in a run-down neighborhood. The household consisted of Andrew, Abby, Lizzie, Emma, and the maid Bridget. The day before the murders, AbbyÊs brother, John V. Morse, came for a brief visit. While Abby and Emma Borden were reported to be shy women, Lizzie was very active in the community. She taught Sunday school, was Secretary to the Fruit and Flower Mission, and worked with the WomenÊs Christian Temperance Union. Lizzie had also toured Europe in 1890, as was the fashion of young American women at the time. Historians claim that Lizzie had disputes with her father for want of a more lavish house and life. Additionally, it is reported that Lizzie and Emma resented their stepmother for standing in the way of getting their rightful inheritance. Emma was not as outgoing as Lizzie in her activities and was reported to be a quieter person. However, it was this reported conflict between Lizzie and her parents that was used as the motive for the charges of murder. There was also contradictory testimony from John V. Morse that Andrew Borden was going to write a new will leaving his half-million dollar estate to his wife but only $25,000 each to Lizzie and Emma. Upon later testimony, Morse stated that Andrew Borden did not tell him of the will. Just after 11:00 AM on August 4, 1892, the bodies of Andrew Jackson Borden and Abby Durfee Gray Borden were found hacked to death with an axe in their own home at 92 Second Street, Fall River, Massachusetts. Andrew Borden was found lying neatly on a couch with his head crushed from 18 blows, 13 of which crushed his skull. Abby Borden was later found lying on the floor of an upstairs bedroom. She sustained 13 blows, 11 to the head and 4 of them crushing her skull. Reportedly, one blow to the neck nearly severed her head. It was Lizzie Borden who found her fatherÊs body and summoned for the maid, Bridget Sullivan, to fetch Dr. Bowen. Lizzie Borden was charged and tried for the murders of her father and stepmother. The case against Lizzie Borden, from the onset, was riddled with problems and eventually resulted in her acquittal. While justice officials were convinced of LizzieÊs guilt, premised on the belief that she killed her father and stepmother for the inheritance, they could not link any evidence to Lizzie. Even the closest person to a witness, Bridget Sullivan, did not provide testimony that could incriminate or exonerate Lizzie. However, during the investigation of the case, there were four events reported to have occurred on August 3, 1892, that would point to the guilt of Lizzie. First, at 7:00 AM that morning, Abby Borden visited Dr. Bowen to report that she and Andrew were violently sick complaining of stomach pains and vomiting. She claimed that they were being poisoned, but the doctor sent her home informing her that she had mild food poisoning. Lizzie and Bridget reported also being sick; however, the fact that Lizzie went out that day did not convince authorities of her condition. Second, Eli Bence, the chemist of SmithÊs Drug Store, claimed that Lizzie tried to buy Prussic acid. Bence reported that Lizzie told him that she needed it to clean

Lizzie Borden | 327

her sealskin cape. Bence refused to sell her the Prussic acid without a prescription because it was too strong. Two of BenceÊs assistants testified that Lizzie was in the store, but she denied she was near the store. During the trial, however, the three justices (as was the law at the time) ruled that because the autopsies failed to reveal evidence of poison, BenceÊs testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible. Third, LizzieÊs step-uncle, John V. Morse, had visited on August 3, 1892, but he and Lizzie did not see each other until after the murders. Fourth, Lizzie visited her friend Alice Russell and, in an agitated state, claimed that someone was trying to kill her family. These last two events were used to show that Lizzie had premeditated the acts and could not account for her whereabouts. After the murders, Alice Russell testified during the inquest that she saw Lizzie burning a dress. (For a review of the inquest transcripts and photographs see http:// www.frpd.org/lizzie/index.htm.) Lizzie told her friend that the dress had been stained with paint. It was this testimony that lead to Lizzie being charged for murder. However, just as BenceÊs testimony was ruled inadmissible, so was the inquest transcript. The judges ruled that LizzieÊs testimony was made by a person not formally charged and could not be used. The trial against Lizzie Borden lasted 14 days (June 5, 1983ăJune 20, 1893). Lizzie was charged with three murders: one charge for the murder of Andrew Borden, one for Abby Borden, and one for both. The defense presented witnesses that would argue that there was a mysterious man near the home and that Lizzie did not have motive. But in the end, many claimed that Lizzie bought her freedom by employing highly influential lawyers and paying more than any lawyer would make in a year. Justice Dewey gave the jury its charge. It has been claimed that his charge was a second summation of the defenseÊs case. It should also be pointed out that Justice Dewey was appointed to his position by one of LizzieÊs attorneys, Robinson, when he was governor. After slightly over one hour of deliberation, Lizzie was found not guilty of all three murders. There are many theories that propose how Lizzie Borden killed her father and stepmother and more that claim that she did not do the crime. There were many factors that made it popular to accuse Lizzie. Two popular arguments used to publicly convict Lizzie were that she was a greedy rich woman who could not live the lavish life she wanted to live and that she was a spinster who did not have a future. However, it seemed that other more powerful factors exonerated her of the crimes. Lizzie was wealthy, came from a prominent family, an ardent church-goer, active in the community, and a woman. During this era, it was not acceptable to think of a woman of such stature as a murderer. The killing of Andrew and Abby Borden was the first murder case to gain national media coverage in the United States. The town of Fall River maintained support for this church-going woman from a respected family. In the lead to support Lizzie were the suffragettes and the WomenÊs Christian Temperance Union. The

328

| Lucrezia Borgia

media, however, focused on the dress-burning testimony of Alice Russell and tried to speculate as to whether Lizzie was the murderer. Five weeks after the trial, Lizzie and Emma bought a lavish 13-room Victorian mansion in a prominent section of Fall River. They named the estate Maplecroft. Lizzie, who changed her name to Lizabeth A. Borden, continued her lavish lifestyle of travel and theater going. In 1897, Lizzie was arrested and charged with stealing two inexpensive paintings from Tilden-Thurber Company, a store in Fall River. While the case was settled out of court, there was a brief revival of the 1891 theft of some of Andrew BordenÊs property, including some money and jewelry taken from their 92 Second Street home. Seven years later, Lizzie met and developed a strong relationship with an actress named Nance OÊNeil. It was this two-year relationship and a very large party that Lizzie threw for the actress and her theater company that led to an estranged relationship between Lizzie and Emma. Emma moved out and the sisters remained estranged for the last 20 years of their lives. Lizabeth A. Borden died on June 1, 1927, from complications of a gall bladder operation. Though she was acquitted of the charges, she continues to be viewed as the woman who gave her mother 40 whacks with an axe. Resources Engstrom, Elizabeth. 1997. Lizzie Borden. New York: Forge. Fall River Police Department. 1893. Inquest Testimony of Lizzie Borden. http://www.law. umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordeninquest.html Filetti, Jean S. 2001. From Lizzie Borden to Lorena Bobbitt: Violent women and gendered justice. Journal of American Studies 35: 471ă484. Kent, David. 1992. Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden. Emmaus, PA: Yankee Books. Klein, Shelley. 2003. The Most Evil Women in History. New York: Barnes & Nobles Books. Pearson, Edmund. 1937. Trial of Lizzie Borden. New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company. Porter, Edwin H. 1893. The Fall River Tragedy: A History of the Borden Murders. Fall River, MA: Press of J. D. Munroe.

Venessa Garcia

Lucrezia Borgia (1480–1519) Lucrezia Borgia was a powerful noblewoman of the Italian Renaissance who was accused of several misdeeds, including having attempted to murder her first husband (allegedly committed in complicity with her family) and following merciless political strategies and sexual depravity. The illegitimate daughter of Rodrigo Borgia, a dissolute and ambitious man, who later became Pope Alexander VI, and his

Lucrezia Borgia |

329

mistress Vannozza Cattanei, she was born in Subiaco on April 18, 1480. Among her three brothers, Cesare Borgia, in particular, was actively involved in the bloody plots and ruthless crimes that have historically sullied Lucrezia BorgiaÊs reputation. Portrayed by the painter Bartolomeo Veneziano in his famous „Portrait of a Woman,‰ she was blessed with fine beauty, an ivory complexion, and golden hair. In 1493, when she was only 13 years old, her father agreed to give her in marriage to Giovanni Sforza, Lord of Pesaro, with an extravagant and opulent celebration, aimed at establishing a political alliance with his Portrait painted by Bartolomeo Veneto powerful family. Soon thereafter, however, and generally believed to be Lucrezia Borgia. Borgia was a noblewoman and the unscrupulous Pope Alexander VI was patron of the arts during the Italian Re- determined to acquire more advantageous naissance. (Veneto, Bartolomeo. Portrait political allies and eliminate his daughterÊs of a Woman (n.d.), Städelsches Kunstin- husband. To that extent, he and his son Cestitut, Frankfurt) sare Borgia were believed to have plotted Giovanni SforzaÊs execution. It is unclear whether Lucrezia Borgia herself was involved in the criminal plan against her husband or if she became aware of it through her brother and, instead, helped Giovanni Sforza to flee safely to Rome. In any event, after the failure of the original plan, Pope Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia attempted to persuade Giovanni Sforza to grant Lucrezia a divorce. He steadily refused and even accused his wife of paternal and fraternal incest. In response, Pope Alexander VI initiated a marriage annulment procedure on the grounds that the marriage had not been consummated because of Giovanni SforzaÊs impotence. Although he was offered all of LucreziaÊs dowry by Pope Alexander VI in return for his agreement, Giovanni Sforza initially resisted to verify such an accusation, claiming that his previous wife, Maddalena Gonzaga, had actually died giving birth. He also refused to prove his virility before the papal legate. Lucrezia, on the other hand, was scrupulously examined and declared still a virgin. Therefore, the marriage was annulled by Pope Alexander VI, and Giovanni Sforza was resigned to signing a declaration of impotence due to the BorgiasÊs threats. Newly freed from marriage, in 1498, Lucrezia Borgia entered a second marital union with Alfonso dÊAragona, Duke of Bisceglie, with whom she was deeply in love and had her first child, Rodrigo dÊAragona. However, the newlywedsÊ happiness did not last and was soon sacrificed for the reasons of state. Cesare Borgia had recently entered a political alliance with Louis XII, King of France, who was

330 | Belle Boyd

claiming the territory of the Duchy of Naples, which belonged at that time to the AragonaÊs family. On July 15, 1500, Alfonso dÊAragona was attacked by unknown assailants in Rome but managed to survive thanks to the loving and faithful care of his wife. Cesare Borgia was suspected of having been the secret instigator of the attack, which was confirmed one month later by the fatal assault committed against Alfonso dÊAragona by his executioner. The murder of her beloved spouse commissioned by her own brother cast Lucrezia into a state of despair. She retired to the fortress of Nepi grieving for Alfonso, while her father was already contemplating a third illustrious marriage for her with Alfonso dÊEste, a legitimate heir to the Duchy of Ferrara. The infamy of the Borgias and, in particular, the many rumors regarding the direct involvement of Lucrezia Borgia in the intrigues and misdeeds committed by her family as well as her alleged incestuous relationships with her father and brother concerned the bridegroom. However, pressured by Pope Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia, and other realpolitik considerations, Alfonso dÊEste agreed to marry Lucrezia in 1501. Soon thereafter, she moved permanently to the court of Ferrara where she became a generous patroness of the arts and distinguished herself for her moderate life, finally atoning for her questionable past. She died in Ferrara on June 24, 1519, after having given birth to her eighth child and was buried in the convent of Corpus Domini. Several authors have been inspired by Lucrezia BorgiaÊs virtues and offenses throughout the ages. In 1816, Lord Byron visited the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan and remained so fascinated by what he called „the prettiest letters in the world‰ exchanged between the poet Pietro Bembo and Lucrezia Borgia that he stole a preserved lock of her golden hair. In 1833, Victor Hugo wrote the drama Lucrèce Borgia loosely based on her life that also inspired Gaetano DonizettiÊs opera Lucrezia Borgia, which was performed in 1833 at La Scala in Milan. Resources Bradford, Sarah. 2004. Lucrezia Borgia: Life, Love and Death in Renaissance Italy. London: Viking, Penguin Group. Erlanger, Rachel. 1978. Lucrezia Borgia: A Biography. New York: Hawthorn Books.

Benedetta Faedi Duramy

Belle Boyd (1844–1900) Belle Boyd was famous in the Southern state where she was born and infamous in the Northern states during the Civil War, first because of her loyalty and nursing support for the Confederate troops and later due to her spying against the Union

Belle Boyd | 331

Army. She epitomizes the role of women in protecting their homes and families in time of war, especially in the South where resources were limited. Their men were gone from home, and women, by necessity, turned from their traditional roles to include aiding and supporting the Confederacy in time of peril. Maria Isabelle Boyd was born in Bunker Hill, West Virginia, May 9, 1844, to parents from well-respected and prosperous backgrounds. When Boyd was 10, her family moved near the town of Martinsburg, West Virginia, where her father ran a store and worked at farming. Belle was Maria Isabella “Belle” Boyd, a Confederthe oldest of eight children and from the ate spy, provided critical information about Union troop movements during the Civil War, beginning showed a strong determination most notably during the Shenandoah Valley to go her own way and to challenge proCampaign in 1862. (Library of Congress) priety. Her best known biographer, Louis Sigaud, reports that when she was 11 she rode her horse into the family dining area after being excluded from an adult dinner party, saying: „my horse is old enough, isnÊt he‰? (1944, 1) When she was 12, her parents sent her to be educated in Baltimore, Maryland, at the Mount Washington Female College, where she was introduced to Washington, D.C., society. Her family hoped she would become a proper Southern woman, eventually marry well, and settle in Martinsburg, now a part of the state of Virginia. Boyd spent four years at the college studying music, classical literature, and French, all the while holding a secret desire to be an actress. Any attempts to try the stage were postponed, however, when upon graduation she returned to Martinsburg to be near her mother. Her father, at age 44, had enlisted to serve with General Stonewall JacksonÊs Confederate troops. Boyd recounted how, shortly after she arrived home, Union soldiers from units occupying nearby Martinsburg broke into her family home and roughly insisted that a Union flag be flown from the roof. Her mother adamantly refused and one soldier became threatening whereupon Boyd drew a pistol that she carried for protection and shot him to death (Boyd, 1865, 14). Instead of enraging the UnionÊs commanding officers, Boyd won sympathy and attention from them as well as adoration from her Southern neighbors. The commanding officer sent frequent patrols to check on the Boyd familyÊs safety and well-being after the incident. It appeared that at 17, her comely looks and intelligence worked in her favor to gain sympathy, even when she killed a Union soldier.

332 | Belle Boyd

Boyd began to observe Union troop movements and to gather information from them to forward to Confederate leaders, often using servants as couriers. She was an excellent horsewoman and frequently rode through the Shenandoah Valley herself to deliver messages and supplies. She was apprehended by Union forces several times but they did little more than warn her to stop her aid to their enemy while continuing to let her visit freely among them. As a result, she escalated her covert work and was rewarded when the Confederacy officially appointed her a courier for generals Stonewall Jackson and Pierre Beauregard. In addition, General Jackson made her a captain and honorary aide-de-camp on his staff. In early 1862, Boyd was arrested by the Union and sent to Baltimore to be interrogated but was held scarcely a week and then sent home. Once more, she had charmed her way out of a situation that could have ruined the rest of her life. Some said she was let off easily because Union officers did not know what to do with her since they were reluctant to imprison an 18-year-old girl. Still others said it was because she was a brilliant talker and had the best legs in the South (Belle Boyd, 1). By the spring of 1862, Boyd had moved to Front Royal, Virginia, to live with an aunt. She continued to support the Confederacy from this location by delivering important information to the Confederate army about how Union forces planned to destroy bridges as they moved across the countryside. She often wore disguises and, at one point, went on foot between the two armies risking Union gunfire to deliver a message when no courier would volunteer. For this effort, she received a letter of appreciation from General Jackson but also brought unwanted attention to herself from Union officers who put her under close surveillance. The next time she ventured out, she was captured and taken to Washington to the Old Capitol Prison, which was reportedly not a pleasant experience. After a month, she was once again freed to return to Virginia with a warning not to resume her role as a spy and courier. BoydÊs freedom was short-lived this time, however, since the federal government arrested her again in a few months even though she only had been visiting relatives and friends, basking in her reputation as a heroine. The federal government had grown increasingly uneasy about her potential danger to the Union. Taking no chances that she might revert to her old ways, they once again sentenced her to the Old Capitol facility for several months, where she suffered a severe case of typhoid fever. Upon being released, she went back home to regain her strength. Shortly after her return and just before her 20th birthday, the Confederacy called upon her again. This time Boyd was asked to sail to England with messages pleading for help from the British. Her ship barely cleared the harbor when it was captured by a Union vessel being used to blockade ports. Before she was forcibly removed, she and her maid managed to destroy the secret documents. This time Belle was sent to prison in Boston for a short time before being released on the condition that she go to Canada, never to return. However, fate intervened again. The Union naval officer, Samuel Wylde Hardinge, Jr., commander of the vessel that captured Boyd, fell in love with her and because his attention was diverted to

Brinvilliers, Marquise de | 333

her, the captain of the blockaded vessel escaped. As a result of his actions, Hardinge was removed from the Navy. He followed Boyd to Canada and, from there, arranged passage to England for both of them from Quebec. On August 25, 1864, they were married in London. He tried to return to the United States but was captured and imprisoned for nearly a year. He and Belle had a daughter in 1865, while he was in prison, and the health problems he developed while prison left him in such poor physical condition that he died just a year later, leaving Belle with a baby and no money. In 1865, Belle Boyd Hardinge wrote a book, Belle Boyd in Camp and Prison, in 1865 hoping to realize enough profit to support herself. Initially, it was not initially well received, and because the proceeds were insufficient, at the age of 22, she took up a long-desired acting career on the stages of Great Britain. She had modest success, and after the war, she returned to the United States to try her acting skills both in New York and with stock companies on tour. She passed the next four years on tour until one of her admirers persuaded her to marry him and retire from the stage. Her new husband, John Swainston Hammond, was a well-todo business man and former Union Army officer. They were married for 14 years, had four children, but were divorced in 1884. Within a few weeks after her divorce at age 40, Belle married a debonair actor, 16 years younger than she. Because her new husband, Nathaniel Rue High, Jr., could not support her and her children, she returned to the stage as a lecturer to entertain audiences with stories of her war adventures. Her act was so successful that she was in demand for the next 15 years until her death from a heart attack at the age of 56, in June, 1900. At her funeral, her pallbearers were four Union veterans of the Civil War, and she had had three husbands who were Northerners. She was forced by circumstances to use her ingenuity and to combine the best of her Southern charm with her will to survive. Resources „Belle Boyd.‰ Civil War Home. http://www.civilwarhome.com/belleboyd.htm. Boyd, B. 1865. Belle Boyd in Camp and Prison. New York: Blelock & Co. Faust, Drew G., and Kennedy-Nolle, Sharon. 1998. Belle Boyd In Camp and Prison, Louisiana State University Press. Sigaud, Louis. 1945. Belle Boyd: Confederate Spy. Richmond, VA: Dietz Press.

Marcia Lasswell

Brinvilliers, Marquise de (1630–1676) Marie Madeleine Marguerite dÊAubray (Marquise de Brinvilliers) was a French famous serial poisoner, whose trial rocked the royal court of Louis XIV and engaged the public imagination. The highly born Marie Madeleine Marguerite dÊAubray

334 | Brinvilliers, Marquise de

was the eldest of five children of Antoine Dreux dÊAubray, a civil lieutenant of the city of Paris. In 1651, Marie Madeleine Marguerite dÊAubray married Antoine Gobelin, Marquis de Brinvilliers and Baron de Nourar, thus entering, at the age of only 17, the dissolute French aristocratic society. Within only a few years of her marriage, she became accustomed to libertine practices as well, especially since her husband was not much concerned about her but rather indulged in his own debauchery. In fact, she became the mistress of Gaudin de Sainte-Croix, an attractive young army officer of ill repute that Brinvilliers had met in 1659 when they were serving in the same regiment and with whom he had become a bosom friend. The affair between the two was initially tolerated by her husband until it collided with his financial interests. In fact, when, following Gaudin de Sainte-CroixÊs advice, Brinvilliers began to consider initiating legal action to separate her fortune from that of her husband who was lavishly dissipating their joint patrimony, a public scandal unfolded. Concerned about the negative consequences for the entire dÊAubray family, Antoine Dreux dÊAubray and two of his sons urged Marie to break off her relationship with Gaudin de Sainte-Croix. Her resistance led her father to extreme action in requesting the king to issue an order of arrest, or lettre de cachet, against Gaudin de Sainte-Croix. In 1663, the chevalier Gaudin de Sainte-Croix was publicly arrested in the name of the king and immediately transported to the fortress-prison of the Bastille in Paris. Such a public insult could not be forgiven by either the marquise or her paramour. During his three months of custody, Gaudin de Sainte-Croix made the acquaintance of the Italian poisoner Exili who had joined several royal households, been accused of many crimes, and, thus, was feared by every European court at that time. Initiated into the practice of poisoning by his comrade, Gaudin de SainteCroix made practical use of his skill upon his release from prison. Indeed, under his guidance, Brinvilliers began experimenting with lethal poisons, testing them on her own servants and hospital patients. Still enraged with her own family and aspiring to appropriate the entire fortune, she finally poisoned her father in 1666 and her two brothers in 1670. The crimes were not detected; the autopsies stated that Antoine Dreux dÊAubray had died of natural causes, and both his sons of „malignant humour.‰ However, in 1672, upon the mysterious death of Gaudin de Sainte-Croix, which probably occurred during one if his lethal experiments, a casket containing incriminating letters and conclusive evidence against Brinvilliers was discovered by the police. She promptly fled to London and later to Holland. Finally, in 1675, she was arrested in a convent at Liége and transported back to France. During the trial, Brinvilliers was denied the aid of a legal counsel and, hence, stood alone in her own defense. The marquise stubbornly refused to admit that she had poisoned her father and her two brothers, even when the court beseeched her: „You are now perhaps

Betty Broderick | 335

at the end of your life. I beg of you to reflect seriously over your wicked conduct, which has brought upon you not only the reproaches of your family, but even of those who participated in your evil life‰ (Stokes 1912, 226). In her defense speech, she proclaimed her innocence and accused her former lover Gaudin de Sainte-Croix of having deceived her „because, under a wise and good outward appearance, there was hidden one of the blackest and most detestable souls in the whole world‰ (229). Her defiant attitude upset the judges who eventually found her guilty. When she was subjected to painful torture, she finally confessed to having poisoned her father and her two brothers as well as having attempted to poison her sister-in-law and her husband several times. Brinvilliers was beheaded publicly and burned on a pile of wood in 1676. Considered as a dissolute criminal until the day of her execution, she then became a martyr for the populace. Her murder case revealed that poisoning was the obscure cause of many mysterious deaths that had occurred in the elite French society. In fact, just before her execution, she exclaimed: „Out of so many guilty people must I be the only one to be put to death?. . . . [and yet,] half the people in town are involved in this sort of thing, and I could ruin them if I were to talk‰ (Somerset 2003, 40). In the end, Brinvilliers did not betray them. However, those to whom she alluded were later implicated in a larger scandal referred to as the Affair of the Poisons, which affected the royal court of Louis XIV and involved some of his closest courtiers. See also La Voisin, Catherine; Montespan, Marquise de Resources Somerset, Anne. 2003. The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Stokes, Hugh. 1912. Madame de Brinvilliers and Her Times 1630ă1676. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Benedetta Faedi Duramy

Betty Broderick (1947–) On November 5, 1989, Betty Broderick, a socialite and mother of four, killed her ex-husband, Dan and his new wife, Linda, while they were sleeping. All she ever wanted in life was to be a supermom, but a bitter divorce caused her to be consumed with hatred and thoughts of revenge which led to the killing. Betty Broderick is currently serving two consecutive 15-to-life sentences for the double murder. She was eligible for but ultimately denied parole in January 2010. She may apply for another parole hearing in 2013.

336

|

Betty Broderick

Betty Broderick was born Elisabeth Anne Bisceglia in 1947 and grew up as one of six children in Eastchester, New York. Growing up in a large, Catholic, workingclass family and attending Catholic girlsÊ schools, Betty was trained to be a loving wife of one man and the mother of his children. When she was 17, BettyÊs parents allowed her to travel to Notre Dame with friends. At a football game there, she met Dan Broderick, a handsome pre-med student. It was love at first sight for Betty. They dated during the next three years and were married in a glamorous wedding on April 12, 1969. Weeks into the marriage, both Betty and Dan felt as if they had made a mistake, but they had big dreams for the future and worked hard to build a good life. Dan continued his medical studies while Betty worked multiple jobs and raised the children they soon had. The Brodericks were living the American dream. Betty was a model mother and wife, which was an asset to DanÊs developing career. She worked diligently to create and maintain the perfect family life for her husband and children. Betty helped to support the family while Dan attended Cornell Medical School and later, Harvard Law School. After law school, Dan led the stereotypical life of a young male lawyer climbing the social and financial ladder as his wife took care of their four children and the home. Betty was leading the life of a socialite. As Dan began to make millions of dollars annually, their marriage began to crumble. Dan was not attentive to Betty, and they had arguments about how to spend their money. Success drove them further apart, even as they were active in San DiegoÊs social scene. By 1983, Dan was having an affair with 21-year-old Linda Kolkena, whom he had met at a party. Betty continuously confronted Dan who denied any romantic involvement. The repeated denials fueled BettyÊs anger and desperation as more evidence mounted against Dan. According to Betty, Dan told her she was crazy and imagining things as well as being fat, old, boring, ugly, and stupid. As Dan publicly flaunted his relationship with Linda, Betty felt deserted, humiliated, and angry. She spun out of control. When Dan filed for divorce two years later, Betty desperately clung to her imagined fairy tale life. Instead of accepting the end of the marriage, she started on a path of revenge that lasted for years. Betty became obsessed with retaliating against Dan and, ultimately, against Linda. During the Christmas holidays in 1985, Dan and Linda took the children on vacation. Betty felt unloved, useless, lonely, and discarded. She broke into DanÊs home and vandalized it. She was obsessed with a man who no longer wanted her. The next several years were riddled with complex legal maneuverings by Dan and his professional colleagues. The San Diego legal community cooperated with Dan in his campaign to deprive Betty of the coupleÊs shared assets even though Betty had supported Dan while he built his career. In addition, Dan obtained temporary custody of their children, and Betty was denied visitation until she received psychological counseling. Dan knew the legal ropes and used them to manipulate

Debra Brown | 337

his legal team until he successfully beat down Betty. Frustrated by the legal manipulations, Betty lashed out. Dan ensured that she was punished legally, including having her jailed for contempt of court. The coupleÊs divorce was finalized in January 1989. Betty received a $28,000 lump sum and a sizeable alimony award despite her role in amassing the coupleÊs multimillion dollar wealth. Betty was livid. On November 4, 1989, Betty received a letter from Dan threatening to take her to court, throw her in jail, and keep her from ever speaking with her sons, who were in his full custody. The next day, Betty went to DanÊs home and shot and killed Dan and Linda while they were sleeping. BettyÊs first trial ended with a hung jury, but she was later convicted of two counts of second-degree murder on December 11, 1991. Betty has never shown remorse or regret. She continues to claim she acted in self-defense on the basis that the emotional and psychological abuse by Dan caused her to kill him and Linda. Betty Broderick resides at the Central California WomenÊs Facility at Chowchilla. Resources Stumbo, B. (1994). Until the Twelfth of Never. New York: Pocket Books/Simon & Schuster. Taubman, B. (2004). Hell Hath No Fury: A True Story of Wealth and Passion, Love and Envy, and a Woman Driven to the Ultimate Revenge. New York: St. MartinÊs True Crime Books. A Woman Scorned: The Betty Broderick Story. (1992). Made-for-television movie. Patchett Kaufman Entertainment.

Jo-Ann Della Giustina

Debra Brown (1962–) Debra Denise Brown is one of relatively few women sentenced to death in the United States. However, like many women involved in crime, Brown may never have committed any crimes had it not been for the influence of her male accomplice. Over the course of approximately one month in the summer of 1984, 21-yearold Debra Denise Brown took part in a five-state crime spree with her 28-year-old boyfriend Alton Coleman. By the end of the spree, the couple had committed at least 13 armed robberies, 2 kidnappings, 7 rapes, and 7 murders. Brown was convicted of murders in both Indiana and Ohio. She was sentenced to die in both states for her crimes, though her death sentence in Ohio was commuted to a life sentence in 1991. Debra Denise Brown was born on November 11, 1962, in Waukegan, Illinois. Brown was 1 of 11 children in what by many accounts was a respected family. According to BrownÊs mother, however, the family may have had problems that were unknown to those outside the family. Lottie Mae Brown, DebraÊs mother, told the FBI that BrownÊs father had severe mental problems. She reported that he often

338 |

Debra Brown

Alton Coleman and Debra Brown express little emotion as they are arraigned on a series of charges, including two counts of aggravated murder, as an unidentified sheriff’s deputy stands guard, 1985. (Bettmann/Corbis)

drank to excess and physically abused his children and other family members. According to psychologists who testified at trial on BrownÊs behalf, she was often physically and sexually abused as a child, and she suffered from strong feelings of rejection and abandonment. Records indicated that she did poorly in school where she was often truant and tested low on standard IQ tests. Brown had no criminal record at the age of 21 years when she met Alton Coleman. Coleman, however, had a criminal record for rape and assault when the couple met, and BrownÊs life changed dramatically after they met. Brown broke off an engagement with another man and moved in with Coleman soon after the two met. According to BrownÊs mother, Debra changed drastically after meeting Coleman. Like many abused women, Brown stopped talking to her family as the relationship developed. Mrs. Brown believed that Coleman completely controlled her daughter. She also believed that Coleman beat Debra and may have prostituted her. There is little doubt that Debra Brown committed the crimes for which she was convicted and sentenced. Moreover, she likely committed several other crimes for which she was never charged. On June 18, 1984, Coleman and Brown abducted seven-year-old Tamika Turks and her nine-year old-aunt, Annie Turks, as they walked home. Coleman reportedly raped Tamika while Debra held her down. Then, the couple strangled and beat her to death. Coleman and Brown also attacked Annie. They forced her to perform oral sex on both of them before Coleman raped her and they both beat her. Amazingly, Annie Turks survived and later identified Brown and Coleman as the couple who had attacked her and killed her niece.

Debra Brown | 339

Before Annie Turk identified Coleman and Brown, however, the couple continued on a five-state crime spree. Twenty-five-year old Donna Williams was the next to fall prey to Coleman and Brown. Williams was reported missing in Michigan on June 19, and witnesses identified Brown and Coleman as the last to be seen with her. On July 11, DonnaÊs body was discovered in Detroit. She had been raped and strangled to death. Very few details of how her life ended are known because prosecutors decided not to prosecute the case in Michigan since it is a non-death penalty state. On June 24, Coleman and Brown abducted a woman in Michigan and demanded she drive them to Ohio. She purposely crashed her car and fled. Coleman and Brown were not deterred. On June 28, they invaded Palmer and Maggie JonesÊ home in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. They beat the couple with a club and then took $86 and the coupleÊs car. Then, on July 2, Coleman and Brown beat a Detroit couple and stole their car. The Detroit coupleÊs car was soon found in Toledo, Ohio, where Coleman and Brown had assaulted another couple and stolen their car. On July 7, Coleman and Brown began killing again. After spending the night with Virginia Temple and her 10-year-old daughter Rachelle in Toledo, Ohio, Coleman and Brown are believed to have strangled both of them to death after Coleman raped Rachelle. The next to die was 15-year-old Tonnie Storey. Brown and Coleman abducted her as she walked to a computer class in Ohio. The couple raped and strangled Tonnie to death in Ohio. Just days after Tonnie StoreyÊs death, Marlene and Harry Walters invited Coleman and Brown into their house on the pretense of talking about a trailer the couple was selling. Coleman and Brown attacked the couple. Harry Walters survived, despite severe injuries. Marlene, however, was bludgeoned to death. Interestingly, Coleman and Brown have each claimed that Brown murdered Marlene while Coleman and Mr. Walters were in the basement. Nevertheless, both were found guilty for the murder, and Coleman received a death sentence for Mrs. WaltersÊs murder. Despite a massive hunt by the FBI, Alton Coleman and Debra Brown continued to evade police. On July 16, they abducted Oline Carmichal and drove him to Dayton, Ohio, where they left him locked in trunk of his car unhurt. Then on July 17, Coleman and Brown attacked an elderly minister and his wife before stealing their car. On July 18, Eugene Scott and his car were reported missing in Dayton. Mr. Scott was found hours later in a ditch. He had been stabbed repeatedly and shot four times in the head. Though they have not been charged with this crime either, this is believed to be Coleman and BrownÊs final crime before they were apprehended in Evanston, Illinois, on July 20, 1984. The couple went quietly when five officers surrounded them. Coleman is reported to have been armed with a knife while Brown had an unloaded .38 Special in her purse. Prosecutors in the five states where Brown and Coleman committed their crimes met to decide how to proceed with the trials. The strongest cases in death penalty states were prosecuted first. Prosecutors had much evidence against both Brown

340 |

Debra Brown

and Coleman including fingerprints at the scenes, eyewitness testimony, and confessions. BrownÊs defense counsel did not claim Brown was innocent, but instead attempted to convince the jury that she should not be sentenced to death because their was mitigating evidence to suggest that Alton Coleman dominated and controlled her before and throughout the crime spree. Psychologists who evaluated Debra Brown for trial reported that she tested as mildly retarded on the Wechsler IQ test. Two psychologists believed that Brown had a dependent personality disorder. They also agreed that she was dominated and controlled by Alton Coleman when she took part in the five-state criminal spree with him. Finally, Dr. Suran testified that, independent of her relationship with Alton Coleman, he did not believe that she would have committed any of the offenses for which she was charged. More than one jury, however, disagreed, finding Brown guilty of murder and sentencing her to death. Despite the defenseÊs arguments and the psychological testimony, in May 1985, Brown was found guilty of murder for the deaths of Tonnie Storey and Marlene Walters in Ohio. She was sentenced to death for StoreyÊs murder and to life in prison for WaltersÊs murder. On May 7, 1986, Brown was convicted again; this time for the murder of seven-year-old Tamika Turks in Gary, Indiana. Brown was again sentenced to death. However, she also received a 40-year sentence in Indiana for child molestation in an assault and attempted murder of nine-yearold Annie Turks. The four remaining murders of Eugene Scott, Virginia Temple, Rachelle Temple, and Donna Williams are not likely to be prosecuted. With more than one death sentence Brown, additional prosecutions are not likely to be seen as cost-effective. At the time this entry was written, Debra Denise Brown was still under the sentence of death in Indiana. Yet she remains incarcerated in Ohio, where her Ohio death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in January 1991 by Ohio governor Richard Celeste. Governor Celeste commuted the death sentences of all four women on OhioÊs death row before he left office in 1991. Celeste is believed to have selected death row cases such as BrownÊs that suggested the offender was mentally impaired. Celeste, however, may have also considered the evidence suggesting that Brown had been in a battering relationship when she committed her crimes. In addition to commuting BrownÊs sentence, before he left office, Celeste granted clemency to 25 women convicted of killing or assaulting intimate partners who had physically abused them. Alton Coleman was also prosecuted (separately from Brown) for the murders and rapes for which Brown was convicted. He was also found guilty for the murders of Tamika Turks, Tonnie Storey, and Maureen Walters as well as Verita Wheat, who he killed in Wisconsin before he and Brown began their spree. Coleman received the death penalty for each of the four murders. Coleman was executed on April 26, 2002, in Ohio for the murder of Maureen Walters.

Joyce Ann Brown | 341

Resources Debra V. Brown v. State of Indiana. 1998, July 17. Supreme Court of Indiana, 697 N.E.2d 1132; 1998 Ind. LEXIS 2437. Gribben, Mark. 2006. „Alton Coleman & Debra Brown: Odyssey of Mayhem Deadly Duo.‰ Court TV Crime Library. www.crimelibrary.com Jones, Meg. 2002. „18 Years Later, Circle of Death Will Close with KillerÊs Execution.‰ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 16, 2002.

Kim Davies

Joyce Ann Brown (1936?–) After 9 years, 5 months, and 24 days in prison, Joyce Ann Brown was declared innocent. She had been wrongfully convicted for murder due to eyewitness error. On May 9, 1980, in Dallas, Texas, BrownÊs mother called to inform her that the local newspaper was reporting that the police were looking for Joyce for the murder and robbery of a local fur shop owner. On Tuesday, May 6, at about 1:00 PM, two black women had shot and killed the owner of Fine Furs By Rubin and had escaped with stolen furs in a 1980 brown Datsun rented by a Joyce Ann Brown. Because Brown, 44 years old, had been at work on the day of the crimes, she decided to go to the police to correct the error. Upon entering the police station, she was promptly arrested. Numerous inconsistencies immediately arose concerning BrownÊs case. The police quickly discovered that the Joyce Ann Brown, who had rented the brown Datsun, was not the same Joyce Ann Brown in custody. In fact, the authorities located the Joyce Ann Brown who had rented the car, discovering that she was from Denver, Colorado. The Colorado native also claimed to have been at work at the time of the murder and robbery and that she too had witnesses to confirm her story. She further stated that she had allowed a friend (Rene Taylor) to borrow the rental car. Police briefly focused on Taylor (knowing she had a criminal record and specialized in fur store robberies). They even found TaylorÊs fingerprints in the getaway car. However, police never actually located Rene Taylor for questioning or to clear BrownÊs name. Therefore, they searched the home of the woman they had in custody: Joyce Ann Brown from Dallas, Texas. Although the search produced nothing linking her to the crime, police, nevertheless, began building a case against her. For example, police uncovered previous arrest records against Brown for prostitution. Brown told authorities the charges had been brought during a time when she had to help support her family, but police viewed the past arrests as a sign of her criminality.

342

| Joyce Ann Brown

On Tuesday, September 20, 1980, the case of The State of Texas vs. Joyce Ann Brown was called in the Dallas County Court. During her trial, evidence repeatedly indicated that Joyce Ann Brown was not at the scene of the crime, and stress might have caused the witnesses to be mistaken in identifying her. Brown further testified that she did not have a car that day, making it impossible for her to drive to the store and commit the crimes. Additionally, several of her co-workers swore that she was at work on the day of the crimes. Though it seemed that the defense might, in fact, be able to prove BrownÊs innocence, the prosecution produced a surprise witness: Martha Jean Bruce. Bruce, who had shared a jail cell with Brown while she was awaiting trial, testified that Brown bragged about committing the crime. However, the prosecution omitted the fact that Bruce had a prior conviction for lying to a police officer. In fact, it was the omission of this information that ultimately freed Joyce Ann Brown. On October 23, 1980, the all-white jury in BrownÊs case found her guilty of aggravated robbery. One month later, she was sentenced to life in prison. At one point during her imprisonment, there was a glimmer of hope. Rene Taylor, the woman actually implicated by evidence in the case, was apprehended in Michigan. Though she confessed to the robbery and murder of the man for whom Brown was imprisoned, Taylor refused to disclose the identity of her accomplice in the crime. Thus, Joyce Ann Brown remained in prison as the assumed accomplice. After several years in prison, Brown again found hope when, at the end of 1983, the case of a man named Lenell Geter was revisited by the Texas court system. The court found that he was, in fact, innocent of crimes for which he had been convicted. By January 1984, Geter left prison a free man. Upon GeterÊs release, JoyceÊs attorney filed a writ in her behalf, and, on January 20, 1984, Joyce Ann Brown again appeared in court. The judge was charged with determining whether Joyce had received a fair trial. Upon arriving at court, however, Brown learned that her hearing had been postponed for six months. When the hearing finally went forward, numerous witnesses testified on behalf of Brown, including Rene Taylor. Taylor not only testified that she did not know Brown before the crime but that she did not know Brown at the time of the crime, or even after the crime. Taylor also had taken a polygraph test, and the administrator of the test informed the court that TaylorÊs results paralleled her testimony. Though Brown was confident that TaylorÊs testimony would prove her innocence, the judge noted his intention to consider all evidence and announce a decision at a later time. In September 1984, Joyce Brown learned that her case had been sent to the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals to be reviewed for a new trial. A few months later, Joyce received a letter from her attorney notifying her that the higher courts had ruled against her. There would be no new trial. Her attorney also informed her that he was filing a writ for a discretionary review. On February 22, 1985, Joyce Brown was notified that the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals had denied her request for a discretionary review.

Marilyn Buck | 343

Brown spent three years writing letters to ask different individuals and organizations for help. Finally, in 1988, Jim McCloskey, founder and director of Centurion Ministries, a group that fights for the freedom of innocent prisoners, became interested in BrownÊs case. It was recognized that McCloskeyÊs group was extremely discriminating as to whom they chose to help. As a small group with minimal financial resources, Centurion Ministries only accepted compelling cases in which the group was confident that the accused „criminals‰ were actually innocent beyond doubt and by evidential fact. Therefore, when Joyce Ann BrownÊs case was accepted by the McCloskeyÊs group, her potential to regain her freedom increased exponentially. New evidence proved that Bruce (the prisoner who had testified in JoyceÊs original trial) had lied under oath when asked about her criminal background. Additionally, the media initiated new and increased coverage of BrownÊs case. Ultimately, on November 1, 1989, a Dallas court reversed her conviction on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to tell the jury about Martha Jean BruceÊs prior conviction. After more than nine years in prison, on November 3, 1989, Joyce Ann Brown was free. Joyce Ann BrownÊs story is significant in a number of ways. First, Brown authored a book, Justice Denied, in which she discussed her beliefs regarding the effect on her case of having an all-white jury. She felt the jury and authorities wanted to find her guilty, regardless of testimony or evidence. She believed that race relations in the United States at that time allowed for, and often led to, a peremptory assumption of guilt and imprisonment of black individuals. BrownÊs case also publicly demonstrated the profound impact a grassroots activist group of individuals is capable of exerting to catalyze change. Finally, following the example of Centurion Ministries, Joyce Ann Brown launched Mothers (Fathers) for the Advancement of Social Systems (MASS). Her initial goal was to support the wrongfully convicted; however, she soon expanded the organizationÊs mission to include helping exoffenders and their families to become self-sufficient, law-abiding citizens. Resources Brown, Joyce Ann. 1990. Joyce Ann Brown: Justice Denied. Chicago: The Noble Press. MASS, Inc. The Joyce Brown Story. Retrieved August 10, 2007. http://www.massjab.org/ content-brown.asp

Devon Thacker Thomas

Marilyn Buck (1947–2010) Marilyn Buck described herself as an anti-imperialist and antiracist activist whose use of extreme measures to support her various causes was the source of her many run-ins with the United States government. Born in 1947 and raised in Jasper, Texas, Buck grew up in a family that strongly supported the Civil Rights Movement.

344 |

Marilyn Buck

Throughout the 1960s, Buck participated heavily in protests against racism and against the Vietnam War. As a teenager, Buck became interested in the causes of Native American, Palestinian, Iranian, and Vietnamese sovereignty, and in 1967, she joined the iconic Students for a Democratic Society, an activist group of the radical New Left. As a student at the University of Texas, Buck was politically active and moved to California in 1968 to work with San Francisco Newsreel, a radical filmmaking collective. She later went on to become the only white member of the Black Liberation Army. In 1963, Marilyn Buck was convicted of purchasing two boxes of handgun ammunition for the Black Liberation Army. Three years into her 10-year senAn FBI photo of Marilyn Buck tence for that crime, Buck was given a furlough from in 1982. (AP/ Wide World Phoprison. Rather than return to prison, however, Buck tos) escaped and went underground. She managed to stay underground until 1981, when she provided a safe house and weapons to the perpetrators of the 1981 Brinks robbery. The Brinks robbery was an armed robbery in which Kathy Boudin and other members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall in Nanuet, New York. Later that day, the robbers were stopped by police and were engaged in a shoot-out. Two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed in the ensuing gunfire. The license plates of the getaway vehicles were traced to a New Jersey apartment rented by Marilyn Buck. When they searched the apartment, police found bomb-making materials, weapons, and detailed blueprints of six Manhattan police precincts. Police also found papers linking Marilyn Buck to another apartment, located in Mt. Vernon, New York, which was only 20 minutes away from the site of the robbery. Inside this second apartment, police found clothing belonging to Marilyn Buck, who had accidentally shot herself in the leg when attempting to draw her weapon during the shoot-out. They also found ammunition, guns, and ski masks. In 1983, Marilyn was recaptured and charged in the successful removal of Assata Shakur from a United States federal prison. In 1985, Buck and six others were convicted in the Resistance Conspiracy Case: the bombing of the United States Capitol building to protest United States policy toward Grenada and Latin America. This bombing occurred on November 7, 1983, and was directed toward the Senate. The bomb was planted in the capitolÊs north wing and was hidden under a bench. The explosion blew the door off Democratic leader Robert C. ByrdÊs office door and caused quite a bit of physical damage to the building. Immediately preceding

Marilyn Buck | 345

the blast, a caller claiming to be a member of the Armed Resistance Unit warned the capitol switchboard that a bomb had been placed near the chamber to retaliate against United States activity in Lebanon and Grenada. When Marilyn Buck was captured, she received four separate court trials. Buck was charged with conspiracy to support and free political prisoners and for support of the New African Independence struggle through robbery. In 1988, Marilyn was indicted for conspiracy to protest and alter government policies through use of violence against government and military buildings. For this, she received an additional 10 years because of her involvement in the conspiracy to bomb the capitol. Buck received a total sentence of 80 years, of which she served 33 years at the Federal Corrections Institute at Dublin in California. She was, then, transferred to the Federal Medical Center (FMC) Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, because of terminal cancer. She was released on July 25, 2010, from the Carswell Center, but she died less than two weeks later in Brooklyn. Two of her co-conspirators in the bombing of the capitol have been released from prison, one was never captured, and two others remain in prison for their crimes. Marilyn Buck remained an activist and prolific writer throughout her incarceration. She won the poetry prize from the PEN Prison Writing Program, contributed poetry and essays to a variety of collections and other publications, and authored a book of poetry titled Rescue the Word in 2001. Post-9/11, according to an article in the Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal, Buck and other political prisoners were isolated from other prisoners and denied access to their attorneys. Buck gave regular interviews on this subject and on other aspects of prison life throughout her years of incarceration. She also participated in other forms of artistic expression, namely sculpting. Marilyn continued to be outspoken in her continued support of her causes and attempted to bring awareness to the plight of women prisoners, political prisoners, and minority prisoners. Through her publications and her artwork, Marilyn Buck gained many supporters over the Internet, and although she was considered by the United States government to be a domestic terrorist, Marilyn Buck was an ideological martyr to others. Resources Buck, Marilyn. 2000. Prisons, Social Control, and Political Prisoners. Social Justice 27: 25. Buck, Marilyn. 2001. Rescue the Word. Oakland, CA: Friends of Marilyn Buck·AK Press Buck, Marilyn, David Gilbert, and Laura Whitehorn. 2001. Enemies of the State. Montreal: Abraham Guillen Press. Day, Susie. 2001. Cruel But Not Unusual: The Punishment of Women in U.S. Prisons, an Interview with Marilyn Buck and Laura Whitehorn. Monthly Review 53: 3. Elijah, J. Soffiyah. 2002. The Reality of Political Prisoners in the United States: What September 11 Taught Us About Defending Them. Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal 18: 129ă137.

346 |

Marilyn Buck

Fox, Margalit. 2010, August 5. Marilyn Buck, Imprisoned for BrinksÊ Holdup, Dies at 62. [Obituary] New York Times. Willmott, Donna. 2003. Introduction to Marilyn BuckÊs Incommunicado: Dispatches from a Political Prisoner. Social Justice 30: 102ă103.

Ariel E. Allison

C Cheng Chui Ping (1949–) Chinese snakeheads (i.e., human smugglers) are among the most audacious and organized in transnational illegal human migration. Few smugglers, male or female, have ever ascended to the height and notoriety as that enjoyed by Cheng Chui Ping (aka Zheng Cui Ping; the Snakehead Queen). To U.S. law enforcement agencies, she was considered the „Mother of all Snakeheads‰ and a cut-throat underground banker. But she was well-respected and affectionately called Yi-Ping-Jie (or Big Sister Ping) in social circles in New YorkÊs Chinatown and her home village in China. The exact circumstance of how Sister Ping entered the United States has remained a mystery. A Time magazine report claimed that she first entered Hong Kong from mainland China and then came to the United States in 1981 and, somehow, obtained naturalization papers (Barnes 2000). Among the first few people who knew how to organize smuggling operations, Sister Ping began smuggling Chinese immigrants in the early 1980s. Her early clients were mostly relatives and villagers from her hometown in Shengmei in coastal Fujian Province. During the early days, she would personally travel back to her hometown, recruiting and coordinating smuggling operations. She typically transported her clients first to Canada by using fraudulent documents and then across the border into the United States. Hong Kong was often used as a transit point. With the help of corrupt officials in China, she was able to obtain the necessary travel documents for her clients. Her smuggling routes later expanded to Mexico, Belize, and other Central American states. Stories of her successful operations quickly spread in her hometown and adjacent townships. Villagers came looking for her in droves. At the height of her operations, Sister Ping owned restaurants, a clothing store, and real estate in Chinatown, as well as apartments in Hong Kong and a farm in South Africa (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] 2006). Estimates varied as to how big her operation had become at the pinnacle of her smuggling career. Some claimed that she was transporting hundreds in each operation by boats. The U.S. government estimated that, for more than a decade, Sister Ping smuggled as many as 3,000 illegal immigrants from 347

348 | Cheng Chui Ping

her native China into the United States, amassing more than $40 million from her smuggling business (FBI 2006). Sister Ping was also involved in money laundering. Although often overshadowed by her reputation as the „Mother of all Snakeheads,‰ people close to her claimed that she was far more successful at underground banking than she was any of her other business ventures. Her entry into the underground banking business, though fortuitous, was perfect in timing. After illegal immigrants settle down, their immediate need is to send money home. The remittance is used to repay the smuggling debt and to support family members back home. This is no easy task when illegal immigrants cannot use mainstream banking institutions. Even for legal immigrants, conventional banks are slow, and transactions are expensive for the small amounts of money they send home. In the late 1980s, the demand for underground banking services exploded when waves of illegal immigrants arrived, found jobs, and wanted to send money home to pay smuggling debts and to sponsor other family members for the same journey. Sister PingÊs reliable and timely money transferring operation quickly won her more clients. Prospective migrants in China would borrow money from her, while smugglers would count on her for payment assurance. She in turn collected smuggling fees from clients and their families. In an environment where business transactions are neither legally recognized nor protected, her banking business served a vital role in facilitating these transactions. Much of the transmitting was done in so-called mirror transfers, in which she took in the money in the United States and placed a call to instruct her partners in China to deliver the money either in U.S. dollars or Chinese yuan to her clientsÊ families. When individuals and even legitimate businesses wanted to send money to the United States, the process was reversed. No money was physically transmitted. This practice continues today in many overseas Chinese communities. People who used her service had nothing but praise for her. As her reputation grew, she needed no advertisement. Both smugglers and illegal immigrants used her banking service to send money home or to finance smuggling operations. Her fees and exchange terms were always superior to those offered by legitimate banks. Unlike the Bank of China, the only official bank from China with overseas branches, that forced customers to convert their U.S. dollars into Chinese currency at unfavorable official rates, Sister PingÊs clients had a choice of either receiving their remittances in dollars or Chinese yuan with much more favorable black market rates. The U.S. government claimed that Sister Ping continued to smuggle Chinese immigrants while she was supposedly cooperating with the FBI (Mata Press Service 2006). She was believed to have been involved in the ill-fated smuggling operation the Golden Venture incident, in which a freighter was deliberately beached in the Rockaways off Queens in June 1993, after the transfer boat failed to show up to ferry the illegal immigrants ashore. Gangsters onboard urged some 300

Cheng I Sao | 349

illegal immigrants to jump the ship and swim to „freedom.‰ Many did. Ten of them drowned. Facing indictments following the Golden Venture incident, Sister Ping evaded authorities for years by hiding in her native Shengmei village. While in hiding, her son and husband continued to live in the United States and traveled to China on occasion. In April 2000, Sister Ping ventured to see her son, returning to the United States, off at Hong KongÊs Chek Lap Kok airport. She did not know that her son was being watched. With the help of Hong Kong police, Sister Ping was detained at the airport. At the time of her arrest, she was holding three different passports: one from Hong Kong, one from the United States, and one from Belize. Authorities later claimed that Sister Ping had managed to make several visits back to the United States under different identities. She fought extradition for three years, hoping her wealth and official connections could somehow save her. In the end, none panned out. In July 2003, she was handed over to the U.S. authorities for trial. For more than a decade, Sister PingÊs many exploits became almost legendary. Her reputation loomed so big in the Chinese smuggling community that many snakeheads in the United States and China claimed to be her associates. Many of them simply were trying to boost their otherwise obscure status to attract clients or to charge higher fees. Sister PingÊs saga finally came to an end on March 16, 2006, when she was sentenced in a federal court in New York to 35 years on charges of conspiring to commit alien smuggling, hostage taking, money laundering, and laundering ransom money (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2006). Resources Barnes, Edward. 2000. „Two-faced Woman.‰ Time, July 31: 48ă50. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2006. „The Case of the Snakehead Queen: Chinese Human Smuggler Gets 35 Years.‰ News Release, March 17. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/ sisterping031706.htm. Mata Press Service. 2006. „Mother of All ÂSnakeheadsÊ Gets 35 Years in Jail.‰ Asian Pacific Post, March 27. http://www.asianpacificpost.com. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2006. „Sister Ping Sentenced to 35 Years in Prison for Alien Smuggling, Hostage Taking, Money Laundering and Ransom Proceeds Conspiracy.‰ News Release, March 16. http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/.

Sheldon X. Zhang

Cheng I Sao (1775–1844) Cheng I Sao, known by many names, including ChÊing Yih Szaou, Lady Ching, and Mrs. Ching, was the most powerful and notorious pirate in the Sea of China. Not only did she gain tremendous wealth, but she had a dangerous reputation and ran

350 | Cheng I Sao

a well-organized marauding operation, while maintaining good relations with her subordinate pirates and the poor on land. Accounts of her history are conflicting, but historians agree that she was a very powerful and financially successful pirate among males and females. Her story begins with her marriage to another very successful pirate, Lord Ching. Most accounts of her early life place her as a prostitute that Lord Ching married. Others state that she was born and raised on a pirate ship, as Chinese pirates lived as families on their junks. The Sea of China was home to numerous women pirates, but Lady Ching was a legendary success. She inherited her husbandÊs fleet of 500 ships and 70,000 people, becoming more wealthy and powerful than any male pirate had been. In the 19th century, people were driven to piracy due to an increasing birth rate and food shortage while the royals lived in luxury, and the mandarins, imperial bureaucrats, grew wealthy by extortion. The excesses of the wealthy caused disaffection among the people. Piracy was of great concern to the Chinese emperor who tried to curb Lord ChingÊs marauding by appointing him Master of the Royal Stables with the title Golden Dragon of the Imperial Staff. However, this royal bribe was to no avail as Lord Ching was soon back to plundering at sea at the helm of his fleet arranged into six squadrons, each with its own colored flag. The emperor battled the Chings three times. During the third time, in 1808, the imperial fighters seemed to be gaining a victory on the pirates but were surprised when the pirates, including Lady Ching, boarded the royal ships with sabers in both hands, leaving the imperial fleet in ruins. When attacking the coast of present-day Vietnam, a typhoon disrupted their operations. Some scholars say that Lord Ching died there, while others recount him being taken to land, tortured, and killed. There are also conflicting reports as to Lady ChingÊs reaction. According to some sources, she retreated, while others claim that she dared the pirates to prove themselves under a female commander. Prove themselves they did, and from then on, Lady Ching became the pirate queen. Some historians portray Lady Ching as politically maneuvering into her position as commander. Another historian portrays her as having inherited her powerful position, claiming that it was common for captainÊs wives to have been made first lieutenant, then succeed them as captain upon his death. Lady Ching is unique in the level of her success as the most powerful pirate who has terrorized Chinese waters. Any ship that crossed her path was raided. Captives unable to purchase their freedom could choose between an excruciating death or conversion to piracy. Captured women and children were sold into slavery. Lady Ching also collected protection money from people along the coasts. The goods taken from farmers were compensated for. Some histories portray her as an extortionist who also raided farms, while others paint her as being on good terms with those people with whom she did business.

Cheng I Sao | 351

Lady Ching was a careful business woman, keeping exact records of plunder and expenses. She ran her operations like a legitimate business; she called „plundering‰ a Âtransferring shipment of goods‰ (Klausmann, 1997: 40). She maintained discipline herself and amongst her pirates by issuing rules of conduct, including those applied to keeping the common loot communal. She made sure that her ships were always equipped with weapons and provisions, and she had good relationship with her crew. Strict punishments were levied against violators of the codes of conduct, which prevented the pirates from using violence against women, especially the female captives. Furthermore, she did away with the cruel practice of hanging captured women and children by their hair on the ships. Instead, female captives of high standing not sold into slavery could be purchased by the pirates to be their wives, and the women were to be treated as people of high standing. Klausmann suggests that these reforms were not rooted in a feminist ideal; rather, treating captured women well was practical, because women jumping overboard caused a financial loss. Politically, she organized her fleet as a constitutional monarchy in which she was the absolute monarch. Lord Ching had already divided the fleet into six squadrons with their own color flag. To this she added a council with a prime minister, all of whom were chosen by her. Some accounts also speak of a PÊaou or Pao, a child captive she had made into her adoptive son, or Lord ChingÊs right-hand man, because of some special quality he possessed. Some historians claim that she married Pao; however, most histories cast him as the leader of the red squadron and prime minister of the fleet. With PaoÊs assistance, Lady Ching maintained a strong intelligence network allowing her to keep up on who to pursue, and who considered pursuing her. There is also conflicting information as to the end of her seafaring career. A rivalry ensued between Pao and the black or yellow squadron leader inciting a battle that left Pao defeated, and 160 ships under the rivalÊs squadron abandoned Lady Ching. This mutineer sought amnesty from either the Chinese government or the governor of Macau, trading in his ships and possibly some plunder for life on land. Having been weakened from this loss of ships, Lady Ching also negotiated with this formal political body for a life on land. She was able to secure provisions and money for her thousands of crewmembers, and she lived as a wealthy woman until her death in 1844. Some accounts say that she ran a brothel and a smuggling ring, while others says she married the governor of Macau; still others say she lived as an honorable first lady who engaged in smuggling. Resources Beagle Bay. 2009. PublisherÊs book publication webpage·Book entitled Women Pirates. Retrieved on March 28, 2010, from http://www.beaglebay.com/women_pirates.html. Gosse, Philip. 1932. The History of Piracy. New York: Tudor Publishing Company.

352 |

Judith Clark

Klausmann, Ulrike. 1997. Women Pirates and the Politics of the Jolly Roger. Montreal, Canada: Black Rose Books. Koerth, Maggie. 2006. „Most Successful Pirate Was Beautiful and Tough.‰ CNN. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/worklife/08/27/woman.pirate/ index.html. Ossian, Robert. „Rob OssianÊs PirateÊs Cove·Biographies·Cheng I Sao.‰ Retrieved on April 8, 2010, from http://www.thepirateking.com/bios/sao_cheng_i.htm. Stapleton, David. 2001. Chen I Soa. „Pirates Hold·Pirate History and Beyond·Pirate Roster.‰ Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://pirateshold.buccaneersoft.com/roster/ cheng_i_soa.html. Stephens, Autumn. 1992. Wild Women: Crusaders, Curmudgeons and Completely Corsetless Ladies in the Otherwise Virtuous Victorian Era. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.

Nayla Huq

Judith Clark (1949–) Arrested for her participation in an armed robbery that ended in three murders, Judith ClarkÊs actions drew societal attention to the use of violence in radical activism. Clark was born November 23, 1949, in Brooklyn, New York to a politically active Jewish family. As an infant, her family moved to the Soviet Union. After experiencing several disappointments with the Communist Party, they returned to the United States when Clark reached age three. Her parents eventually decided to discontinue their political involvement with the Communist Party. Despite the loss of political commitment by her parents, she decided to rekindle the familyÊs involvement by pursuing her own political agendas. As the years passed, Clark became increasingly involved in radical social movement organizations. In the 1970s, Clark participated in the Weathermen, and by 1981, she was active in the May 19 Communist Organization. Participation in these groups reinforced her political agenda through collective cohesion in the form of group conformity. She eventually became mentally and emotionally dependent on group acceptance. The strict moral codes within these organizations distanced her from her family and close friends, making it difficult for her to sustain personal relationships outside the radical organizations she was involved in. After giving birth to her daughter in 1980, Clark was briefly removed from her activist lifestyle. Although the birth drew Clark closer to her family, she still felt a strong obligation to the May 19 Communist Organization. Participation in grassroots organizations gave her a sense of collective identity and emotional fulfillment. Unfortunately, political activism and a drive for social justice subsequently lead to her incarceration.

Judith Clark | 353

On October 20, 1981, Clark participated in a politically motivated crime that took the lives of three people. Members of the May 19 Communist Organization and Black Liberation Army, including Clark, attempted to rob a Brinks truck in Nyack, New York. During the robbery, the extremists shot and killed Brinks truck security guard Peter Paige while attempting to escape with $1.6 million. The shooters then changed cars and entered another get away vehicle that was driven by Clark. As she was driving away from the scene, they were stopped by a police barricade. After several shoots were fired, the radicals killed police officers Waverly Brown and Edward OÊGrandy. Although Clark was not one of the shooters, she was one of the three participants arrested on the scene. During the pretrial period, Clark and three other participants were transported between several jails and correction facilities. The trial lasted from August 8, 1983, to the end of September of that year. Throughout the proceedings, Clark decided not to have a legal counsel and represented herself. She also voluntarily removed herself from the court proceedings. Clark was housed in the basement holding cells of the courthouse and appeared in court twice during the trial. On October 6, 1983, she was charged with three counts of felony murder and was sentenced to three consecutive sentences of 25 to life. Immediately following the trial, she was taken to a special housing unit (SHU) at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women in New York State. She was held in the SHU for several weeks and was eventually released into the general population with assistance from the prison-appointed attorney. She was then placed back into SHU for two years after being charged with conspiracy to escape in September of 1985. Judith Clark experienced serious depression that arose from social isolation and the lack of intellectual stimulation. Through a series of interviews by Dr. Gilda Zwerman, a professor of sociology, Clark began changing her attitudes and perspectives. She also started taking college courses through the mail and received a bachelorÊs degree from Mercy College Bedford in 1990 and a masterÊs degree in 1993 from the Vermont College of Norwich University. She has also used her experience to create scholarly writings and promote social change. Her writings have been published in the New Yorker, the Prison Journal, Doing Time, Fortune News, and other literary journals. In addition to her scholarly writings, she has worked for Bedford Hills ChildrenÊs Center and co-founded the AIDS Counseling and Education during her incarceration. ClarkÊs actions brought societal awareness to politically motivated violence in the form of radical activism. When violence is present in social movements, there is a possibly of individuals becoming physically injured or killed. Although her supporters contend that she is a political prisoner, she believes that the attachment to anti-imperialism led to her rebellious behavior. Clark and another defendant,

354 |

Judith Clark

David J. Gilbert, were once involved in the radical Weathermen organization. The Weathermen were labeled as a domestic terrorist organization by the FBI for their rioting and attacks against banks, police departments, and government offices. Kuwasi Balagoon is another defendant that was involved in the Black Partner Party and held black separatist political views. A fourth defendant Kathy Boudin, along with the other defendants, was involved or affiliated with the Black Liberation Army and was seeking to establish governance of the Republic of New Afrika. Therefore, the defendants argued that they were being treated as prisoners of war, and there cases should have been adjudicated by nations. Since the trial, Clark has also become active in antiviolence programs that use discussion as an alternative to violent behavior. After receiving support from her family and legal counsel, Clark began taking steps towards an appeal. In 2002, attorneys Leon Friedman, Lawrence Lederman, and Michael L. Hirschfeld filled an appeal on her behalf. They argued that her placement in the holding cells caused her to be removed from the hearings, and she was denied the right to counsel because she chose to represent herself. On September 21, 2006, nearly four years after the appeal, the district court judge ruled in her favor, and she was granted the right to a new trial. On February 26, 2007, her legal counsel addressed the Federal Court of Appeals, but in 2008, the court reversed the opinion of the district court and denied her request for a new trial. Today, Clark contends that she has a great deal of remorse for her involvement in the killings. She has since removed herself from extreme activism and committed herself to helping others. Clark has since written a letter to her supporters about the impact she believes her actions have had on the victimsÊ children. On August 23, 2001, the victimsÊ families spent several months opposing the parole of another defendant Kathy Boudin, whose parole was denied and later granted in 2003. Chief Van Cura, South Nyack and Grand View police chief, and the victimsÊ families have expressed the impact the killings have had on the lives of their families. Resources Burrell, Jocelyn, and Suheir Hammad. (2004). Word: On Being A (Woman) Writer. New York: The Feminist Press. Clark v. Perez. (2006a). 05 Civ. 698. U.S. Dist. 450 F. Supp. 2d 396. Clark v. Perez. (2006b). U.S. Dist. Clark v. Perez. (2008). 510 F. U.S. App. 3d 382. Farber, M. A. (1982, February 16). Behind the BrinkÊs Case: Return of the Radical Left. New York Times, A1. Feron, James. (1982, September 23). State Acts of BrinkÊs Defendant. New York Times, B1. Foderaro, Lisa W. (2006, October 1). New Trial for Woman in 1981 BrinkÊs Case Is Reopening Old Wounds. New York Times. Friends of Judith Clark. http://www.judithclark.org. Retrieved September 20, 2007.

Mildred Cleghorn | 355

Hanley, Robert. (1983, August 23). Fannie Mae Tests Transit Program. New York Times, B2. Hudson, Edward. (1983, August 9). Protest Marks Opening of BrinkÊs Murder Trail. New York Times, B1. Mahoney, Joe. (2003, August 23). Death Penalty Upheld for N.O. Ex-Cop. Daily New (New York), 10. Margolick, David. (1982, October 1). In BrinkÊs Holdup Case, Tactics Used by Lawyers Differ Widely. New York Times, B1. Suddath, C. (2008). A Brief History Of The Weathermen. Time International (Canada Edition), 172(16), 12. Worth, Robert. (2001, August 23). Parole Denied for Radical in Fatal 1981 Robbery. New York Times, B1.

LaSheila S. Yates

Mildred Cleghorn (1910–1997) Mildred Imoch Cleghorn was the first chairperson of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe. Known also by her Apache names Eh-Ohn and Lay-a-Bet, Cleghorn ascended through historical accident from intense marginalization to renowned stateswoman. She began her life as a human remnant of the last vestige of Native American independence and as a reminder of the historical mistreatment of Native Americans by the U.S. government. Though not a criminal by most meanings of the term, she was labeled as beyond the law before was she born, and she grew to challenge, change, and utilize the law for the benefit of all Native Americans. Historically, Apaches migrated from Athabaskan heritage to the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Those who settled in southwestern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona, northern Sonora, and northern Chihuahua came to be known as the Chiricahua Apaches. They constituted at least four culturally and geographic distinct bands: the Bedonkohe, Chihenne, Chokonen, and Nednai. Although they originally came from distinct groups, they became loosely affiliated as a tribe, first as settlers described them and later as a function of their own defenses against settlersÊ incursions. Gradually restricted to the Fort Apache and San Carlos reservations, the Chiricahua were the last Native American group to resist federal incursion, led by a series of seminal names in Native American history, including Cochise and Goyaaâé (aka Geronimo). A series of incidents in which Chiricahua leaders were ambushed, murdered, and mutilated led to more than two decades of wars during which the Chiricahua were relentlessly pursued by both federal troops (led by generals George Cook and Nelson Miles) and Mexican soldiers. Most were killed, captured, or surrendered. The final 34, including Geronimo and CochiseÊs son Naiche, surrendered

356 |

Mildred Cleghorn

on September 5, 1886. The U.S. federal government then forcibly relocated 394 Chiricahua Apaches in railroad boxcars to Army facilities in Florida, then Alabama, and ultimately, in 1894, to the Fort Sill reservation in Oklahoma. The Chiricahua remained at Fort Sill as „prisoners of war‰ until a 1912 act of Congress freed them and permitted them to settle in the surrounding area. However, although each family was promised 160 acres, a house, a well, and a yearÊs rations, two families received 158 acres and most received 80 or less. „The families werenÊt allowed to live together,‰ Cleghorn told the Associated Press in a 1996 interview. „So they scattered us all over. If we wanted to go visit someone, it would be an all-day trip. I guess they were afraid of another uprising.‰ Worse, resistance from non-Indian locals regenerated tensions from earlier history. The Chiricahua were thus offered land by the Mescalero Apaches near Ruidoso, New Mexico. In 1913, about two-thirds (some 183) relocated to the Mescalero reservation, while the rest (accounts give a range from 78 to 84) remained at Fort Sill, intent that the United States would fulfill its promise of local lands. After struggling through decades of drought and the depression, the Fort Sill Chiricahua were aided somewhat by the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936, and after four more decades of effort, they finally organized as a federally recognized tribe in 1976. On December 11, 1910, Cleghorn was among the last Chiricahua Apaches to be born under „prisoner of war‰ status. Her grandfather had fought with Geronimo, and her parents and grandparents had been among those imprisoned and triply relocated. When she was three years old, her family left Fort Sill in a wagon to settle a 40-acre plot (a fourth of what had been promised) near Apache, Oklahoma. She thus began life beyond the margins, a poor and culturally distant female with no tribe and no home. Cleghorn attended school in Apache, as well as the Haskell Institute in Kansas, then earned a degree in home economics from Oklahoma State University in 1941, and completed a human relations fellowship at Fisk University in 1955. She served as a home extension agent for several years in Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; as a home economics teacher for 16 years on reservations in Oklahoma; and later as a kindergarten teacher. She married William G. Cleghorn, whom she met while teaching in Kansas, and gave birth to their daughter, Peggy. Throughout this time, she perfected the art of crafting traditional dolls, creating a series clothed to represent the 40 tribes she encountered as a teacher; this series of dolls has been exhibited at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. In 1976, when the Chiricahua tribe became formally recognized, she became its first tribal chairperson. She held that position until 1995, devoting significant efforts to preserving and sustaining the tribeÊs history and culture. She was recognized with a string of accolades, including the Ellis Island Award in 1987 and the Indian of the Year Award in 1989, and also served as secretary of the Southwest Oklahoma Intertribal Association as well as treasurer of the American Indian

Ann Cook | 357

Council of the Reformed Church of America. In 1996, Cleghorn was a lead plaintiff in an unsuccessful class action lawsuit filed on behalf of over 300,000 Native Americans against the federal government alleging destruction of important documents and mismanagement of hundreds of millions of dollars in Indian monies held in trust fund accounts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On April 15, 1997, she was killed in an automobile accident near Apache. Resources Abner, Julie L. 2000. „Mildred Imoch Cleghorn.‰ In Native American Women: A Biographical Dictionary, eds. Gretchen M. Bataille and Laurie Lisa. New York: Routledge. Stockel, H. Henrietta. 1991. Women of the Apache Nation: Voices of Truth. Reno: University of Nevada Press. Stockel, H. Henrietta. 2000. Chiricahua Apache Women and Children: Safekeepers of the Heritage. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Thrapp, Dan L. 1988. The Conquest of Apacheri. Norman & London: University of Oklahoma Press.

Ellis Godard

Ann Cook (1786–1826) Ann Cook, a Southern belle in her youth, was seduced by a powerful politician, Colonel Solomon P. Sharp, and in turn she seduced Jereboam Beauchamp. She was questioned but never tried for conspiracy to murder Sharp. As was commonly the case in the Regency Era, CookÊs behavior as a seducer of Jereboam and as an aggressive woman was pitted against the crime of SharpÊs seduction of Cook and the romantic pact between Beauchamp and Cook to avenge her honor. This case, known to many as the Kentucky Tragedy (also known as the Sharp-Beauchamp Tragedy), is a perfect example of betrayal and seduction. Ann Cook, who had stepped out of her gender role expectation, was viewed as a monster by some. In the end, however, romanticism won, and Ann Cook was defined as a victim. Not much is known about Ann Cook. Born in 1786, Ann Cook came from a wealthy, well-known, and well-educated family who frequently traveled to Frankfurt, Kentucky, especially during legislative sessions. Ann and her sister Mary were prominent belles who traveled elegantly in four-horse drawn carriages. This particular story begins around 1818, when Ann Cook claimed to be seduced by Solomon Sharp, a prominent lawyer and politician one year her minor. (It should be noted that various accounts of this story identify different dates. For example, Ann CookÊs pregnancy has been noted as occurring in 1818, 1819, and 1820. We chose the more frequent year of 1818 [Johnson, 1993].)

358

|

Ann Cook

Cook became pregnant, and she claimed that Sharp was the father; however, the baby was stillborn which caused her heartache. Her relationship with Sharp and her resulting pregnancy put a dent in her reputation, and she fell from society. Adding to her tragedy, Sharp denied that the baby was his, even claiming that the baby was mulatto. As a result, Cook was forced to remain unwed and live with her family at their farm. In 1824, Ann Cook met another young lawyer by the name of Jereboam Beauchamp. One shocking piece of this story, to those living in this era, was that Beauchamp was 16 years younger than Cook. Some claim that upon learning of her seduction, Beauchamp sought her out and proposed marriage. Upon BeauchampÊs proposal, Cook made it clear that the only way that she would marry him was if he helped kill her ex-lover Solomon Sharp who had denied paternity to her stillborn child. After a hostile confrontation between Sharp and Beauchamp, in which Sharp continued his denials, Cook and Jereboam married and worked closely to devise a plan to murder Sharp. Sharp made further accusations that Cook had sexual affairs with other men, which further angered Beauchamp. On November 6, 1825, Beauchamp stabbed Sharp to death after persuading Sharp to open the door to his home. Beauchamp went so far as to cover his face with a black mask in order to hide his identity while traveling at night on the streets. His intention was to make passersby think that he was African American. He also wore socks made out of a very heavy material so that his footprints could not be identified. Fueled by her anger, Ann Cook had laced the tip of the knife with poison hoping that when it went into SharpÊs chest, it would kill him instantly. When Sharp answered the door, Beauchamp pulled his knife from beneath his shirt and ripped off his mask in order to let Sharp know who killed him. After the murder, the couple hoped that the crime would go unsolved and that they could go on with their lives. They planned to move to Missouri to ensure that they would not be caught. Suspicion quickly fell onto Beauchamp, however, and he was arrested for the murder of Solomon Sharp. Ann Cook was questioned and later released because she was not in the area where the murder was committed. On May 19, 1826, after a trial was conducted, Beauchamp was sentenced to death by hanging. He was to be executed on June 7, 1826. Cook begged the warden that she be allowed to stay in the jail cell with her husband before he was executed. Having entered into a suicide pact, Cook smuggled poison and a knife into the jail. When the poison did not work, they proceeded to stab themselves. Cook stabbed herself twice and died. However, BeauchampÊs self-inflicted injury did not kill him. He was revived, cleaned up, and watched very closely until he was hanged a few hours later. Literary writers point out the irony that all three victims died of stab wounds to the same area of the chest. Cook and Beauchamp were buried in the same casket in a loverÊs embrace.

Ann Cook | 359

This case inspired literary and historical works. For example, the renowned author Edgar Allen Poe constructed a drama by the name of Politian (1835) that is believed to be inspired by the real-life story of this tragedy of betrayal and lies. William Gilmore Simms, as well as Thomas Holley Chivers and Robert Penn Warren, wrote novels based on the Kentucky Tragedy. It has been stated that PoeÊs work closely resembles the true story of Ann Cook. WarrenÊs work World Enough and Time (1950) is said to be the most realistic account of the Kentucky Tragedy, although his character portrayal of the main female character is the least like Ann Cook. Unlike his literary counterparts, Warren minimized the romantic aspects of the story and was most true to the facts. This case has also been the subject of many published theses and dissertations within literature. Of importance to the social fabric at the time was the romanticism of BeauchampÊs drive to avenge CookÊs honor. Various news and literary accounts of the Sharp-Beauchamp Tragedy indicate that Beauchamp acted within the code of the era. When a woman of worth is seduced and then denied status, justice is warranted. This can be seen in seductions laws in early 20th-century America. In cases of seduction, a woman had legal recourse. However, she was only provided recourse if she did not violate the patriarchal bargain by stepping out of her gender role. In CookÊs case, her familyÊs good reputation, her wealth, and her marriage to a prominent male saved her reputation as a good woman deserving of justice. And, although Ann Cook took her own life, her memory was not persecuted by society. Resources Beauchamp, Ann Cook and W.R·n. 1826. Letters of Ann Cook, Late Mrs. Beauchamp, to her friend in Maryland: Containing a Short History of the Life of that Remarkable Woman. Washington, D.C. Beauchamp, Jereboam O., and Beauchamp Ann. (1826). The confession of Jereboam O. Beauchamp: who was hanged at Frankfort, Ky., on the 7th day of July, 1826, for the murder of Col. Solomon P. Sharp. Filson Historical Society. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fawbib:@field(DOCID+@ lit(bbf0086)). Coleman, Winston J. 1950. The Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy: An Episode of Kentucky History During the Middle 1820s. Frankfort, KY: Roberts Print. Johnson, Fred M. 1993. New Light on BeauchampÊs Confession. Journal of the KentuckyTennessee American Studies Association, 9. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http:// spider.georgetowncollege.edu/HTALLANT/border/bs9/fr-johns.htm. Gates, W. B. 1960. William Gilmore Simms and the Kentucky Tragedy. American Literature 32, 158ă66. Justus, James S. 1962. WarrenÊs World Enough and Time and BeauchampÊs Confession. American Literature 33, 500ă511. Kimball, William J. 1971. PoeÊs Politian and the Beauchamp-Sharp tragedy. Poe Studies 4, 24ă27.

360 |

Belle Cora

Norman, Michael, and Beth Scott. 2002. Haunted Heritage: A Definitive Collection of American Ghost Stories. New York: Forge Books.

Erin Elizabeth Gourley and Venessa Garcia

Belle Cora (1827?–1862) Belle Cora was an important madam in San Francisco during the gold rush days. She was romantically involved with Charles Cora who killed U.S. Marshal William H. Richardson. RichardsonÊs murder prompted a new rise in the Committee of Vigilance, a citizen group that formed to try to rid San Francisco of crimes related to the corruption in city officials. Two versions of Belle CoraÊs early life are known. She was born either Arabella Ryan or Clara Belle Ryan. One version has her as the daughter of a minister from Baltimore. She supposedly became pregnant, was denounced by her parents, and ended up in New Orleans in 1849, where her baby was born and died (Levy, 1941: 149). It was here she met Charles Cora. Another version is that she was the daughter of Irish-Catholic parents in Baltimore. Belle and her sister Anna quit school to work in a dressmaking shop, which happened to be next to the Lutz, a house of questionable means. The girls decided it was more profitable to wear the dresses instead of making them and so became involved with the Lutz. It is said that Belle eventually quit and drifted to Charleston where she became mistress to a man who was later killed. From there she went to New Orleans in 1849, where she met Charles Cora, a gambler (Gentry, 1964: 77). Of the two versions, the second seems to be the one most believed. After Belle Ryan left New Orleans with Charles Cora, they eventually booked a passage on a side-wheeler bound for San Francisco. Upon arrival, on December 28, 1849, they immediately left for Sacramento, where some say that Belle provided financial support for CharlesÊs high-stakes gambling. After Sacramento, Belle left for Sonora where, under the name of Arabelle Ryan, she became the madam of a house of ill repute at the age of 23 (Levy, 1941: 150ă154). She later returned to San Francisco sometime in 1852 and set up her own house at Dupont Street, complete with white picket fence and flower garden. Her place was directly across from Ah Toy, another madam. In an eight-block radius, there existed over 100 of these houses. It was said that BelleÊs place was the most lavish and her girls the prettiest. Belle Cora regularly held dinner parties where the most noted of the city came, including the mayor, aldermen, judges, and members of the legislature (Gentry, 1964: 83). It was said that Belle and Charles spent a good deal of time in high society together. The event that led to the eventual shooting of U.S. Marshall Richardson happened Thursday, November 15, 1855, when Belle and Charles attended a play at the

Belle Cora | 361

theater. This play was also attended by Richardson and his wife, who were sitting directly in front of Belle and Charles. When RichardsonÊs wife found out who was sitting behind them, she asked her husband to get them expelled. The proprietor refused, and the Richardsons left instead. Richardson went looking for Charles Cora. They confronted each other on the street on November 17, and Charles Cora shot Richardson. Cora was soon arrested. The newspapers sensationalized the event, calling it murder. The public was split on whether Belle Cora or Mrs. Richardson was actually responsible (Gentry, 1964: 86ă88). Belle hired Colonel E. D. Baker to represent Charles. She advanced Baker $15,000 (in gold) of the $30,000 he had asked for a retainer. Belle also tried to pressure Mrs. Maria Knight, a witness, into adjusting her remembrance of what she saw to help out Charles Cora. The first trial in January 1856, ended in a dead-locked jury (Gentry, 1964: 88ă92). Charles Cora remained in jail for his next trial. Meanwhile, an event put Charles CoraÊs life in danger. James Patrick Casey, who was a member of the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, had a running dispute with James King over an anonymous letter published in the newspaper which accused King of attacking the U.S. Marshall who had taken RichardsonÊs place (Senkewicz, 1985: 7). Casey was arrested after shooting King on May 14, 1856. The Committee of Vigilance decided that they would make an example of both Casey and Charles Cora. They were taken to the committeeÊs headquarters, where two vigilantes were provided for Charles CoraÊs counsel and where they were tried by the vigilante executive committee. Found guilty, they were both sentenced to hang. After Belle gained permission to stay with Charles on the day of the hanging, May 22, 1856, Father Michael Accolti, a Catholic priest, united Belle and Cora in marriage (Senkewicz, 1985: 172). Belle Cora became an immediate widow and had an elaborate funeral for Charles Cora. When she found she could not be buried next to him because of space, she had his body transferred from the Mission Dolores Cemetery to the Calvary Cemetery (Levy, 1941: 222). The aim of most respectable women at the time in San Francisco was to change the social atmosphere from one of sexual immorality to one more civilized, but they were not organized and so there was only surface reform. An unspoken tolerance for vice was maintained as long as the offenders were discreet (Jeffrey, 1979: 138ă141). Many women in San Francisco believed that Belle Cora should be made to leave town. A request was sent to the newspaper asking the Committee of Vigilance to compel Belle Cora to leave. A woman named Gertrude responded to the womenÊs request by arguing „that women ought not to persecute their own sex,‰ going so far as to call the womenÊs own virtue into question. She went on to say that all „true women‰ would agree with her (Jolly, 2003: 7). The request was ignored. Belle continued to run her establishment until February 1862, when she caught pneumonia and died at the age of 35. She was buried in the Calvary Cemetery next

362 |

Charlotte Corday

to Charles Cora. Their bodies were later moved to the Mission Dolores Cemetery (Levy, 1941: 222). Resources Gentry, Curt. 1964. The Madams of San Francisco: An Irreverent History of the City by the Golden Gate. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Jeffrey, Julie Roy. 1979. Frontier Women: The Trans-Mississippi West 1840ă1880. New York: Hill and Wang. Jolly, Michelle. 2003. Sex, Vigilantism, and San Francisco in 1856. Common-Place: The Interactive Journal of Early American Life 3ă4: 1ă10. Levy, Jo Ann. 1941. They Saw the Elephant: Women in the California Gold Rush. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Senkewicz, S. J. 1985. Vigilantes in Gold Rush San Francisco. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Cora Marie Bradley

Charlotte Corday (1768–1793) Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday dÊAmont, descendent of a poor but aristocratic Normandy clan, was born in the French village of Les Champeaux, on July 27, 1768. Corday grew up at the Manor of Cauvigny and at the Ferme du Bois, both not far from her birthplace. She was the fourth daughter of Charlotte-Marie Gautier des Authieux and Jacques-François de Corday. At the age of eight, Corday went to live with her uncle, Abbot de Corday, a parish priest on Vicques, who began her education. After her motherÊs death, when Corday was 12, she was admitted to a convent in the city of Caen. Corday stayed there until it closed, when she moved away to live with another relative, Mme. de Bretteville-Gouville. Interested in affairs of state, Corday involved herself in French political questions, especially in the causes of the Girondists·a moderate political French Charlotte Corday in jail following her assassination of Jean-Paul Marat on July 13, group led by Jacques-Pierre Brissot. Corday left for Paris to join the fight against 1793. She was executed for her crime the Jacobins, a reactionary group headed by four days later. (Library of Congress)

Charlotte Corday | 363

Robespierre who was causing large-scale violence throughout France. Jean-Paul Marat was a spokesman and one of the strongest defenders of the terrorist politics of the Jacobins. Corday thought MaratÊs opinions, expressed in public or in his newspaper (the LÊAmi du Peuple, or „Friend of people‰), incited violence. Further, she held him responsible for the SeptemberÊs Massacres·an episode of extreme cruelty during the French Revolution, which resulted the death of half of the incarcerated population of Paris. She also feared the imminent possibility of a civil war. She believed MaratÊs death would end all of the violence. Impelled by those thoughts and already involved in the Girondist ideology, she traveled to Paris, arriving there on Thursday, July 11. She lodged in the Hotel de la Providence on Vieux Augustins Street. In the night of July 12, Corday wrote the Adresse aux Français amis des lois et de la paix („Speech to the French who are friends of law and peace‰), in which she gave the motives of her futures acts; this speech was found after the murder. On the morning of July 13, Corday bought a large kitchen knife. Hiding the knife under her scarf, she headed to MaratÊs residence on Cordeliers Street. At first, citing illness, he declined to receive her. An hour later, Corday tried again, and once more her presence was refused, this time by MaratÊs partner, Simone Evrard. Dissatisfied, Corday wrote a note to Marat, passing herself by an informant who knew about a Girondist conspiracy plan in the city of Caen. At night, she came back to MaratÊs place, and, finally, Marat accept her presence, curious about details of that message she sent him before. Jean-Paul Marat had a skin disease which caused severe itching over his body, obligating him to stay immersed in long baths; therefore, Marat received his guests in the bathroom. And so, it was in the bathroom that Corday met Marat. Corday began the meeting by telling him about the conspiracy she mentioned in her the letter. Marat attentively took note of the GirondistÊs names provided by Corday, and, by the end of her speech, he guaranteed her that the offenders would be guillotined. In this moment, after those words, Corday pulled the knife out of her scarf and stuck it into MaratÊs chest, who exclaimed „Aidez, ma chère amie! ‰ („Help me, my dear friend!‰). People in the residence discovered the crime immediately, and Charlotte Corday was arrested and imprisoned in the Conciergerie. On July 17, only four days after her arrival in Paris, Corday was beheaded by the guillotine. After her death, the Jacobins guided a detailed necropsy in CordayÊs body, with the purpose of determining whether she was a virgin. They hoped to locate a lover who might have helped her plan the murder. No one ever knew if CordayÊs head was buried with her body. Years after MaratÊs murder, the Italian Cesare Lombroso (1835ă1909)·pioneer of the Italian positivist school that related crimes to biological characteristics·analyzed a skull that was claimed to belong to Corday. He distinguished elements that indicated that the „angel of crime‰ was, in fact, an

364

|

Mary Cotton

innate criminal; afterward, it was found out that skull never belonged to Corday (Darmon 1991, 13ă16). The political panorama in France did not alter after MaratÊs death, and the violence of the Jacobin era continued; however, Corday achieved a heroine status among the people she fought for. Resources Corday, Michel, and Elsie Finnimore Buckley. 1931. Charlotte Corday. New York: E.P. Dutton. Darmon, Pierre. 1991. Médecins et assassins à la Belle Epoque. Translated to Portuguese by Regina Grisse de Agostino. São Paulo: Paz e Terra. Goldsmith, Margaret L. 1976. Seven Women Against the World. Westport, CT: Hyperion Press. Robert, Henry. 1959. Les Grands Procès de LÊHistorie. II Serie. Translated to Portuguese by Juvenal Jacinto. São Paulo: Globo. Scherr, Marie. 1970. Charlotte Corday and Certain Men of the Revolutionary Torment. New York: AMS Press. Shecaira, Sérgio Salomão. 2008. Criminologia. São Paulo: RT.

Camila Kühl Pintarelli

Mary Cotton (1832–1873) Mary Ann Cotton is a female serial murderer, typically classified as a „black widow‰ in that she targeted her husbands, lovers, most of her own children, and several extended family members. It is known that she killed 15 people, although it is estimated that she may have killed as may as 21. She is one of BritainÊs most notorious killers of the 19th century. Born Mary Ann Robson, in 1832, she was brought up a strict Methodist in the village of Low Moorsley, England, to young teenage parents, Michael and Mary Robson. When Mary Ann was 14, her father, a coal miner, died in an accident. Before the age of 20, she married William Mowbray. They moved to Devon and had five children, three of which died. The second to die, a daughter also named Mary Ann, age four, was diagnosed as having gastric fever. They returned to the northeast of England, where Mary Ann had three more children. She insured members of her family with the British and Prudential Insurance Company; all of her family members whom she had insured, save Isabella Mowbray, died. Isabella was placed with her maternal grandmother, Ms. Stott. In 1865, Mary Ann married a second time to George Ward, of Sunderland. She met him at the Sunderland Infirmary, where he was a patient. Sources conflict as to

Mary Cotton | 365

how long she was married to George, but the marriage was ended when he also succumbed to gastric fever. She then went to work as a housekeeper for John Robinson, a widower with five children. They were soon married. In 1867, Mr. Robinson lost three children inside a two-week period. Mary Ann became pregnant and, after the deaths, visited her mother. She too soon succumbed to gastric fever, although Mary Ann did not collect any insurance monies. Isabella came home with Mary Ann but soon died, like all the rest. IsabellaÊs life was insured. Robinson eventually realized his wife was putting him in considerable debt and asked for separation. She left and took their child with her. This baby was later returned to Robinson on New Years Day, 1870, after being abandoned in 1869 at Mary AnnÊs sisterÊs home. She was then introduced to Frederick Cotton by his sister Margaret Cotton. Shortly after Mary Ann met Frederick, Margaret Cotton died mysteriously under Mary AnnÊs care. In 1871, Mary Ann married Frederick even though she was still married to John Robinson. They lived in West Auckland, County Durham. At age 39, on September, 19, 1871, Frederick died of gastric fever. Her newly born son, Robert, died a short time later. Joseph Nattrass, a lover, moved in to her home but died in March 1872, followed the following month by CottonÊs 10-year-old son, and three months later by his brother, Charles, age 7. Before the death of this last child, she was reported to have commented that this child would go like the rest of the Cotton family, and she would not be bothered for long. It was this last string of deaths that aroused suspicion. The doctor, having seen too many deaths in one family, refused to sign a death certificate for the death of CottonÊs second son. The authorities were brought in, and the child was examined. Arsenic was found in his stomach. His brother and Nattrass were exhumed. Arsenic was found in both. While awaiting trial, Mary Ann gave birth to yet another child in January 1873. This one was adopted out to another family. The defense tried to argue that Mr. CottonÊs seven-year-old boy may have licked the arsenic off the wallpaper in her home. The prosecution brought forth evidence that Mary Ann had purchased arsenic and soft soap, supposedly for killing bedbugs, shortly before the childÊs death. She was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. She was hanged on March 24, 1873. The execution was botched, and it took her three minutes to die. The Cotton case illustrates the power of gender to blind local authorities and laypeople as to the nature of her murderous activities. Although there were higher rates of infant and child mortality in this era, Cotton was able to kill her husbands and lovers, all of her own children, and many of the children that she came in close proximity to when she married into existing families, without being suspected of causing their deaths. Her gender and her perceived maternal instincts blinded most who stood by as Cotton experienced tragedy after tragedy. If Cotton had been a male, most certainly people would have become suspicious earlier in her killing career. Even when Mary Ann Cotton was able to foreshadow, and eventually predict

366

|

Mary Cotton

with accuracy, the deaths of family members, the authorities were not notified. It was not until a family doctor insisted on an autopsy that her deeds were unraveled. This case is significant as it is one of the first cases where a female serial murderer was assumed to be motivated, at least in part, by financial gain. During the Victorian era, despite the fact that a queen held the monarchy, women could not own property, had similar legal rights to that of children, were unable to vote, and could not initiate legal actions. Employment prospects were minimal. Most women could find work only as either teacher or housekeepers, and they were not allowed to have their own banking accounts. The so-called ideal woman was clean and pure, tending house and her own children. What is clear is that Cotton played into the ideology of ideal femininity and used it to hide a sinister deeds. Her children, stepchildren, husbands, and lovers became a source of income for Mary Ann Cotton, as many were insured, with herself as the sole beneficiary. Resource Appleton, A. (1973). Mary Ann Cotton: Her story and trial. London: Michael Joseph.

Hannah Scott

D Iva d’Aquino (Tokyo Rose) (1916–2006) The notorious name „Tokyo Rose‰ may have already been forgotten by many American people, and perhaps young Americans have never even heard the name of Tokyo Rose. The life story of Tokyo Rose is a true story about Iva Ikuko Toguri dÊAquino, a second-generation Japanese American woman, who was tried and convicted of treason in the United States in 1949. After serving 6 years of incarceration, out of the original sentence of 10 years (with a $10,000 fine), she was paroled in 1956 (Duss, 1979). Since her parole, the name of Tokyo Rose (or Iva) has disappeared from the public. Her name briefly reappeared when she regained her U.S. citizenship back in 1977 (Duss, 1990: 334), and when she passed away on September 26, 2006 (August, Barovick, McDonnough, and Salemme, 2006: 21). Even though Iva dÊAquinoÊs trial ended over half of the century ago, the question about who Tokyo Rose was (or whether she even existed) remains unanswered. Perhaps the more important question is how and why Iva dÊAquino was tried and convicted of treason when there was no convincing evidence against her. It is ironic that, despite the fact that Iva dÊAquino was loyal to the United States throughout her ordeal and did not consider adopting Japanese nationality while staying in Japan, she received neither a fair trial nor equal protection under U.S. law. Unfair treatment of Iva dÊAquino might have stemmed from the rampant American anti-Japanese prejudice that came out of the Pearl Harbor bombing and World War II; it may be that she was made the scapegoat for a hatred for Japanese people and the Japanese government. In fact, Iva dÊAquino was guilty in American peopleÊs minds before her trial began. Because of such harsh treatment, some people equate IvaÊs trial with a „witch hunt‰ (Duss, 1990: 150). Iva dÊAquino was born on July 4, 1916, in Los Angeles, California, as Jun and Fumi ToguriÊs second-oldest child (Duss, 1979). After dÊAquino graduated from UCLA with a degree in zoology in 1940, she had the opportunity to visit her maternal aunt in Japan. Although she did not have any interest in Japan, she was asked to visit her aunt, who was ill, on behalf of her mother, who could not go because of her own illness. Her original plan was to stay in Japan for a short time and to return 367

368 |

Iva d’Aquino (Tokyo Rose)

home in the spring of 1942. However, when the war between Japan and the United States broke out on December 7, 1941, Iva dÊAquino lost the opportunity to return to the United States, despite her efforts to go back home. Around the same time, the U.S. government ordered Japanese Americans, including dÊAquinoÊs family, to move to relocation camps in various parts of the United States with short notice. After dÊAquino lost the opportunity to leave Japan, she started working at the Monitoring Division of the Domei News Agency, where she listened to the news about the movements of Allied armies, and also at Radio Tokyo as a typist (Duss, 1990). At Radio Tokyo, Mrs. Iva “Tokyo Rose” Toguri d’Aquino dÊAquino was eventually selected as a female is released from a federal women’s revoice for the Japanese propaganda show, Zero formatory in 1956. (Library of Congress) Hour, which intended to make radio listeners (i.e., GIs) feel homesick, that is, „feeling like zero‰ (Howe, 1990: 234). This program was produced by a prisoner of war (POW) Charles Cousens (an Australian) and managed by Cousens with two additional POWs, Wallace Ince (an American) and Norman Reyes (a Filipino) (Duss, 1990: 76ă83). Her job for Zero Hour was to read a script written by Cousens. Later, Iva dÊAquino took the radio name of Orphan Ann at CousensÊs suggestion (Duss, 1990: 81ă82). Radio listeners initially gave the name Tokyo Rose to any Englishspeaking Japanese women on Zero Hour, and when soldiers were asked at Iva dÊAquinoÊs trial if Tokyo Rose and Orphan Ann were the same people, they could not make the distinction between Tokyo Rose rumors and the Orphan Ann broadcasts (Duss, 1990: 183). Regardless of the origin of Tokyo Rose, soldiersÊ (mis) identification was one of the reasons that Iva dÊAquino ended up being involved in the Tokyo Rose story. There were many key players who were implicated in the case of Tokyo Rose. Two reporters, Clark Lee at International News Service and Harry Brundidge at Cosmopolitan, played powerful roles in finding Tokyo Rose in Japan and identifying Iva dÊAquino as Tokyo Rose (Duss, 1990). They tricked Iva dÊAquino and her husband, Filipe dÊAquino, into signing the agreement that „Iva Ikuko Toguri is the one and original ÂTokyo RoseÊ who broadcasted from Radio Tokyo‰ (Duss, 1979: 22). However, the truth was that she was one of the five to six announcers working at Radio Tokyo at the time, and she had never identified herself as Tokyo Rose on the air. However, because the story was publicized in the media, the U.S. government was compelled to investigate the story of Tokyo Rose. Subsequently, Iva dÊAquino

Iva d’Aquino (Tokyo Rose) | 369

was arrested for treason without a warrant for her arrest and imprisoned in Japan for one year. Although Iva dÊAquino was allowed to leave Japan on September 25, 1948, within one year of her arrival in San Francisco, she was indicted for treason by a grand jury. Her trial started on July 5, 1949 (Duss, 1979). Thomas DeWolfe, who was one of the prosecutors assigned to the Tokyo Rose case, played an important role in convicting dÊAquino. Throughout the trial, DeWolfe suppressed evidence brought by the defense team and ignored the perjury committed by George Nakamoto Mitsushio and Kenkichi Oki, who were Iva dÊAquinoÊs supervisors at Radio Tokyo (Duss, 1979). These two men were Japanese Americans like Iva dÊAquino, but during the war, they denounced their American nationalities and adopted Japanese nationalities. Iva dÊAquino was charged with eight counts of treason but was found guilty of only the sixth count by the jury (Duss, 1990). This sixth count was based on statements made by both Mitsushio and Oki before the grand jury: „On the day during October, 1944, the exact date being to the Grand Jury unknown, said defendant, at Tokyo, Japan, in a broadcasting studio of the Broadcasting Corporation of Japan, did speak into a microphone concerning the loss of ship‰ (Duss, 1979: 134). Originally, the jury had a split vote with three jurors who voted against her conviction. However, when the jury foreman, John Mann, asked Judge Michael Roche to clarify the instruction for the sixth count, Judge Roche was unwilling to clarify, and instead demanded a speedy verdict. Judge RocheÊs eagerness to end the case quickly influenced the jurorsÊ decisions to vote for a guilty verdict (Kutler, 1978: 107). Iva dÊAquino was convicted of treason because a number of key players orchestrated efforts to convict her regardless of the evidence so that the U.S. government could find someone guilty and demonstrate the symbol of (in)justice to American people. Because of this symbolic gesture, Iva dÊAquino had to endure the label of traitor to her beloved country and was incarcerated for six years. After her six years of imprisonment in U.S. federal prison, dÊAquino was released on January 28, 1956. She then moved to Chicago, where her family owned a store and where she lived until her death in 2006. President Gerald Ford pardoned dÊAquino on January 19, 1977. Resources August, Melissa, Harriet Barovick, Kaili McDonnough, and Elisabeth Salemme. 2006. „Died. Iva Toguri DÊAquino, 90.‰ Time. October 9, 168: 21. Duss, Masayo. 1979. Tokyo Rose. New York: Kodansha International. Duss, Masayo. 1990. Tokyo Rose (new edition). Tokyo: Bungei Shunjyu. Federal Bureau of Investigation. „Iva Toguri dÊAquino and „Tokyo Rose.‰ Famous Cases and Criminals. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/tokyo-rose.

370

|

Laurie Dann

Howe, Russell W. 1990. The Hunt for „Tokyo Rose.‰ Lanham, NY: Madison Books. Kutler, Stanley, I. 1978. The „Tokyo Rose‰ Case and Bureaucratic Administration of Justice („Tokyo Rose‰ to Kanryotekishiho). Jurist 674: 101ă107.

Yoko Baba, George Kikuchi, and Yumiko Watanuki

Laurie Dann (ca. 1958–1988) In 1988 Laurie Dann walked into a school and opened fire in a classroom in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. She killed one eight-year-old child and wounded five other children and an adult male. She committed suicide before she could be apprehended. In 1990, three reporters chronicled this story in a book Murder of Innocence, which later became the basis of a movie by the same name in 1993. She remains one of the few examples of female mass murderers in the United States and around the world. Born to an accountant and his wife, Norman and Edith Wasserman, around 1958, Laurie Wasserman grew up in Glencoe, an affluent suburb of Chicago. She was described as a shy and withdrawn person by many. Laurie was married to Russell Dann, an insurance broker, on September 11, 1982. In 1985, Laurie Dann became known to Illinois police after a series of disputes with her husband. Their relationship ultimately ended in separation in 1986. Later, Russell survived being stabbed in the chest with an ice pick while he slept, missing his heart by an inch. There was not enough evidence to prosecute Laurie. She accumulated two charges: a misdemeanor offense after harassing her in-laws by phone and a shoplifting charge. Laurie had a history of exhibiting odd behavior, such as spending hours riding the elevator in her high rise. She lived on various college campuses, passing herself off as a student, but never actually enrolled in any classes. In the years preceding the shootings, Dann had purchased three guns. In Laurie Dann, shown in this 1988 photo, shot six children at a Winnetka, Illinois, elMay, 1986, Dann purchased a high-powered ementary school and then killed herself. Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum. In No- The school shooting spree left one child vember, 1987, she purchased a second dead and five youngsters wounded. (AP/ .32 caliber gun from the same maker. On Wide World Photos)

Laurie Dann | 371

December 29, 1987, she bought a .22 caliber, semi-automatic Beretta. Just prior to the shootings, the family she had been baby-sitting for had informed Dann that they would be moving to New York. She had also started to threaten an ex-boyfriend with death threats which were being investigated by the FBI. On the morning of the shootings, Laurie attempted to burn down a daycare center but was unsuccessful. She presented poisonous orange drinks to six family homes where she had been employed. Days previous, she made and delivered crispy rice treats to two Northwestern University fraternity houses and to workers in a graduate school building. She had also mailed as many as 24 packages of food products to various recipients in three states, including her ex-husband and her former psychiatrist; these packages were received days after her death. At approximately 10:30 AM on May 20, 1988, Dann walked into Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka. She shot a boy of six in the chest, then proceeded to a second-grade classroom and shot five other children, ages 7ă9, one of whom, Nicholas Corwin, age 8, died. She then fled the school, but when her car hit a boulder, she left her car and entered the residence of Phil Andrew, also in Winnetka. At first she claimed to have been raped but then she eventually shot Phil Andrew, a 20-year-old college student, and then committed suicide. After her death it was uncovered that she had stopped seeing her psychiatrist almost two months prior and was taking both lithium carbonate and an experimental drug, Anafranil. Her psychiatrist admitted that after she had stopped coming to appointments, he had begun commitment proceedings, but there was insufficient evidence at the time to support his petition. After the shootings, he disclosed that no one had told him about the guns she had purchased until after her rampage. Much of the media attention that followed the shootings was focused on her parentsÊ protective behavior of their daughter. Critics argued that they should have been more forthcoming about their daughterÊs behavior to authorities. Her father acknowledged that he had tried to get her to voluntarily commit herself. Several lawsuits were launch against them, claiming the parents were negligent. These suits are significant in that they raised the question of accountability of parents of adult children who engage in criminal activity. Most mass murders of this kind are typically committed by males, often acting alone. Dann does share in common many of the features of these lone gunmen, including that she had a perceived catastrophic loss (the family she was caring for was leaving thereby leaving her out of a job and without a support network), she was a loner, and she suffered through bouts of depression for which she was supposed to be taking medication. These conditions resulted in a „breaking point‰ in which she took her aggressions out on the students of a nearby elementary school and in a university, after which she took her own life. Why she chose these targets as an outlet for her aggression is unclear, as she left no suicide note to explain her actions. What is clear is that she clearly had interest in being at post-secondary educational

372 |

Angela Davis

institutions, as evidenced by her choices of places to live, but she had been unable to be an integral part of this culture as she did not enroll. Additionally, these shootings re-opened several debates in Illinois including one on gun control and another on institutionalizing the mentally ill against their will. Many agreed that Laurie Dann „fell through the cracks‰ of the system given her gun purchases and her odd and threatening behavior. Laurie DannÊs is one of the few examples of a female mass murderer who used a handgun to kill her victims. Resources Black, Lisa, and Bonnie Miller Rubin. 2008. „Old hurts, new lives emerge two decades after Dann shootings.‰ May 20. Chicago Tribune. Accessed August 15, 2010, from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008ă05ă20/news/0805190613_1_hubbardwoods-school-laurie-dann-amy-moses. Kaplan, J., G. Papjohn, and E. Zorn. 1990. Murder of Innocence: The Tragic Life and Final Rampage of Laurie Dann, „The Schoolhouse Killer.‰ New York: Warner Books.

Hannah Scott

Angela Davis (1944–) Angela Yvonne Davis is an internationally known African American feminist educator, activist, organizer, and philosopher. For 40 years, she has been a leading advocate for civil rights and an active organizer against all forms of oppression in the United States and globally. Davis gained notoriety in 1970, when she was the third woman to be placed on the FBIÊs Most Wanted list after being charged with conspiracy, kidnapping, and murder in a Marin County, California, courthouse incident. After being acquitted of all charges, she remained an anti-prison activist and is currently a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Davis was born into a Birmingham, Alabama, middle-class family on January 26, 1944. Both her parents were college educated. Her mother was a teacher; her father owned and operated a service station. Living in the Jim Crow South, Davis experienced segregation in all areas of her life. When she was four years old, her family moved from a government housing project to what had previously been an all-white neighborhood that was experiencing white flight and terrorist bombings against its black residents. Davis attended segregated schools until she was selected for an American Friends Service Committee program that sent her to a New York City high school when she was 14 years old. The Little Red Schoolhouse in Greenwich Village was a small, private, integrated school that had a progressive educational program. Being exposed to the ideas of socialism and communism, Davis became

Angela Davis | 373

involved in a Communist Party youth organization, Advance, which was active in the civil rights movement. In 1961, Davis received a full scholarship to Brandeis University. After her first year, she attended the World Festival of Youth and Students in Helsinki, Finland, where she met revolutionary youth from around the world, including Cuba. That experience changed her life. She decided to major in French and spent her junior year studying in France. In 1965 she graduated magna cum laude as a member of Phi Beta Kappa and then attended the University of Frankfurt to study philosophy. During her time in Germany, Davis felt isolated from the growing Black Power movement Civil rights activist and communist Angela Davis addresses the press in the United States. To be more connected, she at the University of California, transferred to the University of California at San Berkeley, where she received a Diego in 1967, where she became involved with standing ovation following her first the black movement. While in graduate school, class, in 1969. University regents Davis briefly belonged to the Student Non-Violent had banned her employment, but Coordinating Committee and the Black Panther she had support from the school’s chancellor and faculty. (AP Photo/ Party, but she left both organizations because of her Marxist views. In 1968, she joined the ComDavid F. Smith) munist Party and the Che-Lumumba Club, a black collective within the Communist Party. In 1969, Davis began teaching in the philosophy department at the University of California at Los Angeles, but she was not reappointed to a second year because of her membership in the Communist Party and her radical political activities. In 1970, she became active in the Soledad Brothers Defense Committee, which supported three black inmates, including George Jackson, who were charged with killing a prison guard in Soledad Prison. In an effort to free the Soledad Brothers, Davis spoke to community organizations, attended court hearings, demonstrated against the California Department of Corrections, and raised money for their defense. On August 7, 1970, George JacksonÊs brother, Jonathan, used a shotgun that was legally registered to Davis in an attempt to free three San Quentin prisoners who were on trial in the Marin County courthouse. The courtroom takeover also intended to publicize the plight of all political prisoners in the United States. During the failed escape attempt, the trial judge and three people, including Jonathan Jackson, were killed. Davis was charged with conspiracy, murder, and kidnapping, and was placed on the FBIÊs Ten Most Wanted List. She fled to New York City, where she was arrested two months later and extradited back to California. The National

374

|

Phoolan Devi

United Committee to Free Angela Davis organized a worldwide „Free Angela‰ movement to raise money for her defense. Davis was released on bail in February 1972, and on June 4, 1972, an all-white jury acquitted her of all the charges. Shortly after her trial, Davis harnessed the momentum of her defense committee and cofounded the National Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression. She also began teaching at San Francisco State University (1979ă1991). During the 1980s, Davis was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party. She ran for United States vice president on the Communist Party ticket in 1980 and 1984. Although Davis is no longer a member of the Communist Party, she still considers herself a communist. Davis is currently on the advisory board of the Committees for Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which was formed by former Communist Party members in the early 1990s. She also serves on the board of directors for both the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, which she cochaired from 1973 to 1993, and the National Black WomenÊs Health Project. As a member of the advisory board of the Prison Activist Resource Center and Critical Resistance, an international movement to end the prison industrial complex, Davis continues to actively work for prison rights and the freedom of political prisoners, including Mumia Abu-Jamal; Puerto Rican political prisoners such as Dylcia Pagan; and Leonard Peltier. Davis has been teaching in the history of consciousness department at the University of California at Santa Cruz since 1992 and lectures worldwide on Marxist theory, racism and sexism in the criminal justice system, the prison industrial complex, and the abolition of all prisons. She is the author of several books including Blues Legacies and Black Feminism; Women, Culture, and Politics; Women, Race, and Class; Abolition Democracy: Prisons, Democracy, and Empire; and Are Prisons Obsolete? Resources Davis, A. (1988). Angela Davis: An Autobiography. New York: International Publishers. Davis, A. (2003). Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press. James, J., ed. (1999). The Angela Y. Davis Reader. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Jo-Ann Della Giustina

Phoolan Devi (1957–2001) Named after a flower and later called a goddess, Phoolan Devi was labeled the Bandit Queen of India at age 24 when she was charged with 48 major criminal offenses including kidnapping-for-ransom and raiding of villages. In particular, she was

Phoolan Devi | 375

charged with murdering 22 high-caste Hindu men (the upper class in Hindu society) in Behmai just south of New Delhi, the capital of India. This is the true foundation of Phoolan DeviÊs significance. In the history of Indian banditry, a low-caste woman had never been accused of killing so many high-caste men. Her crimes created social and even political reactions when the family members and the supporters of her victims held protests near governmental places calling for justice. She was on the run from the police officials of three different states for a year. At many occasions she eluded capture while many were killed in their pursuit of her and her gang of Bandit Queen Phoolan Devi displays seven men. her old photograph to media persons Born in a small village named Gorha Ka at her residence in New Delhi, 1997. Purwa, in Uttar Pradesh, and raised in a mud Phoolan had gone underground for a while after a court ordered her arrest for house that had a roof made of straw, Phoolan her alleged role in the Behmai Massa- spent her childhood wondering why her famcre case where she allegedly gunned ily never had enough to eat. She was the secdown 20 upper-caste men to avenge ond of four children, three girls and a boy. Her her rape. (AP/Wide World Photos) father had spent his life savings on fighting a case to regain his inheritance, which had been stolen by his brother. According to her autobiography, Phoolan was strong; she could run faster and carry heavier things than the other girls; and she believed she got her strength from her anger. Married at age 11 to a widower, she was mistreated and raped by her husband, who was three times her age. In the late 1970s, Phoolan was abducted by a gang of outlaws. The gang leader had abducted her, wanting to rape her, but the deputy leader of the gang, Vikram, was from the same caste as Phoolan and protected her. In the end, Vikram was forced to kill the leader and take over control of the gang. Under his control, they raided the village where PhoolanÊs abusive husband lived, and after stabbing him, she dragged him and displayed his suffering to the other villagers. Once this was done, the gang left him to die with a note warning against older men marrying young girls. As time passed, Vikram and Phoolan were attacked due to growing tensions within the gang. Vikram was killed, and Phoolan was abducted by another group of men from Behmai village, where she was raped multiple times by Thakurs, high-caste men. She eventually escaped, and on February 14, 1981, she and her gang, dressed as police officers, returned to the village and shot all of the Thakur

376 |

Phoolan Devi

men in the village after her gang failed to produce all of her kidnappers and assaulters. After the massacre, the government of India decided to make Phoolan an offer for her surrender in 1983. She agreed to surrender only if the government officials met her conditions. Her conditions included that she surrender her arms only before Mahatma Gandhi and Goddess Durga and not before the police. (In Hinduism, Durga is a warrior goddess who embodies feminine energy and fights demons.) She also made the government agree to not sentence her to death and to give her brother a job in the Indian government. Additionally, she asked for a plot of land for her father and that her entire family should be escorted to the event of her surrender. Lastly, she had negotiated for all of her charges to be dropped. While she succeeded in her demands, the charges were eventually revived against her in Uttar Pradesh in 1997 despite being assured that all cases against her would be dropped at her surrender. Phoolan Devi was jailed for 11 years and released on parole in 1994. After being released, she started Eklavya Sena, a group that taught self-defense to lower caste people. During this time, she also married Umaid Singh, a New Delhi business contractor. In 1996, Phoolan Devi ran for a seat in the parliament as a Samajwadi Party candidate and was successfully elected as a member of parliament. On July 25, 2001, Phoolan Devi was shot and killed as she was getting out of her car in front of her home in New Delhi. Her attackers escaped. The murderers have since been identified as Sher Singh Rana, Dheeraj Rana, and Rajbir. Sher Singh Rana later surrendered and confessed to the murder, which he claimed was revenge for the deaths of 22 Thakurs at Behmai. There have been various works on the representation of Phoolan DeviÊs life, as she herself was illiterate. The biographical works on Phoolan Devi that have been published portray the phenomenal interest that the „bandit queen‰ generated in Western imagination. The first was written by Richard Shears and Isobelle Giddy: Devi: The Bandit Queen (1984). Several years later another attempt was made to document the life of Phoolan in Mala SenÊs The Bandit Queen: The True Story of Phoolan Devi (1991). Another genre in which Phoolan DeviÊs story was captured was a film called Bandit Queen, directed by Shekhar Kapoor (1994), based on Mala SenÊs book. Some have criticized the film for its sensational and oversexualized depiction of PhoolanÊs story. For instance, Madhu Kishwar (1994) criticizes the director of the film for „making it a formula-ridden Rape-Revenge story thus robbing [PhoolanÊs] life of all its richness and complexity‰ (35). In fact, Phoolan Devi herself also made an attempt to prevent the film from being released due to its violation of sexual privacy. The latest addition to the list of tributes to the legend is the autobiographical recounting I Phoolan Devi, The Autobiography of IndiaÊs Bandit Queen, compiled by Marie-Therese Cuny and Paul Rambali, based on recordings of PhoolanÊs own recounting of her story (the recordings were later transcribed). Feminists have discussed the authenticity of representations of Phoolan DeviÊs life

Bernadette Devlin |

in terms of power relations that play out when there are attempts made to illustrate an illiterate personÊs life experiences. Resources Devi, Phoolan, Cuny, Marie-Therese, and Rambali, Paul. 1997. I, Phoolan Devi. London: Warner. Fernandes, Leela. 1999. Reading „IndiaÊs Bandit Queen‰: A Trans/national Feminist Perspective on the Discrepancies of Representation. Signs 25 (1): 123ă152. IndiaÊs Bandit Queen. 1995. A film directed by Shekhar Kapoor. Kishwar, Madhu. 1994. Film Review. „The Bandit Queen.‰ Manushi. 84: 34ă37. Ravi, Srilata. 1999. Marketing Devi: Indian Women in French Imagination. Journal of Comparative Poetics (19) 131ă150. Sen, Mala. 1991. IndiaÊs Bandit Queen: The True Story of Phoolan Devi. London: Harvill.

Preeta Saxena

Bernadette Devlin (1947–) Bernadette Devlin McAliskey became a Northern Irish civil rights activist during the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. She was born on April 23, 1947, to a Catholic nationalist family in Northern Ireland. While a psychology major at QueenÊs University, she participated and was arrested in the first Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association marches in 1968 and 1969. Radicalized by the police attacks against demonstrators, she became a leading figure in the student civil rights movement, which challenged discrimination against Catholics and undemocratic voting rules. Devlin helped to establish the radical PeopleÊs Democracy group, a student organization that lobbied for fair elections, freedom of speech and assembly, fair allocation of houses and jobs, and repeal of the Special Powers Act, which authorized the internment of Northern Irish freedom fighters. In 1969, at the age of 21, Devlin was the youngest woman to ever be elected to the British Parliament. While she had sympathies to the Irish Republican Army, she remained nonpartisan in her pursuit of unity among the Irish people. Her radical leftist anti-imperialist program argued for a socialist workersÊ republic that would end all repressive laws against the poor, workers, and small farmers. In August 1969, Devlin participated in a demonstration by Catholic youth protesting the British occupation of Northern Ireland. The incident had been sparked by the police spraying the Catholic neighborhood in Derry with riot gas. Activists responded by setting up barricades and using petrol bombs to beat them back. Devlin was in the frontline of the resistance, which marked the beginning of 30 years of armed resistance to the British occupation of Northern Ireland. She was arrested

377

378 | Bernadette Devlin

and charged with inciting a riot. She served four months of a six-month jail term in Armagh Gaol; her arrest sparked street rioting in two Northern Ireland cities. In 1971, Devlin announced that she was pregnant and unmarried, and she was determined to have her baby despite her decision being controversial in her conservative Catholic district. Although she later married the babyÊs father, Michael McAliskey, she never regained her status in the community. Devlin was addressing protesters in Derry on January 31, 1972, when the British armyÊs paratroop regiment opened fire, killing 13 civilians. After this Bloody Sunday and an ensuing demPhoto of former member of paronstration, she punched the Tory Home Secretary liament Bernadette McAliskey Reginald Maudling in the House of Commons and (née Devlin) when she was 21 accused him of being responsible for the death of years old, in 1969. (AP/Wide World Photos) the civil rights marchers. The British assumed direct rule over Northern Ireland in March 1972, and Devlin became a passionate opponent of the British occupation of Northern Ireland. After Devlin lost her bid for reelection in 1974, she co-founded the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP), whose founding members were primarily former members of Sein Féin, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army. Their philosophy followed that of James Connolly, an Irish Marxist who was executed for his role in the Easter Rising of 1916. He had maintained that the struggle for national liberation is inseparable from the fight for socialism in Ireland. Devlin split from the IRSP in 1975 because of the militarism of its paramilitary wing, the Irish National Liberation Army. Nevertheless, Devlin continued to support Irish republican causes, including the plight of political prisoners in Ireland. During the 1980ă1981 Irish Hunger Strike, she was a member of the National Executive Committee of the National Armagh/ H-Block Committee. In January 1981, she and her husband survived an assassination attempt when Loyalist paramilitary gunmen burst into their farmhouse near Belfast and shot them. Devlin remains active in the struggle for civil liberties and freedom in Northern Ireland and for human rights issues worldwide. She is a leading critic of the Good Friday Agreement (also known as the Belfast Agreement), which is a peace document signed in 1998 by the British and Irish governments. The accord calls for the creation of an elected assembly and an executive committee comprised of both

Dhanu | 379

nationalists and unionists. The agreement was ratified by 94 percent of voters in Ireland and 71 percent in Northern Ireland. In 2003, Devlin was seized at ChicagoÊs OÊHare airport, where she was en route from Dublin to New York for a short vacation. Despite her attempts to convince the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service that she was not a terrorist, she was deported to Northern Ireland. Resources Coogan, P. (2002). The IRA. New York: Palgrave Books. Devlin McAliskey, B. (1969). The Price of My Soul. New York: Random House. Irish Republican Socialist Party. „Irish Republican Socialist Movement: 20 Years of Struggle.‰ http://irsp.ie/Background/history/irsm20yrs.html

Jo-Ann Della Giustina

Dhanu (1974–1991) Dhanu (Thenmuli Rajaratnam) was a beautiful young Sir Lankan woman who was also the first suicide bomber to use a suicide belt during a terrorist attack. She had many aliases including Anbu, Kalaivani, and her most famous alter ego, Dhanu. She assassinated IndiaÊs Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the highest-ranking political leader ever killed by a suicide bomber. Rajaratnam was from a small town called Jaffna in Sri Lanka. During her youth, she was gang raped by the Indian Peace keeping Force (IPKF), and her four brothers were reportedly killed by the Indian military during a raid of her village (Cragin and Daly, 2009). Contrary to the stereotype of a suicide bomber, she did not come from an impoverished family nor was she highly impulsive or mentally unstable. In addition, she was not brought up with a rigorous religious fundamentalist education that typically serves religion as an underlying motivation for suicide terrorism. Women who have experienced unfortunate social circumstances are more likely candidates for recruitment by terrorist insurgents as an option for justification. Most Sri Lankan women play maternal and supportive roles within their families. Within the Tamil community, unmarried young women normally live under the supervision of the father and/or brother(s) until they are married (Jayasena, 2009). Young womenÊs lives are restricted to the private sphere, and they have limited freedom to pursue their personal goals in a hegemonic society (Balasingham, 1993). Nonetheless, according to the Hindu faith, being a victim of rape makes a woman an outcast and, therefore, tarnishes her social status in the Tamil community. „The main belief of the Tamil women fighters is that their participation in armed struggle will bring them advantages in the future, in a society at peace‰ (Schalk, 1994: 163).

380 |

Dhanu

Tamil women were recruited by indoctrinating them with the ideology that they have a chance to create a new society that would allow women to live their lives with equal human rights, self-respect, and honor (Balasingham, 1993). For instance, „[the] LTTE woman combatant is transformed into a public figure engaged in ÂmasculineÊ activities and repudiating patriarchal norms of womanhood‰ (Del Mel, 2001: 206). They were told that they will be liberated from the structures of oppression embedded in their society. Since many of these women were not satisfied with the social status quo, Rajaratnam may have been easily persuaded to join the national conflict based on gender-related motivations. According to Herath, „ethnic sentiments of the violation of female honour take precedence in public discourse, within which women are reconstructed as craving vengeance for the disgrace they suffered‰ (2006: 3). In this specific case, although the exact motive behind the crime is unclear, RajaratnamÊs motivations for the attack may have been a combination of factors such as to proclaim equal social status, regain purity, and reclaim the honor for herself as well as for her family. Her outward appearance showed a typical young woman but the only thing that separated her from the average girl was her affiliation as a female suicide bomber in the terrorist group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (also known as the Tamil Tigers). She was reported to have nerves of steel and a soldier-like mentality. She was a member of the LTTE since the mid-1980s and had gone through the selection and training as a suicide bomber since the late 1980s in the female suicide bomber division, which is also known as the Black Tigresses or Suthanthirap Paravaikal (The Freedom Birds). She killed herself and 16 others when she attacked Rajiv Gandhi, IndiaÊs chief political figure in 1991. With a strap of grenades hidden underneath her gown, she presented a flower garland to Gandhi at a political campaign in Tamil Nadu, India. According to accomplices, she was the designated assassin who was sent to Madras, the largest city in the southern Tamil Nadu region of India, where Rajiv Gandhi was scheduled to address crowds at a major political campaign. Her trip to Madras was the first time that she had ever travelled beyond the jungles of Jaffna, Sri Lanka. She was provided with money and support from the LTTE to achieve her mission. Three weeks before the actual attack, she, with the help of handlers, prepared and rehearsed the mission. Her support group consisted of a squad of three other individuals that was sent by the LTTE. Besides this preparation, she took an advantage of her short stay in Madras by enjoying life like a tourist. In the last 20 days of her life, she went to the market, the beach, and local restaurants; she even went to see six movies at a local cinema. She bought herself jewelry, new dresses, cosmetics, and her first pair of glasses. On May 21, 1991, she was dressed in a beautiful long dress for her presentation of the garland to the target. Beneath the dress was a belt which was three inches

Dhanu | 381

wide, made from denim and leather, with a Velcro closure. Inside were grenades that had been inserted to lie diagonally along the backbone. In addition to the explosives in her lower back area, there was a power pack and a manual switch for detonation. The explosives were composed of 10,000 steel balls, approximately 2 mm in diameter known as RDX or Research Department Explosive, which are widely used in the military. As she waited for Gandhi, she was smiling with a garland in her hands. The moment before garlanding Gandhi, she „accidently‰ dropped the garland at his feet, touched his feet, bent over, and manually pulled the switch to detonate the bomb at the exact moment when Gandhi and she would receive the full force of the explosion. According to the investigators, two members of the LTTE were at the attack site with her. They were present to guarantee that she reached her target. The third squad member served as the cameraman who was recoding live footage of the attack as the bomb exploded. The cameraman man was too close the explosion and was killed. The tapes were later discovered by Indian police investigators, and this evidence was later used to clarify the assassination plot. For Rajaratnam, the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi may have been considered a personal victory. The motivation for the crime came from the damage that was done to her and her loved ones by the Indian troops. It is widely believed that DhanuÊs possible motivation was vengeance or revenge for the rape and killings of family troops that were sent to Sri Lanka by Gandhi. Having been raped at the hands of the Indian soldiers had attacked stigma to her (and destroyed her prospect of marriage). Terrorism may have been the only way to remove that stigma. Even though Dhanu was not alive for the sentencing, seven years after the attack, an Indian court convicted 26 individuals for the conspiracy to assassinate Gandhi. To this day she is viewed as a hero to the Tamil women of Sri Lanka and an example for other Freedom Birds of LTTE. Dhanu did not commit this act unknowingly. She was aware of the penalty of her actions, and she still conducted her mission to its bloody end. According to Ana Cutter, the former editor of Columbia UniversityÊs Journal of International Affairs, „Acting as a human bomb, is an understood and accepted offering for a woman who will never be a mother‰ (in Pape 2005, 230). DhanuÊs life story is still been used among the Tamils in the jungles of Jaffna to recruit new members. She is also remembered in the larger social context·she is honored at the national heroÊs day ceremony of the LTTE martyrs. Resources Balasingham, Adele. 1993. Women Fighters of Liberation Tigers. Jaffna, SL: LTTE Publications. Cragin, Kim, and Sara A. Daly. 2009. Women as Terrorists: Mothers, Recruiters, and Martyrs. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publications.

382

|

Nannie Doss

De Mel, Neloufer. 2001. Women and the NationÊs Narrative: Gender and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Herath, Tamara. 2006. WomenÊs Global Connection Conference Proceedings, 2006. London School of Economics and Political Science. 1ă6 http://wgc.womensglobalconnec tion.org/conf06proceedings/Herath, T%20In%20My%20Honor.pdf Jayasena, Karunya. 2009. Motivations of Female Suicide Bombers from a Sociological Perpsective. Unpublished MasterÊs thesis. Department of Sociology, California State University, Northridge. The Ministry of Defense Sri Lanka. 2006. The Untold Story of Rajiv GandhiÊs Assassination. Colombo, Sri Lanka: National Public Security Law and Order. The Office of Law Enforcement and Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) Special Report. 2011. „Female Suicide Bombers.‰ Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 1ă91. http://info.publicintelligence.net/TSA-FemaleSuicideBombers.pdf. Pape, Robert. 2005. Dying to Win. New York: Random House. Rao, Rama. 2006. LTTE admits killing Rajiv Gandhi, apologizes to India. Asian Tribune, June, 1ă2. Schalk, P. 1994. „Women Fighters of the Liberation Tigers in Tamil Ilam: The Martial Feminism of Atel Palacinkam.‰ South Asia, 14: 163ă195.

Karunya Jayasena

Nannie Doss (1905–1965) Nannie Doss is a female serial murder who confessed to killing four husbands and is suspected of killing five other family members using arsenic placed in prunes and, in some cases, asphyxiation. It is also suspected that she killed her second and third child by her first husband as well as asphyxiating several other family members. Nannie suffered from headaches all of her life, which she blamed on a head injury received as a child while on a train after it suddenly stopped. Nancy Hazel was born on November 4, 1905, into the poor farming family of Loulisa („Lou‰) and James Hazel in Blue Mountain, Alabama. She was the oldest of four sisters and one brother, although there is some evidence to suggest that Nancy was born before Lou and James married. Early on, she developed both her nickname, Nannie, and a penchant for romance magazines. James was rumored to be strict and physically abusive, and he worked all the children in the fields, often taking them out of school. In 1921, at the age of 16, she met and married Charley Braggs. Her new mother-in-law would prove to be as dominating as the family she left. She had four daughters in four years, starting in 1923. Both Nannie and Charley engaged in extramarital affairs. In 1927, the Braggs family lost two middle children within weeks of each other. Charley took the oldest, Melvina, and left, returning a year later with a new girlfriend and another child. Nannie took back Melvina,

Nannie Doss | 383

and Nannie, along with Melvina and the youngest, Florine, left Blue Mountain, to move in with NannieÊs parents in Anniston, Alabama where Nannie worked in cotton mill. She married Frank Harrelson in 1929. Although handsome, and initially romantic, Frank was an alcoholic. He became abusive, but she stayed married to him for 16 years. Early in 1945, Melvina became pregnant with her second child, asking Nannie to care for her. Although MelvinaÊs daughter was born, it survived one hour. Melvina recalls having a dream of seeing her mother press a hat pin, which others commented she had been playing with previously, into the babyÊs head. MelvinaÊs other son died six months later while under NannieÊs care, on July 7, 1945, diagnosed with „asphyxia‰ from unknown causes. Nannie had insured the child for $500. A short time after September 16, 1945, when after a night of drinking Frank insisted on having sex, Nannie spiked his liquor bottle with arsenic, and he died at age 38, over the course of that evening. Two years later, she moved to Lexington, Kentucky, to meet and marry Arlie Lanning after a long letter writing courtship. He too drank and had affairs. Her response was to leave for days on end, but then they would reconcile. The town sympathized with her martyr status, given ArlieÊs actions. Arlie died after two days in pain in February 1950. On April 21, 1950, after realizing that Arlie had left the entire estate to his sister, she was seen leaving the house with her television shortly before the house exploded and burned to the ground. The insurance check was made out to the estate, the executor of which was Nannie. In 1952, she married Richard L. Morton, whom she met through another „Lonely Hearts‰ column. They moved to Okmulgee, Kansas. All was good, until NannieÊs mother came to visit in January 1953. She fell ill with stomach pains and died within days of her arrival. Richard died in May of similar symptoms. On July 13 of that same year, she married Samuel Doss, age 58, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was a miser, did not like noise or magazines, often turning off the television and not allowing NannieÊs favorite reading material in the house. He died October 6, 1953, after signing all his assets over to his wife. The doctor who was treating Samuel became suspicious, having released him a few days earlier with a clean bill of health. He ordered an autopsy which would indicate lethal levels of arsenic in his system. In November 1954, Nannie Doss was interrogated by police, eventually confessing to killing four of her husbands but not to killing any other family members. The court trial was centered on the murder of her husband Samuel. She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, dying there of cancer in 1965. The motivation for these crimes is somewhat unclear. Doss states that she was always looking for the perfect husband. She simply did not find the right one: two were drunks, two were physically abusive, three were adulterers, and the last was too restrictive. Nannie would also leave on prolonged trips, and it is suggested that she was also adulterous. Doss also operated in a time when divorce was difficult,

384 |

Melissa Drexler

thereby permitting few options to women in unhappy marriages. Further, Nannie Doss may have also been partially motivated by finances, although it is suspected that she did not profit enough to make a living off her crimes. Doss did insure many of her victims or had assets signed over to her before they died. The Doss case impacted police practice and legislation. Her nurturing persona and „motherly‰ nature allowed many of her murderous actions to go unnoticed. There were at least nine suspicious deaths before a doctor took notice and began to investigate. After her conviction, the case inspired work toward laws that mandated autopsies for all suspicious deaths. It was acknowledged that had this case been forced into investigation earlier in the process, lives could have been saved. It has also been suggested that she was spared the death penalty in Oklahoma because of her gender, as she was allowed to plea bargain on SamuelÊs murder. Finally, although this woman clearly had killed several innocent victims, she was not acknowledged in writings about serial murders until the early 1990s. Before this time, she was merely labeled as a so-called Black Widow killer, a term given to women who killed husbands, lovers, and often other family members. Her case, and others like it, illustrate the power of gender in the criminalizing of female deviance. In the past, women like Doss were rarely labeled serial killers. It wasnÊt until a few authors and academicians began pointing to the body counts of killers like Doss that that changed. Resource Manners, Terry. 1995. „Nannie Doss.‰ In Terry Manners (ed.), Deadlier Than a Male: Stories of Female Serial Killers, 68ă103. London: Pan. Geringer, Joseph. „Nannie Doss: Lonely Hearts Lady Loved Her Man to Death.‰ Notorious Murders: Women Who Kill.‰ TruTV Crime Library. http://www.trutv.com/library/ crime/notorious_murders/women/doss/1.html.

Hannah Scott

Melissa Drexler (1978–) On June 6, 1997, in Lacey Township, New Jersey, Melissa Drexler committed a shocking crime. At age 18, she strangled or suffocated her healthy baby boy and placed him into the bathroom trash receptacle at the restaurant where she was attending her high school prom. This crime against the baby, posthumously named Christopher, earned her the title Prom Mom. Her crime is remarkable because it contradicts deep societal beliefs about a motherÊs instinct. Neonaticide is the murder of an infant in the first 24 hours of birth and is commonly committed by teenagers and women in their early twenties. Research

Melissa Drexler | 385

indicates that adolescent girls who become pregnant often have immature cognitive development because they sometimes take risks without considering the outcomes. Many of these girls possess low selfesteem and have sex after succumbing to peer pressure. They also may lack the ability for more mature responses to an unwanted pregnancy. To exacerbate the problem still further, American society promotes a double standard of sexuality where only women experience stigma for Melissa Drexler, center, departs Monmouth County premarital sex, and women more Courthouse with defense co-counsel Donald often bear the burden of an acciVenezia and her mother, Marie Drexler, after arraignment in 1997, in New Jersey. Melissa Drex- dental pregnancy physically and ler was charged with the murder of her newborn financially. son during her high school prom. (AP/Wide World Melissa Drexler came from a Photos) close-knit, middle-class Catholic family. An only child, she was the pride and joy of her parents. Though Melissa Drexler was not popular, she had a boyfriend for a couple of years and a few female friends. Her friends called her sweet, the kind of person who would do anything for them. Melissa Drexler had plans for a career in the fashion industry and was taking classes at a vocational school with plans to continue her education at a community college. The unique circumstances surrounding Melissa DrexlerÊs accidental pregnancy interrupted her plans. Women who commit neonaticide rarely have histories of substance abuse and mental illness, and Melissa Drexler was no exception. Premeditation and denial of an unwanted pregnancy are common, however. Drexler was assisted in her denial by the fact that she was thin and did not look pregnant. Drexler told no one about her pregnancy, did not seek prenatal care, and went to the prom even after her water broke that morning. Short labor and deliveries with minimal pain are common in cases of neonaticide; Melissa Drexler remained in the bathroom stall about a half hour while insisting to her concerned girlfriend that she was fine. Dissociative states also frequently accompany neonaticide, consisting of an outof-body experience, where the perpetrator does not realize she is committing a crime. Having dealt with the reality of a baby in a dissociative state, Melissa Drexler cleaned up but left blood spattered in the bathroom. She returned to the prom, ate a salad, laughed, and danced with her boyfriend. After authorities asked about the

386 |

Melissa Drexler

blood left in the bathroom, Melissa continued to state that she was fine; admitting to the reality of giving birth only after the baby was found. Because family members have kept to themselves and provided no information to the media, the exact reasons for Melissa DrexlerÊs denial and isolation are not clear, and court transcripts have not been made public record, either. However, psychological reports reveal that Drexler thought being pregnant out of wedlock was a serious and shameful problem that she wanted to hide. One can speculate further that because Catholic doctrine prohibits premarital sex and abortion, Drexler did not want to disappoint her parents, and the pregnancy would interfere with her career plans. No statute in the United States exists for neonaticide per se, and charges in such cases have ranged from a misdemeanor for unlawful disposal of a body to firstdegree murder. Sentences can vary from probation and therapy to life in prison, depending on the charge. Light sentences are sometimes given when forensic evidence fails to verify that the baby was born alive. The oxygen found in Christopher was either due to his taking a breath or attempts at his revival, but authorities proved strangulation or suffocation. Drexler originally pleaded not guilty while her lawyer spoke of her dissociative disorder and denial in an attempt to get a lighter sentence. However, neither „neonaticide syndrome‰ nor „neonaticide dissociative disorder‰ is widely accepted in the psychiatric community, and therefore sentencing does not necessarily take into account the exceptional circumstances surrounding neonaticide. DrexlerÊs plea bargaining avoided a possible minimum sentence of 30 years for murder and child endangerment. The judge in the case said her crime was not excusable, even though it was explainable. He believed the court had to send a message to prevent other women from killing their newborns, convicting Drexler of aggravated manslaughter and gave her the maximum prison sentence of 15 years for the crime. She was paroled after serving 37 months as a model prisoner. Because of the special psychological state of women who commit neonaticide, and because few women are repeat offenders, some claim that deterrence is not accomplished by prison sentences, which have no purpose but to punish. These women would benefit the most by therapy, but it is seldom part of sentencing and, when given, is inadequate. Some experts believe that solutions aimed at producing confident young women with the resources to make mature decisions ought to occur in the family, at school, and in the community. Many experts also see value in sex education and pregnancy prevention programs aimed at the adolescent population. In addition to reshaping the socialization processes that contribute to neonaticide, more emphasis might be placed on responses that are more therapeutic. Many states in the United States now have „safe haven‰ laws that allow mothers and sometimes fathers to anonymously and without fear of criminal charges leave a newborn baby at designated hospitals and clinics.

Eleanor Dumont | 387

Resources Resnick, P. 1970. Murder of the newborn: A psychiatric review of neonaticide. American Journal of Psychiatry 126(3), 73ă82. Schwartz, Lita Linzer, and Natalie K. Isser. 2007. Child Homicide: Parents Who Kill. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Spinelli, Margaret G. (ed.) 2003. Infanticide: Psychosocial and Legal Perspectives on Mothers Who Kill. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Loretta I. Winters

Eleanor Dumont (1829–1879) Eleanor Dumont, born Simone Jules, was the first known professional blackjack player in history. Nicknamed „Madame Moustache‰ later in life, she was known as a highly regarded card dealer in the mining camps and gambling houses of the Pacific coast. She specialized in the game of vingt-et-un (French for 21), which we now call blackjack. Dumont has been described as one of the greatest professional woman gamblers and one of the most colorful. She was rumored to have spoken several languages and was obviously French, but beyond that she was a mystery. Little is known about her early life. She may have run honest betting tables, simply beating her customers as a result of the so-called house edge, but she won more often than she lost. As a result, some believe that Eleanor Dumont may have been a card cheat. It was not unusual for traveling card gamblers of that time to use various methods to cheat their patrons. Historical accounts of Eleanor Dumont begin in Nevada City, California, in 1854. Early accounts describe that she arrived „one day on the stagecoach, a pretty, fresh-faced, dark-eyed woman, apparently about twenty years of age, and her stylish appearance created much commotion among the rough inhabitants of the town‰ (Piatt, 2007). French women held a certain fascination to the men of the West, and Eleanor Dumont capitalized on this fascination; however, it is unclear if Dumont was actually born in France or if she was the daughter of Creole parents from New Orleans (Rutter, 2005). Shortly after arriving in Nevada, she opened up her own gambling establishment. It has been said that this establishment had carpets and crystal chandeliers, and served free champagne. Dumont did not allow any rowdy behavior, cussing, arguments, chewing, or smoking in her establishment. Patrons were instructed to wear jackets, ties, and some sort of hat if they wished to enter and play at Madame DumontÊs tables. Historical accounts during this time suggest that she enticed male patrons in the womanless gold-rush camps with her virtue and flaunted chastity.

388

|

Eleanor Dumont

DumontÊs Nevada City prosperity continued until 1855, when eventually the gold ran dry in the mining town. When the Nevada city boom went bust, Madame Dumont followed the gold and silver rushes of the period from one mining camp to another. Some suggest that her mania for gambling and the love of excitement were insatiable and that is why for the next five years she wandered from camp to camp. Others who report her as card cheat suggest that she moved towns each time her trickery and deception were discovered. She moved to Columbia in 1857, to Virginia City in 1859, and then to Pioche in 1861. While in Pioche, Dumont was reported to have fallen in love with Jack McKnight and married him. At this point she gave up her gambling, and they settled down in a ranch in Nevada. McKnight deserted Dumont shortly after they were married, and he disappeared with all of her money. The extensive traveling, long night hours, liquor, men, and passing years took their toll on Madame DumontÊs figure and complexion. It became more difficult for Madame Dumont to attract patrons to her tables. DumontÊs looks were fading and the hair above her lip had grown into a prominent mustache, earning her the nickname „Madame Moustache.‰ Under the circumstances, it became more and more difficult to keep her male patrons at armÊs length. Dumont began practicing prostitution in order to supplement her dwindling income. It has been reported that Madam Dumont opened a parlor house in San Francisco between the 1860s and mid 1870s. DumontÊs last stop was the boom mining camp of Bodie in Northern California in May 1878. In Bodie, she decided to set up shop once again with an added attraction of prostitution. She opened up two-story combination gambling saloons and parlor houses with prostitutes upstairs. It has been suggested that it was Madame Dumont who led Martha Jane Canary, aka Calamity Jane, into the flesh trade. Dumont struggled to survive in Bodie. On September 8, 1879, Eleanor DumontÊs body was found several miles from Bodie alongside the road. She had allegedly committed suicide, evidenced by an empty bottle that smelled of morphine discovered lying next to her body. Some also say she left a note declaring, „I am tired of life.‰ Eleanor Dumont was never charged with a crime related to card cheating or prostitution; in fact, she was never charged with any crime. Although no real known motive exists for her alleged behavior, many believe that it is never enough for chronic card players to win big just once; there is always the temptation to double their earnings. This is believed to have been the case for Madame Dumont. Although she was an honest card dealer in her early career, it was not long before the joys and benefits of winning may have led her to use dishonest tactics to prevail in her games. Although Dumont was known by some for being a card cheat and stealing naïve gamblerÊs money, she has also given something back to society. Vingt-et-un, the game she made so popular, is today the well-known and famous game of blackjack. In 2006, she was nominated to the Blackjack Hall of Fame in recognition of

Amelia Dyer | 389

her success in the game. Although on that occasion she was not selected, her contribution to the history of blackjack still remains notable today. Resources Enss, Chris. 2006. Pistol PackinÊ Madams. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot Press. Green, Emma. 2003. Biography of Eleanor Dumont. Lucky Blackjack. http://www.lucky blackjack.com/eleanore-dumont.html. Lackmann, Ronald. 1997. Women of the Western Frontier in Fact, Fiction, and Film. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Press. Piatt, Michael H. 2007. The Death of Madame Mustache: BodieÊs Most Celebrate Inhabitant. Bodie History. http://www.bodiehistory.com/madame.htm. Rutter, Michael. 2005. Upstairs Girls: Prostitution in the American West. Helena, MT: Farcountry Press. Sexton, Timothy. 2009. Madame Moustache: Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow. Women Gamblers of the Wild West, Part 2. http://www.associatedcontent.com. St. Eleanor Dumont: Evangelist of Blackjack. 2009. Ladies Betting. http://www.ladiesbet ting.com/st-eleanor-dumont-evangelist-blackjack.html.

Kathryn A. Branch and Rebecca Csikos

Amelia Dyer (1839–1896) Amelia Elizabeth Dyer was a female serial murderer, also known as the „Reading Baby Farmer,‰ who killed anywhere from 7 to as many as 50 infants in the United Kingdom over an estimated 20-year period. Dyer took advantage of weak protections for infants born to unwed mothers during the Victorian era. Not much is known about this killerÊs life before her actions started to come under suspicion when she moved to Reading, England, from Bristol in 1895 with her daughter, son-in-law, and a female associate. What is known is that while in Bristol, she was committed to psychiatric hospitals for insanity twice, thereby suggesting that she had a history of mental illness while she operated the service she has now become so well known for. Baby farms became useful to women who found themselves pregnant with a child, usually out of wedlock. Often women would offer services to „women in trouble‰ by offering to care for the child, as would an orphanage, or to offer to find the child a home with parents seeking children. Often the proprietors of such institutions would require a modest fee and baby clothing for the adoption service; the fee was higher if the child would have to have an extended stay. The baby farming industry, however, was unmonitored, and periodically children and infants would not find their way to either care situation. Because the children born to these women

390

| Amelia Dyer

were a source of embarrassment and were often the result of sexual relations outside of marriage, social protections for these young clients were minimal. Once these children were given away, they were rarely, if ever, checked upon by the birth mother. The English government, partly due to the laws governing births out of wedlock, refused to monitor such services. Amelia Dyer took advantage of the lack of regulation regarding unwanted infants and opened her own baby farm, but with much more sinister purposes. She would attract clients to her services by advertising in local papers posing as a childless family looking to adopt or nurse children for a fee and adequate clothing for the child. After receiving payment, Amelia would strangle the infants with white tape, wrap them in brown paper, sometimes place the bodies in a carpet bag, and then throw them in the Thames River. The clothes would be pawned, when possible. Eventually, a barge man found an infant floating in the river. Examination of the paper revealed a very faint name and address, which would eventually be linked back to Amelia Dyer. Police decided to send a women in, posing as a prospective client in need of adoption services, to gather evidence about the business she was running. Dyer was eventually charged with the death of the infant found in the river, and her son-in-law, Arthur Palmer, was charged as an accomplice. The Thames River was eventually dragged uncovering the bodies of six other infants, all bound in the same way. Examination of her home revealed many baby clothes, pawn tickets, and numerous letters to clients, suggesting that many women had given her their children, although no children were found in the home. She was tried in May 1896. She pleaded guilty to seven murders. Dyer exonerated her son-in-law and his wife in a written confession in a statement made before she was executed. Although the defense argued that Amelia was insane, citing her previous psychiatric commitments, she was found fit to stand trial. The prosecution effectively argued that the commitments were simply a ploy to give the appearance of insanity. She was hanged on June 10, 1896, at Newgate Prison. The case of Amelia Dyer, and of other women who acted as so-called baby farmers during the Victoria era, highlighted the inadequacies of the English government in protecting children. Eventually the Infant Life Protection Act (1897) and the ChildrenÊs Act (1908) were drafted to increase protections afforded to children who were fostered or adopted. These acts also required that authorities be notified about any child, age seven or younger, who had died or changed custody within 48 hours after the event. The murders of Amelia Dyer highlight the strong effect that gender, coupled with a clientele who was desperate to part with their unwanted children, and a high infant mortality rate, had in Victorian England. Suspicion had grown around Amelia Dyer for years prior to her apprehension, but no one was either interested or concerned enough for the clientele to investigate the allegations surrounding her. Most accepted the explanation of adoption or death by natural causes as reasonable as

Amelia Dyer | 391

the alternative would have been to acknowledge that these little clients had no government protection. Resources „Baby Farming. A Tragedy of Victorian Times.‰ Capital Punishment in the U.K. http:// www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/babyfarm.html Rattle, Allison, and Allison Vale. Amelia Dyer, Angel Maker: The Woman who Murdered Babies for Money. London: Andre Deutsch.

Hannah Scott

This page intentionally left blank

E Shirin Ebadi (1947–) Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, was accused of conspiracy against the Islamic government officials of Iran. In June 2000, Ebadi was banned from practicing law and was jailed in solitary confinement at Evin. In weeks to follow, EbadiÊs imprisonment received tremendous international attention, shedding light on human rights issues in Iran. Shirin Ebadi was born in an upper middle-class, academic, and Muslim-practicing family in Hamadan, Iran. EbadiÊs father was a professor and writer in commercial law while her mother dedicated her time to the upbringing of her four children. EbadiÊs family moved to Tehran when she was one year old, and she has lived in Tehran ever since. EbadiÊs father was a longtime supporter of Mossadegh, the Iranian prime minister whom, in 1951, was democratically elected to the parliament. In 1953, Mossadegh was forced out of his office through a military coup planned by the CIA and British government. After the overthrow of Mossadegh, EbadiÊs father was demoted to a lower-ranking position and never promoted back to his senior level. Thus, political oppression was directly experienced by Ebadi family. However, as Ebadi stated, „The legacy of my fatherÊs sidelining was that our house became an irredeemably politics-free zone‰ (Ebadi and Moaveni, 2007: 13). Ebadi obtained her doctorate in law from Teheran University at age 24 and held a variety of positions in the Justice Department. In 1975, during the ShahÊs regime, Ebadi became the chairperson of the Tehran Court and was the first woman in the history of Iranian justice to serve as a judge. Although the ShahÊs secular government was ruling Iran at that time, Ebadi remarked that Iran was culturally governed by patriarchy. Following the victory of the Islamic revolution in February 1979, Ebadi and other female judges were dismissed from their posts and were offered clerical duties. According to the fundamentalistsÊ interpretation, Islam forbids that women serve as judges. Ebadi and other female judges protested and soon were given a small promotion to a new position at the Justice Department, titled as „law expert.‰ Ebadi, who could not tolerate the situation any longer, requested for an early retirement and 393

394

|

Shirin Ebadi

applied for her license to work as a defense attorney. While her early retirement was accepted, her licensing application was turned down because IranÊs Bar Association was closed during the governmentÊs state of transition. Consequently, Ebadi became housebound, yet she used her time to write several books about children, women, and refugee rights. Her first book, The Rights of the Child, won the first prize at Alzahra University and was translated to English by UNICEF. During this period, Ebadi also took on an advocacy role, campaigning for changes in law, particularly for women and children; she founded the Association for Support of ChildrenÊs Rights. She published a number of articles in Iranian jourShirin Ebadi is an Iranian human nals and became a lecturer at Tehran University. rights activist and winner of the In 1992, Ebadi succeeded in obtaining her license 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. Ebadi is a to practice law. Ever since then, Shirin Ebadi has Muslim lawyer and judge who camdefended many cases, often free of charge. EbadiÊs paigns for peaceful and democratic fight on behalf of abused children and women led solutions to Iran’s social problems. to reformulation of Islamic law, granting moth- (Nobel Foundation) ers the right for childrenÊs custody. However, most of EbadiÊs cases are highly controversial political cases. Ebadi represented Dariush Forouhar, an intellectual who was stabbed to death together with his wife at their home in 1998. Along with the attack on the Forouhar family, many other nonconformists were murdered, creating an environment of terror among Iranian dissidents. The responsibility for these murders fell on official hardliners, who were determined to end the more liberal climate that was adopted by IranÊs new president, Khatami. While Ebadi was documenting evidence for ForouharsÊ murder case, she videotaped Amir Farshad Ebrahimi, one of the perpetrators of violence against several reformers. In this video, Ebrahimi stated that he was following the order of a wellknown fundamentalist to attack the reformers. After this confession, Ebrahimi was detained by the judiciary, and while in custody, he recanted his statements claiming that the video was a „forced confession.‰ In days to follow, Ebadi was attacked by print media that has been in control of the fundamentalists ever since the victory of Islamic revolution. Ebadi along with few other human rights lawyers were accused for blemishing the revolution. On June 28, 2000, Ebadi was brought to Evin, where she was interrogated on a daily basis. Each session began with the judgeÊs sonorous recitation of Koranic verses, followed by hours of circular and repetitive questions. During her stay at Evin, Ebadi had two preliminary trials. The plaintiffs consisted of members from the extremist right, paramilitaries, and the hard-line press.

Sarah Edmonds | 395

During the second preliminary trial, Ebrahimi was put on the stand, and to everyoneÊs surprise, he stayed loyal to his original story that Ebadi had videotaped. At this point, EbadiÊs case was covered daily by major international news media, which were putting pressure Islamic fundamentalists to justify EbadiÊs arrest. Nonetheless, 25 days after Ebadi passed through the iron gates of Evin, she received a call from her judge that her case was dismissed and she could be released. EbadiÊs case not only shed light on the violation of human rights in Iran, it also strengthened the voice of reformists in Iran. In December 2003, Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts for human rights and democracy. The Norwegian committee also recognized Ebadi for being a courageous person who has never heeded the threats to her own safety while standing up as a sound professional. Ebadi as an activist is known for using a peaceful approach that promotes democratic solutions. She argues for a new interpretation of Islam that unites the laws of the faith with vital human rights. On many occasions, Ebadi has called herself a feminist who is against patriarchy not Islam. Now in her sixties, Ebadi has no plans to retire and continues to present politically charged cases that focus on the issue of human rights in Iran. Ebadi lectures at Tehran University regularly and lives with her husband, an electrical engineer. She and her husband have been married for 32 years and have two daughters. Resources Astele, C. B. 2007. „Nobel Women Serve As Role Models.‰ Progressive Christian 181: 9. Ebadi, Shirin, and Azadeh Moaveni. 2007. Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope. New York: Random House. Frangsmyr, Tore. 2004. Les Prix Nobel. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laure ates/2003/index.html. Hubbard-Brown, Janet. 2007. Shirin Ebadi: Champion for Human Rights in Iran. New York: Chelsea House Publication. Moghadam, Valentine M. 2002. „Islamic Feminism and Its Discontents: Toward a Resolution of the Debate.‰ Sign 27: 1135ă1171. Sedghi, Hamideh. 2007. Women and Politics in Iran: Veiling Unveiling and Prevailing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stiehm, Judith Hicks. 2006. Champions for Peace: Women Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, 6th edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ladan Dejam

Sarah Edmonds (1841–1898) Sarah Emma Edmonds served as a nurse, a spy, and a generalÊs aide after enlisting in the Union Army during the Civil War. To avoid being limited by roles typically

396

|

Sarah Edmonds

assigned to women, she masqueraded as a man. All of her young life, she preferred associating with boy companions, including her one brother, who was a disappointment to their father due to his frail build and poor physical health. As the fifth daughter of six children, she was always aware of her fatherÊs disappointment that she was not the son he longed for. To try to compensate for being female, Sarah Emma showed interest in fishing, hunting, and horsemanship, all activities that she believed her father wanted from a son. Emma, as she was called by her family, was born in New Brunswick, Canada, into a family of immigrants from Scotland and Ireland in the early 19th century. Her father, Isaac Edmonds, was from Scotland and her mother, Elizabeth Leeper, from Ireland. The family was Anglican, and Emma remained deeply religious all of her life. She spoke of her faith as the source of her strength, both in yielding to her disapproving father and later during the hardships she endured in military service. She was wiry and hard muscled from farm work, and although small in stature, she handled a horse as well as any of the boys of her acquaintance. Growing up, she often rebelled angrily against restrictions placed on girls. When she reached adolescence, she took a job as a millinery assistant to earn enough money to escape from her father, who had grown abusive to her, and from her mother, who lacked the strength to stand up for her. When she was 16, she disappeared from New Brunswick without a trace, leaving her family and friends to wonder for over a decade what had become of her. It was when she left home that Emma Edmonds began to pass herself off as a young man. She reasoned that a boy traveling alone would be safer and more readily employable than a girl. She adopted the name of Franklin Thompson and sold Bibles to support herself, first in rural New Brunswick and then in Nova Scotia. Her winning personality made her successful at her enterprise, and after several months, she moved on to Flint, Michigan, where she sold Bibles door-to-door. When the Civil War broke out, „Franklin Thompson‰ joined the Flint Union Greys, a volunteer company, and later, became part of Company F, Second Michigan Regiment of Volunteer Infantry. The Regular Army of the United States numbered less than 20,000 soldiers at the time, and volunteers were urgently needed. As a result, no physical examination was required, and Frank Thompson was robust, healthy, and held his own at training camps. Emma was convinced that no one suspected her true gender. By June 1861, Emma Edmonds was on the front line in Virginia, where her company fought at BlackburnÊs Ford, the first Bull Run and Peninsular campaigns. She was assigned to deliver mail and tend the wounded, and then she was hired as an aide to a company colonel during the Battle of Fredericksburg. She lived daily with fear that her real identity would be discovered and that she would be court-martialed or put in prison, but no one seemed to suspect that she was a male.

Sarah Edmonds | 397

Emma EdmondsÊs life in the military included serving as a spy behind Confederate lines. These experiences only increased her need to take extra precautions to conceal the fact that she was a woman in order to avoid the jeopardy of what the enemy might do, if they came to realize that she fooled them in more ways than one. On one occasion, she made herself up with black face and a curly black wig to resemble a slave boy. At least one other time, she was „disguised‰ as a young woman. She wrote later of her dangerous roles: „I am naturally fond of adventure, a little ambitious, and a good deal romantic, and this together with my devotion to the Federal cause and determination to assist to the extent of my ability in crushing the rebellion, made me forget the unpleasant items, and not only endure, but really enjoy, the privations connected with my perilous position‰ (Dannett, 1960, 125). In the spring of 1863, Emma EdmondsÊs regiment was moved to Kentucky, where she became so ill with fever and weakness that she needed medical care. Afraid that hospitalization would unmask her identity, she deserted her company and made her way to Ohio. Now, she had added Army deserter to her list of ways that she could be arrested. Once in Ohio, she resumed her own identity as Emma Edmonds to seek needed medical treatment. It took several weeks for her illness to abate, but as soon as she was able, she began work on a fictionalized version of her army experiences in which she depicted herself as a nurse instead of a soldier. The novel was published when the war ended and eventually sold 175,000 copies. Sarah Emma Edmonds was one of perhaps four hundred women to enlist as men in the Union Army; however, she was the most well-known because of the popularity of her novel (Edmonds, 1865). Emma Edmonds returned to nursing in 1864 and went to hospitals in battle areas from HarperÊs Ferry to West Virginia. It was in HarperÊs Ferry that she met a widower, Linus H. Seelye from New Brunswick, and they began a courtship that ended in marriage when the war was over. They returned to Canada for a few months, but both had a wanderlust that led them back to Ohio, then to Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Louisiana, and Kansas. They lost three young children to illness, finally adopting and raising two boys from an orphanage that Emma ran for a time in Louisiana. In 1882, Emma Seelye applied for a veteranÊs pension after soliciting endorsements from men with whom she had served. Letters of recommendation from those who had known the soldier, Frank Thompson, swore on oath that they never questioned her identity as a man or doubted her loyalty and bravery. Their affidavits were presented to Congress, and in 1884, she was placed on the pension roll under the name of Sarah E. E. Seelye, alias Franklin Thompson. Her pension of $12 a month was paid for 14 years until her death. While she was still alive and could enjoy the gesture, she was allowed to join a chapter of the Grand Army of the Republic, the only woman so honored. When she died in 1898, she was buried in La Porte, Texas, but on Memorial Day, 1901, her grave was moved to the Grand Army of the Republic portion of the Washington Cemetery in Houston, Texas.

398

|

Ruth Ellis

In 1937, in Fort Scott, Kansas, where the Seelyes lived for 12 years, the townspeople belatedly publicized EmmaÊs war adventures with articles in the local newspapers, complete with pictures of Franklin Thompson. Not only her military exploits with the Union Army hiding her identity as a woman were recounted, but the articles also extolled her lifetime of helping those less fortunate than she by reporting that she was a legend due to her bravery, nobleness, and true character. Resources Dannett, Sylvia. 1960. She Rode With the Generals: But Her Regiment Thought She Was a Man, Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York. Edmonds, Sarah Emma. 2006. Soldier, Nurse and Spy In the Union Army: The Adventures and Experiences of a Woman in Hospitals, Camps, and Battlefields, W. S. Williams, 1865. Reprinted by Diggory Press, Cornwall, England. Fort Scott Tribune Monitor. January 17, 1884ăJanuary 27, 1884.

Marcia Lasswell

Ruth Ellis (1926–1955) In July 1955, Ruth Ellis became the last woman to be hanged in England and Wales. Her execution was controversial, and huge crowds gathered to protest outside the jail the night before she was due to be killed. Over 100,000 people had signed a petition requesting that her conviction for murder be reduced to manslaughter, which would have saved her from the gallows, and numerous other petitions demanding a reprieve were gathered. However, the protests were to no avail, and Ellis was the 15th and final woman to be hanged before the death penalty was abolished in England and Wales in 1965. She was 28 years old and the mother of two children. Ruth Ellis shot her partner, David Blakely, in the back as he was leaving a pub on Easter Monday, 1955. They lived together, although Blakely was engaged to be married to another woman. He also had a number of other relationships while he was with Ellis, which Ruth Ellis, sentenced to death for the had made her intensely jealous. He was a shooting death of racing driver David heavy drinker and was physically violent Blakely in 1955. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Ruth Ellis |

399

toward her. She had on occasion been hospitalized after being beaten by him. Ten days before she shot him, Blakely punched Ellis in the stomach and caused her to miscarry their child. On the night of the shooting, Ellis was accompanied by her friend, Desmond Cussen, with whom she had been involved in a sexual relationship. He helped her to procure the gun with which she killed Blakely. Ruth Ellis had her first child when she was 17 and unmarried. At the age of 18, she became a nude model and then a club hostess. She met her husband, George Ellis, in 1950 through her work in the club. Their marriage fell apart, and they separated prior to the birth of her second child, a daughter, in 1953. During their divorce proceedings, Ruth did not oppose GeorgeÊs request for custody of their daughter, who went to live with him. David Blakely, an upper middle-class man who was five years younger than Ruth, moved in with her before her divorce had been finalized. During her trial, the prosecution stressed that Ruth had been engaged in sexual relationships with men to whom she was not married and described Desmond Cussen as her „alternative lover.‰ During her testimony, she referred to an illegal abortion (abortion became legal in England and Wales in 1967) she had had earlier on in her relationship with David Blakely, and she explained that she had refused his proposal of marriage at this time because she was not in love with him and deemed marriage unnecessary. By the standards of the 1950s, when marriage and motherhood were regarded as the ideal situation for women, Ruth Ellis appeared to be a deviant and overly sexual woman. She did not live according to the conventions of the era, and her job as a club hostess was widely regarded as a type of prostitution. She had peroxide blonde hair and wore tailored suits and stiletto shoes. This made her appear glamorous, but also confident and unbowed. She was unrepentant about shooting David Blakely because she felt that he deserved it and she admitted that she had fully intended to kill him. EllisÊs defense counsel was ineffectual and called only two witnesses·Ellis and a psychologist. Her lawyer argued that she was not guilty of murder but rather of manslaughter due to provocation. However, he cross-examined only 2 of the 16 prosecution witnesses and did little establish why David BlakelyÊs mistreatment of, and violence towards, Ruth should be considered important to the case. The judge ruled that manslaughter due to provocation could not be accepted as a valid defense, leaving the jury little option but to find her guilty of murder, which it did after 14 minutesÊ deliberation. In 1955, murder automatically carried the death penalty, although the home secretary could choose to commute the sentence to imprisonment. This happened in nearly all cases of women convicted of murder, and the failure to reprieve Ruth Ellis was widely interpreted at the time and since to reflect disapproval of her „immoral‰ lifestyle and lack of respectability. The uproar that surrounded her execution was perceived to have contributed to the 1957 introduction of the law that made the

400

|

Ada Everleigh

defense of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility, which made it possible to use „instability of mind,‰ not just insanity, a viable defense to murder. The fate of Ruth Ellis remained controversial long after her death. There have been questions surrounding the involvement of Desmond Cussen in the murder and whether he should have been tried along with her. In 2003, the Criminal Cases Review Commission examined her case and ruled that her conviction for murder was sound according to the state of the law at the time. Resources Ballinger, A. (1996). „The Guilt of the Innocent and the Innocence of the Guilty: The Cases of Marie Fahmy and Ruth Ellis.‰ In A. Myers and S. Wight (eds.), No Angels: Women Who Commit Violence. London: Pandora. Ballinger, A. (2000). Dead Woman Walking. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. DÊCruze, S., S. Walklate, and S. Pegg. (2006). Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Cullompton, UK: Willan. Farran, D. (1990), The Trial of Ruth Ellis. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester. Marks, L., and T. Van Den Bergh. (1977). Ruth Ellis: A Case of Diminished Responsibility? London: Penguin.

Lizzie Seal

Ada Everleigh (1875–1960) The first-born daughter of well-to-do parents in a small village in Kentucky was the last person imaginable to become one of the most prominent madams in United StatesÊ history. Born Ada Lester, her privileged young life provided her with the graces to become a typical Southern belle who in her teen years had her choice of suitors. She was genteel, strikingly attractive, and reportedly an ideal daughter. She was quiet and cautious, reluctantly allowing her only sister, Minna, two years younger and more aggressive, to lead her in social activities and relationships with males. Minna was the more popular of the two and found a husband when she was 19. Ada, then 21, followed within a few weeks by accepting the proposal of the brother of her sisterÊs new husband. Each daughter was given a lavish wedding attended by elite friends of their lawyer father and socialite mother. Soon, however, both discovered that they had married abusive men, and Minna began to plan for them to run away. The sisters had always wanted to be on the stage and decided to join a traveling troupe of actors as a way of escaping their disappointing husbands and also of seeing the country. Ada waited for her sister to leave her husband to travel to Washington, D.C., to find employment for them. When a touring repertory company

Ada Everleigh |

401

offered them places, Ada joined her sister, and without looking back they began a tour of Midwest cities. Eventually in 1898, the acting group settled in Omaha, Nebraska, where the Trans-Mississippi Exposition was being held. The touring company attracted visitors from all over the West to their performances. Ada, who was proving to be an astute business woman, soon became aware that men who traveled to Omaha without their families were ready to pay for entertainment that their acting troupe provided and also for other types of female company and amusement as well. An unexpected and sizable inheritance came to the sisters during their Omaha acting tour. While the source of the gift was never clearly identified, their grandmother died at about this time, and it was rumored that she left a sizeable inheritance to the young women. Looking for ways to invest their money, the sisters decided to open a „home away from home‰ for male visitors to the exposition to enjoy. Their aim was to provide good food, abundant alcohol, and beautiful women in a luxurious club atmosphere. It was clearly designed to be a bordello, even though neither sister would engage in prostitution personally. The ever-cautious Ada proposed that they change their last name so they could not to be traced to the Lester family in their small Kentucky hometown. Their grandmother, from whom the inheritance probably originated, always signed her letters „Everly yours,‰ and Ada suggested they honor her with a slight variation to become the Everleigh sisters. With Ada as business manager and Minna acting as hostess, the club was an instant success. After two years, the exposition closed, and even though they had doubled their money, their clientele, the visitors, left town. Locals were reluctant to be seen in their establishment or else were too frugal to part with the fees charged. Since their business was no longer welcome in Omaha, they determined that they would do well to settle in a large city where there would be a steady supply of men away from home. Buoyed by their previous two successful years, they decided to open an establishment in Chicago, Illinois, which they did on February 1, 1900. It was an establishment such as Chicago had never seen. When they opened its doors, the men came based on word of mouth only. There were no printed announcements, no illuminated signs, and a temperature of below zero on opening night. By 8:00 PM, customers began to find their way to the Dearborn Street address, and the sisters were encouraged with their successful beginning, which netted them a $100 profit after expenses for their first night in business (Washburn, 1936, 26). As the business manager, Ada Everleigh paid salaries and hired the staff. Her young ladies were required to have good faces and figures and were carefully warned to treat customers with the greatest respect. She engaged musicians and bought a $15,000 gold-leaf piano, established an art gallery, and built a well-stocked library for use of guests. Due to the prominence of their patrons, Ada chose not to give regular payoffs to police or other city officials believing her prominent clientele

402 |

Ada Everleigh

was protection enough. However, she did arrange to provide „Everleigh girls‰ for First Ward Democratic events. As a result of AdaÊs careful management and the popularity of the club, the nightly receipts soon grew to $2,500, equivalent to approximately $50,000, according to 2010 Consumer Price Index (Measuring Worth.com). The club telephone (Calumet 412) was listed in the Chicago directory as a residence under the name: Ada Everleigh. The number was used regularly when customers such as newspaper men and physicians were needed for after-hours emergencies. For 11 years, Ada managed the establishment with such financial efficiency that a fortune in cash, jewels, art work, books, and other bordello furnishings was amassed. When religious crusaders began to demand the closing of all such houses in 1911, the sisters decided to take a vacation for six months, leaving the mansion shuttered and letting their employees go. Their last night in operation, October 24ă25, 1911, was celebrated with friends and clients who drank champagne and predicted that the club would reopen at a later date. Great crowds gathered in the streets to watch men in tuxedos, wearing tall, silk hats leave in their carriages at the end of the evening while the police watched until the lights went out and everyone but the two sisters had departed. Within a week, Ada and Minna left for a six-month European vacation, hoping to reopen the club upon their return. However, the climate was even more hostile when they came back to Chicago, and reluctantly, Ada put most of the furnishings up for sale and planned to move with her sister to New York City. Ada Everleigh had never considered marriage after her first unhappy effort but as she was planning to leave for New York City, a wealthy heir to a Chicago fortune begged her to marry him. She reported that she was tempted since she had grown fond of him but when he proved reluctant to pay to have her gold-leaf piano accompany her, she turned him down. The prized piano, along with many of the furnishings and art work from the Dearborn Street house, made the move to New York City, where they remained with her until her death (Washburn, 1936, 154). The next years passed quietly in an elegant New York apartment on the east side. Ada had roses in every room and pictures of her favorite „girls‰ from the club. In her sitting room, some of the same easy chairs in which her customers once sat were used by friends from the old days who came to call. She attended the theater regularly, had several social groups to which she belonged, and renewed ties with her family to whom she sent checks. Ada Everleigh, who resumed the name of Lester, left life in Chicago as she entered it in the first place, easily and with no regrets. She outlived her sister Minna by 12 years, dying at age 84, and was buried beside Minna in a Virginia cemetery just outside the nationÊs capital. Resources Chicago Sun-Times, files of Chicago newspapers, 1910ă1911. Measuring Worth. www.Measuringworth.com/uscompare/SevenWays (used to compute the relative value of a U.S. dollar amount, 1774 to Present).

Minna Everleigh | 403

Wallace, Irving, The Sunday Gentleman, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1965. Washburn, Charles, Come Into My Parlor, Knickerbocker Publishing Company, New York, 1936.

Marcia Lasswell

Minna Everleigh (1878–1948) Born near Louisville, Kentucky, Minna Lester was the daughter of a prosperous attorney and his wife who were parents of three boys and one other daughter. She and her sister Ada went on to become the famed owners of the most prominent and luxurious bordello in Chicago. From her earliest days, Minna was the center of any event where she was present. Her reddish hair and dominant personality made her stand out in a crowd, and her intelligence and wit drew males and females alike to enjoy her company. Even though she and her older sister Ada were educated similarly in private schools and tutored to be Southern ladies, they could not have been more different. Minna was the assertive leader, and her sweet, round-faced sister, Ada, who was two-and-a-half years older, let Minna set the pace. One may have suspected that Minna would break rules and continue to surprise her parents and contemporaries; however, few would have suspected that she would lead herself and her lady-like sister into fame as bordello owners. At 19, Minna married a local, young man in an extravagant early afternoon ceremony, in which she ordered that breakfast be served. She was known for late rising and took advantage of a new trend for mid-day ceremonies (Washburn, 1936, 14). As expected, it was but a short time until her sister, Ada, now 21, married the brother of MinnaÊs new husband. It took but a few weeks, however, for both to regret their unions and confide to each other that the brothers were abusive. Together, they plotted to disappear without warning as a way to avoid a scandal directly. Since each had always dreamed of being an actress, joining a traveling road company seemed their best avenue of escape. It was decided that Minna, with her natural charm and her ability to meet and befriend strangers, would go to Washington, D.C., to find suitable positions for both of them. Ada, less adventurous and more practical, would follow when Minna had located willing employers. A struggling repertory company agreed to take the attractive sisters with them on a tour of Midwest cities. Ada joined Minna, touring large and small towns over several months, before arriving in Omaha, Nebraska, just as a large trade show opened a two-year run in that growing city. After several weeks in Omaha, an unexpected windfall of $35,000 came their way from the will of a family member. Calculated in current terms, this would have amounted to approximately a quarter of a million dollars (Measuring Worth.com). Searching for investment ideas, Minna hit upon the idea of opening an exclusive

404 |

Minna Everleigh

club to entertain men who were visiting the exhibition. To hide their identities, they changed their last name to Everleigh, and the new establishment was named the Everleigh Club. For two years, until the exhibition closed and the visitors left town, the club did such a thriving business that their inheritance more than doubled. However, once the exhibition left town, so did the majority of their clientele. Minna urged a move to a more hospitable city, and after inquiries, Chicago, Illinois, was chosen because an established madam in that wide-open city was looking for a buyer for her imposing building and practice on South Dearborn Street. The mansion had been open for pleasure since the WorldÊs Fair in 1893, and the proprietor was ready to retire. The deal was set and the Everleigh sisters began weeks of extensive remodeling and refurnishing. On Thursday, February 1, 1900, the grand opening of the Everleigh Club, the most luxurious in the city, inaugurated a period in which the sisters would become infamous in Chicago history. Minna, only 22 years old, presided as the hostess for elaborate dinners served to guests in a room ornately decorated in mahogany wood with gold-leaf trimmings. Midnight repasts of caviar, lobster, and good wine were offered for under $50. The fee for admission was $10, and to go upstairs, there was a minimum charge of $25. Minna saw to it that those who did not spend at least $50 were seldom admitted to the club a second time ($50 in 1900, was equivalent to approximately $1,000 in 2006 [Measuring Worth.com]). Minna was astute enough to spot trends in the making that served as publicity for the club. The fad of drinking champagne from a ladyÊs slipper was born at the Everleigh Club as she watched, amused, when one of the ladies, dancing barefoot on a table, knocked over a bottle of champagne, spilling it into her shoe. One of the regular customers lifted the shoe and drank from it saying: „boot liquor . . . the darling mustnÊt get her feet wet‰ (Washburn, 1936, 79). As if on cue, each man in the room took a slipper and followed the pattern. When word spread, the practice soon became a custom across society circles in other parts of the country. After 11 years of entertaining politicians, important business men, and royalty, the Everleigh Club was targeted by reformers of the Progressive Era, who described it as „the most famous and luxurious house of prostitution in the country‰ (Chicago Vice Commission, 1911). During the weeks leading up to orders to close, MinnaÊs humor never left her, as she demonstrated when an evangelist led thousands to pray in front of the club. Her response was: „I am so sorry to see so many nice young men coming down here for the first time‰ (Washburn, 1936, 108). Upon advice from her business-minded sister and politician friends, she agreed to a lengthy European junket until matters cooled off. Upon their return to Chicago six months later, nothing had changed. Lacking any encouragement from officials to open for business again, the sisters became convinced it was time to retire. Minna, now 34 years old, was still attractive with her graceful, boyish body and auburn curls. She had ample funds to start a new life as

Minna Everleigh | 405

a patron of the arts and theater, and she yearned for a chance to read the hundreds of leather-bound volumes she had collected. New York City provided Minna with the anonymity she desired as she quietly settled into a life of a middle-aged dowager, joining womenÊs clubs and playing hostess to poetry readings. She destroyed all of the records of her former life and became known once again as Minna Lester. She considered the Everleigh sisters dead and allowed that all she needed to be happy was „a roof and one quart of champagne a week‰ (Washburn, 1936, 247). She preceded her sister, Ada, in death by 12 years and was buried at age 70 in a small cemetery outside Washington, D.C. Resources Chicago Vice-Commission Report, June 1, 1911. Measuring Worth. www.Measuringworth.com/uscompare/SevenWays (used to compute the relative value of a U.S. dollar amount, 1774 to Present). Wallace, Irving, The Sunday Gentleman, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1965. Washburn, Charles, Come Into My Parlor, Knickerbocker Publishing Company, New York, 1936.

Marcia Lasswell

This page intentionally left blank

F Laura Fair (1850–?) On November 3, 1870, Laura D. Fair boarded an Oakland to San Francisco ferry and shot her lover of seven years, Alexander P. Crittenden, in the heart. She took a seat on the ferry, and when she was arrested by the Harbor Police, stated calmly, „I donÊt deny it, and I meant to kill him. He ruined both myself and my child‰ (Lamott, 1963: 5). FairÊs trial was widely reported and became a national sensation. Crittenden was a respected attorney and family man, shot in front of his wife and children. Fair had been widowed twice and divorced once, and she had a daughter from one of her previous marriages. The contrast between respectable, middle-class Crittenden and Fair, a woman who ran a boarding house and had experience a life-time of financial precariousness, made the case extremely newsworthy. Mark TwainÊs first novel (coauthored with Charles Dudley Warner), The Gilded Age, published in 1873, contains a character closely based on Laura Fair. The defense at FairÊs trial, held in April 1871, was temporary insanity caused by „scanty and retarded menstruation‰ (French, 1964: 303), a tipped womb, and CrittendenÊs failure to fulfill his promise to divorce his wife and marry her. She gained the support of local feminists, who attended her trial daily in order to demonstrate their opposition to the immorality of men who deceived and „ruined‰ women. The prosecutor was CrittendenÊs partner in law. He disdained FairÊs insanity defense and asserted that she was a „free lover,‰ as were the women who attended court to support her. The prosecution called character witnesses to testify to her lack of chastity. She was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to hang. While she was awaiting execution, leading 19th-century feminist Susan B. Anthony visited San Francisco. She visited Fair in jail, and at the close of a suffrage speech delivered that evening, stated that if all men treated women as chivalrously as they maintained, Laura Fair would not be in prison. FairÊs execution was stayed by the Supreme Court, and a new trial was ordered to take place in New York on the grounds that the defense should not have closed the arguments in her first trial, and evidence of her bad character for chastity should not have been allowed. At her second trial in September 1872, Fair was acquitted 407

408 |

Christine Falling

on the grounds of temporary insanity. Fair proposed a lecture tour on the topic of American morals. She drafted a speech that she planned to give at a hotel in San Francisco exhorting American to avenge their outraged names, in order to „strike a terror to the hearts of sensualists and libertines‰ (Jones, 2009: 204). Such a large crowd gathered in protest against her lecturing on this topic that it was deemed unsafe for her to appear in public and Fair published her speech as a pamphlet entitled Wolves in the Fold. The case of Laura D. Fair is perhaps emblematic of the „cult of true womanhood‰ that existed in late 19th-century America, where women were idealized as placid, domestic creatures who experienced no sexual desires, but were unfortunately prone to illness, insanity, and hysteria. Limited conceptions of femininity meant that Fair was seen as either a wanton, overtly sexual „bad‰ woman, or as an irrational „mad‰ woman at the mercy of her own faulty biology. To an extent, she managed to evade both of these representations through her willingness to defend her actions in the language of 19th-century feminism. Resources Babcock, B. A. (2001), „Women Defenders in the West,‰ University of Nevada Law Journal, Spring, 1ă18. French, B. M. (1964), „Mark Twain, Laura D. Fair and the New York Criminal Courts,‰ American Quarterly, 16(4): 545ă561. Jones, A. (2009), Women Who Kill, New York: Feminist Press. Lamott, K. C. (1963), Who Killed Mr. Crittenden?, New York: David McKay. Twain, M., and C. D. Warner. (2001), The Gilded Age, New York: Penguin Books.

Lizzie Seal

Christine Falling (1963–) Christine Laverne Slaughter Falling is a modern-day child serial murderer operating in the early 1980s. The pattern of her murders showed signs of what some consider the typical disorganized serial murderer; she also demonstrated some symptoms of someone who has Munchhausen Syndrome, but she was not identified as a serial murderer until the late 1990s when included in many serial murder anthologies as such. Over her criminal career, she had a sealed juvenile record and six charges of check fraud, in addition to the eventual murder charges levied against her. Falling was born on March 12, 1963, to a very young mother (age 16) and a significantly older spouse (age 65). Falling was considered mentally challenged and diagnosed epileptic. It is known that at age 9 she and her sister, Carol, were removed from the home as a result of domestic violence. By then, she had started to exhibit

Christine Falling | 409

disturbing behavior such as strangling cats to see if they really had nine lives. She later dropped out of junior high school. In 1977, at age 14, she entered into a six-week marriage with a 20-year-old man, which ended in spousal violence. In 1979, she was found „delinquent‰ and at risk of running away. Few job opportunities were Christine Falling, led into Florida county court by Officer Lasseter, 1982. Ms. Falling changed her plea to guilty open to young Falling given and was immediately sentenced to two concurrent life her personal appearance, lack sentences for the murder of two local infants she was of education, and her „dull babysitting. (AP/Wide World Photos) wittedness.‰ She began to take jobs as a babysitter. Shortly after her marriage, she also began to exhibit signs of Munchhausen Syndrome, showing up at hospitals with symptoms of conditions that were eventually found to be nonexistent. The first recorded incident of harming a child came on February 25, 1980, when Cassidy Marie Johnson, age two, was brought into the local hospital in Blountstown, Florida, with a blunt force trauma to her head. Falling said the child had fallen out her crib as the result of losing consciousness. She died three days later as a result of her injuries. One doctor wrote a note to police indicating his suspicions about the babysitter, but the lead was not followed. Later, another child in her care, Kyle Summerlin, age three, was brought into hospital and died with a diagnosis of „meningitis.‰ Falling moved on to Lakeland, Florida, and continued to care for children. Shortly after her arrival, Jeffrey Davis, age 4, suddenly „stopped breathing‰ under her care. Autopsy revealed that the child had a mild inflammation of the heart, but it was not though enough to kill a child. At JeffreyÊs funeral, JeffreyÊs 2-year-old cousin Joseph Spring, also being taken care of by Falling, was found to have died in his sleep while taking a nap. Doctors concluded that Joseph had the same viral infection that was attributed to JeffreyÊs death. Shortly after SpringÊs death, two other children in her care became critically ill and were hospitalized, but they recovered. In July 1981, she moved to Perry, near Blountstown, Florida, and began work caring for an elderly man, William Swindle, age 77. He died the very first day she began working, apparently due to natural causes. That same month she was left in charge of her stepsisterÊs infant, eight-month-old Jennifer Daniels, who stopped breathing. Then, on July 2, 1982, Travis Coleman, a 10-week-old infant, died in FallingÊs care. Autopsy revealed that the baby had been smothered. Falling was

410 |

Clara Fallmer

arrested and charged with this murder. She confessed to killing three children (Johnson, Daniels, and Coleman) by smothering them as she had seen on television, using a blanket to cover their faces. She said that she was following orders from voices telling her to kill the baby. Facing six potential death sentences, Falling plead guilty in December 1982, in exchange for the state not prosecuting her for the death of Swindle or for the death of the two cousins in Lakeland. Falling later stated that she did not know why she had killed these children. Other statements suggest that Falling killed children when they became too noisy. In her confession she stated her method of killing was simple, smothering her victims with a blanket so no one could here them scream. In another confession specifically directed at the death of Johnson she stated: She got kinda rowdy or something. Anyway, I choked her until she quit breathing and she had turned purple. . . . Her heart had stopped beating and her pulse had stopped and she wasnÊt breathing. So I tried to get her back to breathing and I couldnÊt. So then I went and called the sheriff [sic] department. (Florida Baby Sitter Pleads Guilty, 1982, 8) This case is interesting for several reasons. First, although Falling clearly had mental health issues as a child and as a teen, these problems were not addressed. Even after her arrest, there are reports that she received „psychiatric assessment‰ in Tallahassee but was later allowed to enter into a plea bargain with the state, suggesting she was of sound mind, when clearly there was evidence of both Munchhausen Syndrome and possible schizophrenia. There was also evidence of depression in her background and possible suicide attempts. She was eventually sentenced to life in prison in Homestead, Florida. Resource Florida Baby Sitter Pleads Guilty to Murdering Three in Her Care. 1982. New York Times, December 4: 8.

Hannah Scott

Clara Fallmer (1892–?) At the age of 15 or 16 (her official age is unclear), Clara Fallmer made the headlines in Alameda County, California. She was charged with shooting and killing Charles La Due in public view. Miss Fallmer alleged that Mr. La Due had promised her marriage, but instead he abandoned her. Fallmer was pregnant. The defense and prosecuting attorneys both tried to plan what the character of the case should be in terms of what people wanted to believe. Miss FallmerÊs lawyers argued in defense

Clara Fallmer |

of her injured womanhood. The prosecutors constructed her as a lying harlot. „Neither side could afford the simple truth·that Fallmer was neither waif nor wench, but essentially a woman, with ordinary feelings and passions‰ (Friedman, 1994). The headline of the first article on page 9 in the San Francisco Call newspaper on Tuesday, August 3, 1897, read: „Discarded, She Had Revenge: Charles V. La Due Seriously Wounded by Clara Fallmer. Then She Shot Herself. The Two Had Been Keeping Company for Some Time. He Is Well Known In Alameda. She Has Been in Trouble Before. Both Are in a Precarious Condition.‰ According to the article, La DueÊs mother was not happy with his relationship with Fallmer. In addition, FallmerÊs brother, K. R. Fallmer, was described as being not pleased with the relationship. In the article, it was reported that K. R. Fallmer approached La Due and asked him to stop keeping company with Clara Fallmer and to instead allow her to go to school. La Due promised to do so. The article suggested that La Due had planned on „dropping her acquaintance‰ but did not do so because Clara Fallmer intimidated him with what at the time seemed to be an idle threat. Historical accounts speculated about the history of the relationship between Charles La Due and Clara Fallmer. The truth would finally be revealed on December 22, 1897, when Fallmer took the stand at her trial. Fallmer recounted for the court that La Due presented her with a ring, that he had asked her to marry him shortly after Christmas, and that she had consented to his request. Fallmer also described how she later ended the love affair after believing that the marriage proposal was false and that La Due never really had any intention of marrying her, but then they reconciled and the engagement was back on. On a trip to San Francisco, she plead with La Due to fulfill his contract of holy matrimony but instead he retrieved his hat and began to leave. While attempting to keep La Due in the restaurant to hear her, Fallmer was struck by La Due leaving her unconscious on the floor. Young, pregnant, and unwed, Clara Fallmer went to the train station on the evening of August 2, 1897, armed with a revolver and what many would describe as a broken heart. Witnesses say they saw Fallmer call La Due over to her once he departed the train car. They appeared to have a conversation. Then the passengers departing the train at Park Street Station were greeted by two shots from a revolver. Within a few seconds, two bodies laid motionless in front of Kneinal Pharmacy. La DueÊs body dropped to the ground first, and FallmerÊs followed shortly thereafter. Fallmer had shot La Due in the shoulder with the revolver and then turned the gun on herself. There was never any question about who committed such a heinous act because the smoking gun was still in the hand of the murderess, but everyone wondered why she had done it. Historical accounts suggest that Clara Fallmer was not a stranger to the law. On February 11, 1895, Fallmer and two other girls were arrested for vagrancy. Her father, Rudolph K. Fallmer, a well-known newspaper agent on the broad-gauge local train, would come to her defense saying his daughter was wrongfully charged and

411

412 |

Amy Fisher

that he was going to bring charges against the woman who accused his daughter for defamation of character. A little over a year later, Clara Fallmer would find herself back in the San Francisco Call but this time she would actually be the victim. Andrew Frank, the owner of a saloon, had either sold or given Clara Fallmer liquor even though she was legally underage. Her brother went to the Board of Trustees in hopes that they would annul FrankÊs liquor license. Historical accounts also suggest that the Fallmer family tree comprised several members that may have had suffered from mental illness. According to the San Francisco Call newspaper, Fallmer told the matron while she was incarcerated that her older sister as well as her grandparents had taken their own lives. Fallmer also discussed an incident four years prior to the La Due murder in which she had shot her younger sister in the hand. Her attorney, A. A. Moore, Jr., would argue that she had shot Charles La Due, her lover, during a state of emotional insanity. Her attorney made sure that she was perceived as an innocent young lady whose womanhood was wounded by her lover. Historical accounts describe that Moore had Fallmer carry a bouquet of violets and dress in a thick navy-blue veil, gloved hands, and a knee-length dress. She was painted as a picture of wounded innocence. After hearing about how Charles La Due had seduced and abandoned Fallmer, the jury appeared to have felt sympathetic towards her. Clara Fallmer was quickly and easily acquitted. Resources „AlamedaÊs City Hall, The Fallmer GirlÊs Father Indignant That She Should Be Arrested for Vagrancy.‰ San Francisco Call, February 11, 1896: 13. Fisher, George. „Historian in the Cellar.‰ Law, Society And History: Essays on Themes in the Work of Lawrence M. Friedman, Robert W. Gordon and Morton J. Horwitz, eds., 2006; Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 117. Friedman, L. (1994). Crime and Punishment in American History, reprint. New York: Basic Books. Michelson, Miriam. (1898, January 5). „The Sins of Children Shall Be Visited Upon The Parents.‰ San Francisco Call, 6.

Kathryn A. Branch and Anise Loney

Amy Fisher (1974–) Amy Fisher, „the Long Island Lolita,‰ was only a teenager when she was sent to prison for shooting the wife of her older married lover, Joey Buttafuoco. She was demonized by some in the media as an evil temptress; by others she was considered a victim of a sick and greedy man almost twice her age. Amy Fisher was born and raised in communities on Long Island, New York. She moved from Wantagh to Merrick (both in Long Island) when she was 13 years old.

Amy Fisher | 413

Both parents worked full-time making her a latchkey kid. According to Amy, this was a bad age to move and also a bad age to be left unsupervised. Merrick was more upscale than Wantagh, and her parents spoiled her with a sports car, expensive clothes, and forth. She hung out with what she termed the „B crowd‰ and early on ditched the B crowd to start hanging out with older girls who had already graduated from high school. This change in friends apparently initiated her change in behavior. Instead of being home by 11:30 PM, she was suddenly not going out until 11:30 PM. The signs of a troubled teen were there: slipping grades, new older friends, and staying out late. AmyÊs parents unfortunately did not catch on Amy Fisher leaves the Albion Corto the signs that something was wrong with their rectional Facility in Albion, New York, 1999. Fisher, who spawned tabloid teenage daughter. Amy describes her mother as headlines and television movies as good-natured and kind. Her father, on the other the teenager who shot her lover’s hand, had a trigger temper and physically abused wife in the head, walked out of the her. The abuse occurred often when she was upstate prison after being paroled. younger and when her mother was not home, but (AP/Wide World Photos) once when she was 16 years old, he physically assaulted her and she ran away for a few days. Her parents filed a police report, and her father told police that Amy was an awful, incorrigible child. Around this time, Joey Buttafuoco came into AmyÊs life. Joey Buttafuoco, a married body shop repairman in his mid-thirties, started dating the 16-year-old Amy Fisher in July 1991. According to Amy, throughout their time together, he repeatedly mentioned that he wanted to kill his wife. He also repeatedly mentioned that it would be better if Amy did it because she was only a kid and would not go to jail. Mr. Buttafuoco, of course, denied the claims he ever said anything to Amy about killing his wife. On May 19, 1992, Amy and an acquaintance, Peter (who had acquired the gun for her), drove to Massapequa to shoot Mary Jo Buttafuoco. Amy went alone to the doorstep and told Mary Jo that AmyÊs sister was having an affair with Joey. Mary Jo then turned around to call Joey. Amy, embarrassed by the thought that Mary Jo would call Joey, started hitting her repeatedly with the gun. Amy then walked away not knowing that the gun had gone off. Peter made her return to the house for the gun and that is when she found out the gun had malfunctioned and had shot Mary Jo while Amy had been hitting her with it. Amy went about her life for the next two days and then was arrested a block from her home. She was interrogated without her parents there for many hours until she confessed to the crime. The media frenzy then began. Amy purports the reason that

414

|

Amy Fisher

her case was so celebrated was because she was considered a rich, white, spoiled brat that had committed attempted murder. This was not the typical attempted murder case. The media laid the Amy/Joey love affair on thick, all the while Joey continued to deny that he had this affair. Joey exploited Amy by giving exclusives to certain media outlets. It is reported by Amy that her lawyer Eric Naiburg tricked her into meeting with author Sheila Weller to write „her story.‰ Amy in her own book many years later denies that much of her own story is actually in that first book. Further, the movies that were made were also mostly sensationalist. During all the media frenzy, Amy, at the behest of her lawyer, pleaded to reckless assault with depraved indifference, receiving a prison sentence of 5 to 15 years. She never actually thought that she would be spending the seven years that she did in prison. Naiburg, her lawyer, had promised her and her mother that the most she would spend would be three years. Amy maintains that if she had known how long her sentence would end up being she would have gone to trial. However, an upstate New York prison is where she spent the majority of the next seven years. During her stay in prison, she was harassed and sexually abused by the guards. They were not impressed with the publicity that Amy brought in with her, and she was viewed as a spoiled, rich kid. Fighting against the abuse only got her into more trouble within the prison. The guards would throw her into solitary confinement and continue with the ridicule. Amy FisherÊs life continues to take odd twists and turns. While she is currently a wife and mother, she reportedly was rumored to have left her husband for a brief reunion with Buttafuoco. The reunion was meant to spawn a reality show, which to date has not happened. Amy eventually made peace with Mary Jo (who is now divorced from Joey), and Fisher worked at a newspaper, the Long Island Press. It has been reported that she no longer works there, has made a sex tape, and plans to star in adult films. FisherÊs story is one of a victimized girl, and her life continues to be riddled with drama.

Resources „Amy Fisher.‰ A&E Biography. http://www.biography.com/articles/Amy-Fisher-235415. Amy Fisher: My Story (TV film). (1992). Jaffe/Brownstein Films/NBC. The Amy Fisher Story (TV film). (1993). ABC Productions/American Broadcasting Company. Casualties of Love: The Long Island Lolita Story (TV film). (1993). The Sokolow Company/ CBS. Fisher, Amy, and Robbie Woliver. (2004). If I Knew Then . . .: Lincoln, NE: I Universe.

Rebecca Hayes-Smith

Heidi Fleiss | 415

Heidi Fleiss (1965–) Heidi Fleiss, „the Hollywood Madame,‰ rocked show business upon her arrest in 1993. Many producers, business moguls, and stars were afraid of the release of HeidiÊs client list. Heidi Fleiss to this day has never released that list, but the rapid success and notoriety that was achieved during and immediately after her reign as the Hollywood Madame has remained with her and continues to interest the news media. Heidi Fleiss was born to a teacher, Elissa Fleiss, and a pediatrician, Dr. Paul Fleiss, in 1965. She had five siblings and a relatively happy and conventional upbringing. As a teenager, her innate business-savvy was exemplified through her babysitting business. She started out as a babysitter and gained a status as the neighborhoodÊs best. She then became so busy that she started hiring out her friends and keeping a portion of their earnings. It was clear that she had a knack for business and managing money. Despite her knack for business, her teenage years were still awkward. Heidi had trouble fitting in and did poorly in school. She eventually dropped out of school in the 10th grade. Over the next few years, she held different jobs, including waitressing, but it was when she met millionaire Bernie Cornfeld that her life and career changed. Their relationship led to her becoming accustomed to a lavish lifestyle, and upon their breakup she began to seek this life out. Ivan Nagy, a filmmaker, was the next influential person in FleissÊs life, and he introduced her to Elizabeth Adams, aka „Madam Alex.‰ Madam Alex ran the most prosperous call girl service in Hollywood, and Heidi quickly rose up the ladder from prostitute employee to an assistant to Madam Alex. The relationship between Heidi and Madam Alex soon became rocky, and Heidi decided to go into business for herself. HeidiÊs success quickly skyrocketed. She threw lavish parties at her mansion, where drugs and rock stars like Mick Jagger were welcome. Heidi Fleiss sent call girls all over the world and made millions Convicted Hollywood madam within months. This lifestyle came crashing down Heidi Fleiss, shown in this 1995 in June 1993 when she was arrested and charged file photo, faced a maximum senwith five counts of pandering (soliciting customers tence of five years for money laundering and tax evasion in directing for prostitutes) and possession of illegal narcotics. a prostitution ring for the rich and On December 2, 1994, the jury found her guilty famous. (AP/Wide World Photos) on three counts of pandering. She was sentenced

416 |

Jane Fonda

to three years in prison and fined. The verdict, however, was later overturned due to jury misconduct. The criminal charges did not stop there. During the state trial, a federal grand jury indicted her on 14 counts of conspiracy, money laundering, and income tax evasion. In the midst of the media frenzy and court appearances, Fleiss tested positive for methamphetamines and was ordered to drug treatment. It seemed her reign as the Hollywood Madam was coming to an end. In August 1995, Fleiss was convicted in federal court of conspiracy, money laundering, and income tax evasion. She was sentenced to 37 months in a minimumsecurity prison. She also entered a plea bargain with the state of California for pandering, and she was sentenced to 18 months in prison to run concurrent with the 37 months that was already sentenced. Two other pandering charges were dropped by Los Angeles prosecutors. Heidi spent over two years in a prison in Dublin, California, where she was harassed by other inmates. She was released to a halfway house in November 1998 to finish out her time. She requested to be returned to prison (it is speculated for safety reasons), and this request was granted. Finally in September 1999, after three years in prison, she was released. After her release from prison, it appeared that things were looking up for Fleiss. She wrote a book called Pandering, she and longtime friend Victoria Sellers came out with a DVD titled Sex Tips, and she was dating actor Tom Sizemore. Tom Sizemore abused her throughout the relationship, and in 2003, she filed charges against him for domestic abuse. In August 2003, Sizemore was convicted on six charges which included physical abuse, harassment, and vandalism. Heidi Fleiss has not shrunk from attention, and she still appears on television, including appearances on a celebrity drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in 2009 called Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew. FleissÊs tumultuous past still follows her, but she continues to embrace it and goes on. Resources Bell, Rachel. Courtroom Television Network. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_ murders/celebrity/heidi_fleiss/index.html. Accessed March 1, 2007. Fleiss, Heidi. (2002). Pandering. Los Angeles, CA: 1 Hour Entertainment. „Times Topics: Heidi Fleiss.‰ New York Times. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ timestopics/people/f/heidi_fleiss/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=heidi%20fleiss&st=cse. Accessed August 22, 2010.

Rebecca Hayes-Smith

Jane Fonda (1937–) During a time of rapid social change and a push toward gender and racial equality, Jane Fonda emerged as an outspoken figure. Famous for her many movies, FondaÊs

Jane Fonda | 417

public image changed from a sex symbol (for her roles in movies such as Barbarella [1968]) to political activist. Some viewed this change of persona as negative. Because of her support of controversial groups, she was monitored for some time by the FBI and arrested several times while protesting the Vietnam War. Fonda remains known today as a part of 1960s and 1970s history, and she continues work as both activist and actress. Jane Fonda was born on December 21, 1937, to actor Henry Fonda and his second wife, Frances Seymour Brokaw. She had an older stepsister, Frances; a younger brother, Peter; and a younger sister, Amy, who was adopted during her fatherÊs third marriage to Susan Blanchard. Jane Fonda spent much of her childhood isolated from Hollywood, living on a nine-acre ranch in Brentwood, California, until her mother moved the family closer to JaneÊs father, who was acting on Broadway. They rented a house in Greenwich, where they lived with JaneÊs maternal grandmother. Suffering from mental illness, FondaÊs mother committed suicide in 1950 when Jane was 12 years old. Following her death, Jane and Peter lived in New York with their father and his wife. She characterized her father in her 2005 biography as emotionally uninvolved. JaneÊs first acting experience was participating in high school plays, but at that time she did not consider acting as a profession. After attending Vassar College, she briefly studied painting in Paris. Back in New York, she began modeling and acting. In 1965, she married director Roger Vadim, with whom she had a daughter three years later. They divorced; and she was later married to Tom Hayden, with

American actress and anti–Vietnam War activist Jane Fonda seated at a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun during a visit to Hanoi in July 1972. Propaganda broadcasts of Fonda’s trip were a coup for the North Vietnamese and an affront to many Americans. Years later, Fonda apologized for her actions. (AP/Wide World Photos)

418 |

Jane Fonda

whom she had a son and adopted a daughter. Her third marriage was with media mogul Ted Turner; they separated in 2001. Fonda has an extensive acting resume but also is well-known for her popular exercise videos. While she retired from acting in 1992, recently Fonda has continued her acting career in films such as Monster-In-Law (2005) and Georgia Rule (2007), and has revitalized her antiwar protesting. Fonda, who has been described as a feminist, is also involved in organizations encouraging the prevention of teenage pregnancy and other causes supportive of equality. Aside from her famous family and her own celebrity for her acting career and starring in exercise videos, Jane Fonda was known for her political activism. Perhaps inspired by her fatherÊs activism and his time spent in the Navy, she was an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War and negatively dubbed „Hanoi Jane‰ for her 1972 visit to North Vietnam in which she campaigned for the communist regime and denounced U.S. military involvement in the war. She was criticized in particular for the many photographs of her aboard an anti-aircraft gun. Some report that at least one senator argued that she should be arrested for treason. FondaÊs intentions were to support the war-resisters inside the military and, broadly, to support equality for all; however, in retrospect, she realizes and apologizes for the unintended consequences of hurting U.S. soldiers. FondaÊs so-called criminal career·or lack thereof·stemmed from her political activism. Her involvement with the criminal justice system began in 1970 when she was arrested in Seattle, Washington, for her participation in protests against the U.S. government procurement of Native American lands for use as military bases and training grounds for soldiers for the Vietnam War. She was issued a letter of expulsion from Fort Lawton for her involvement in a protest there on March 8, 1970, and she was arrested for entering a tactical area of Fort Lewis, another military base south of Fort Lawton. Fonda was arrested again by military police in May of that year for distributing pamphlets at a protest at Fort Hood, Texas. Later that year, Fonda was campaigning for the Vietnam Veterans Against War (VVAW) and the Winter Soldier Investigation, which were war crimes hearings. On November 3, she flew into Cleveland, Ohio, to begin a fundraising tour of colleges and universities. At the airport, U.S. Customs searched FondaÊs luggage, finding pills, and refused her request to use the bathroom. When she tried to push the agents aside, Fonda was charged with drug smuggling and assaulting the police and spent 10 hours in jail. The pills were actually vitamins and prescribed medication, and the charges against Fonda were eventually dropped. For some time in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the FBI had Jane Fonda under surveillance, as she supported the Black Panther Party, a sometimes violent political group that supported civil rights. The FBI was not the only organization to monitor Fonda; in fact, Mary Hershberger, who organized a collection of FondaÊs speeches, found transcripts of FondaÊs speeches only through the CIA (Fonda had

Antoinette Frank | 419

not documented them). Other agencies, including the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and the National Security Agency (NSA), also spied on her. Jane Fonda was active in a time of dramatic social change, and she played an important role in history. The 1960s and 1970s were characterized by much social unrest, stemming from an unpopular war in Vietnam and public perceptions of a government unfair to racial and ethnic minorities and women. Today, many still perceive Fonda only as „Hanoi Jane‰, as evidenced by a recent incident in which a Vietnam veteran spat on her. In the 2004 presidential race, the Republican Party attempted to discredit Democrat John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who had protested the Vietnam War, by associating him with Jane Fonda and the VVAW. Photos of John Kerry attending the same rallies as Jane Fonda circulated extensively. While George W. Bush won the election, it cannot be said that the Fonda connection had a serious impact on the publicÊs opinion in either direction. Despite such controversy, her activism continues today, with a focus on issues such as education for girls and women across the world and reproductive rights. Resources Fonda, Jane. 2005. My life so far. New York: Random House. Hershberger, Mary. 2004. Peace work, war myths: Jane Fonda and the antiwar movement. Peace & Change, 29: 549ă579. Hershberger, Mary, ed. 2006. Jane FondaÊs words of politics and passion. New York: New Press. Kinney, Katherine. 2003. Hanoi Jane and other treasons: Women and the editing of the 1960s. WomenÊs Studies, 32: 371ă392.

Jennifer C. Gibbs

Antoinette Frank (1971–) Convicted of three murders and armed robbery while serving as a member of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), Antoinette Frank is one of two women offenders serving on death row in the state of Louisiana. These murders symbolize the prevalence of corruption and crime that has existed in the NOPD. A native of Opelousas, Louisiana, FrankÊs ambitions of a career in law enforcement began at an early age. As a young adult, she was actively involved with the Opelousas Junior Police and the New Orleans Explorers. Frank further pursued her career ambitions at age 20 by applying to the NOPD. During the review process, her application encountered several problems regarding her employment history and psychological stability. Despite low scores on the psychological examination and inconsistencies on the application, she was able to obtain employment in the department.

420

| Antoinette Frank

At age 24, Frank became acquainted with 18-year-old Rogers LaCaze. They met while he was hospitalized from a shooting that she was investigating in November 1994. Aware of his criminal lifestyle, she continued her involvement with him after he was discharged from the hospital. She soon became involved in his small-time crimes, providing him with transportation and security. She often allowed him to ride with her on calls, having him pose as an officer in training. As the reNew Orleans Police Department ID photo of former lationship continued, she became police officer Antoinette Frank, who was convicted increasingly engaged in miscon- of killing her law enforcement partner and two other duct. The last crime she commit- people during a robbery attempt at a restaurant, ted was a robbery of the restaurant 1995. (AP/Wide World Photos) she worked as a part-time security officer. It was during this robbery three people were killed. The murders of Cuong Vu, 18 years old, his sister Ha Vu, 24, and officer Ronald Williams, 25, took place on March 4, 1995, at Kim Anh Vietnamese Restaurant. Frank and LaCaze entered the establishment after casing it out with two previous visits. During the robbery, LaCaze shot officer Williams three times with a 9 mm pistol as Frank began looking for money. When she finally found the cash, she then used same 9 mm pistol to shoot Cuong and Ha Vu, leaving both victims dead on the scene. Unaware that there were witnesses, Frank and LaCaze fled the scene. After dropping LaCaze off at an apartment, she borrowed a marked police car from the NOPD 7th District station to respond to the shootings and returned to the scene. She was unaware that the siblings of Cuong and Ha Vu, who also worked at the restaurant, had witnessed some of the events. Quoc Vu, the victimsÊ brother, made the emergency call after witnessing the tragic events, and Chau Vu, their sister, told the other investigating officers that Frank and an accomplice were responsible for all three murders. Frank then contested this, stating that she heard shots fired in the dining room while she was in the kitchen area and began immediately moving the staff to the rear exit. Afterwards, Frank stated that she then proceeded to the police department to report the emergency. Uneasy about FrankÊs statement, the investigating officers then took her to the police station for further questioning. She later admitted to committing the violent crimes and killing two of the victims.

Antoinette Frank | 421

In July 1995, LaCaze was the first to go on trial; he was later convicted of murder and given the death sentence. The trial of Antoinette Frank took place September 5, 1995, at the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the courtroom of Judge Frank J. Marullo. FrankÊs defense attorney argued that she was innocent and was merely an accomplice in the murders. On September 12, 1995, after 40 minutes of deliberation, the jury found her guilty. She was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and was recommended for the death penalty. On October 1995, a judge sentenced her to death by lethal injection. An appeal was later was a made based on the fairness of the court and on May 22, 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the decision, ruling that Frank had been properly sentenced. FrankÊs death was scheduled for July 15, 2008, however; she was given a 90-day stay of execution on May 16, 2008, to file her an appeal. A second death warrant was signed on September 11, 2008, the second warrant signed by Judge Marullo. FrankÊs execution date was rescheduled for December 8, 2008. On November 24, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court recalled the warrant, and the case is currently pending post conviction appeals. On January 4, 2010, it was decided that the case would remain in Judge MarulloÊs courtroom at the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. As of August 2011, she remains on death row. This case brought nation attention to police misconduct and departmental shortcomings in the NOPD. It brought public awareness to the inadequate employment system, the low pay of police officers, and the internal corruption within the department. Prior to her employment, the department restructured the hiring system to insure the recruitment of qualified candidates, yet, Frank still managed to be employed. The murders also drew societal attention to other corruption that took place between police officers and drug dealers. A year prior to the murders, an FBI operation led to the conviction of 10 police officers involved in guarding a warehouse stocked with cocaine. Both Frank and the convicted officersÊ crimes were connected to off-duty jobs. Many officers of the NOPD were underpaid and took additional work to sustain a living. The low pay scales of police officers made it difficult to hire and sustain qualified candidates. In addition to underpaying officers, residential restrictions was another deficiency with the department. The employment pool was limited to Orleans Parish residents. These restrictions also limited the departmentÊs efforts in recruiting qualified employees. Today, Frank is currently an inmate at the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. She recently revealed that she experienced physical abuse and violence at the hands of her father. In November 1995, a skeleton with a bullet hole in the skull was recovered from underneath the house of her father. She had apparently reported her father missing over a year prior to the killings. The identity of the human bones remains undetermined.

422

| Caril Fugate

Resources Bones found under home of policewoman who killed 3. (1995, November 8). Washington Post, A13. Filosa, Gwen. (2007, May 23). Death penalty upheld for N.O. ex-cop. Times-Picayune. http://blog.nola.com/topnews/2007/05/death_penalty_upheld_for_no_ex.html Filosa, Gwen. (2008, February 27). Convicted killer Antoinette Frank appears in court. Times-Picayune. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/convicted_killer_antoi nette_fr.html Filosa, Gwen. (2008, November 26). Louisiana Supreme Court cancels execution for Antoinette Frank. Times-Picayune. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/the_ louisiana_supreme_court_ha.html Filosa, Gwen. (2010, January 4). Antoinette Frank case to stay in MarulloÊs courtroom. Times-Picayune. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/01/antoinette_frank.html Gwynne, S. (1995). Cops and robbers. Time 145(11), 45. Herbert, Bob. (1995, September 15). In America; Killer cops. New York Times, A35. Hustmyre, Chuck. (2003). Blue on blue: Murder, madness and betrayal in the NOPD. New Orleans Magazine, February, 44ă47. Nabonne, Rhonda. (2008, May 16). Stay of execution granted in cop killer case. TimesPicayune. http://blog.nola.com/twoyearslater/2008/05/stay_of_execution_granted_in_ c.html New Orleans officer is convicted of 3 killings in robbery attempt. (1995, September 12). New York Times, A20. Policewoman guilty of slaying 3. (1995, September 12). Washington Post, A02. Sanz, Cynthia, and Joseph Harmes.(1995). A killer in blue. People, September, 131ă113. Sarma, Bidish J., Robert J. Smith, and G. B. Cohen. (2009, Fall). Struck by lightning: Walker v. Georgia and LouisianaÊs proportionality review of death sentences. 37. Southern University Law Review 65. State of Louisiana v. Antoinette Frank. (2001). 99-KA-0553 Supreme Court of Louisiana 99ă0553. State of Louisiana v. Antoinette Frank. (2007). 1999-KA-0553 Supreme Court of Louisiana 1999ă0553.

LaSheila S. Yates

Caril Fugate (1943–) Murder by women and girls is rare. Multiple murders by women and girls are even rarer, and female spree killers, those who kill several victims at different locations within a short period of time with no „cooling off‰ period, are the rarest of them all. Caril Fugate is one of a very small group of women who has been defined as a spree killer. Fourteen-year-old Caril Fugate and her 19-year-old boyfriend Charles

Caril Fugate | 423

Starkweather made history in 1958 with a crime spree that resulted in the murders of 11 people which shocked their bucolic community of Lincoln, Nebraska, and the entire nation. Although it is not clear whether Fugate took part in the murders, she was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of one of the victims killed, and she was believed by many to have helped her boyfriend with some of the other murders. If Fugate did murder anyone, however, it is highly unlikely, by all accounts, that she would have taken part in such violent crimes without the influence of her older boyfriend. Charles Starkweather, 19, and his girlThere is little known about Caril Ann friend, Caril Fugate, 15, were the objects of a sensational manhunt in connection with FugateÊs background. Born July 31, 1943, six slayings in Nebraska, 1958. (AP/Wide she was just 13 years old when she met World Photos) Charles Starkweather through her older sisterÊs boyfriend. Fugate was a native of Nebraska who had never left the state until the murderous spree with Starkweather. Although Starkweather found Fugate amazingly intelligent, she had been held back a year in elementary school and had been labeled a slow learner by her teachers. Caril FugateÊs mother and father divorced in 1951. Fugate lived with her mother, her stepfather, and her baby stepsister. While her stepfather, Marion Bartlett, was strict, records do not indicate that Caril was abused. By many accounts, she was a typical lower-class teenage girl with a mild rebellious streak who found the older rebellious Charles Starkweather, a James Dean look-a-like, attractive. It is not clear what led them on their killing spree or whether Caril Fugate committed any of the murders herself. Some surmise that FugateÊs stepfather did not approve of her relationship with Starkweather, and this upset Starkweather. Before the murder spree began, Starkweather killed a gas station attendant, Robert Colvert, in December 1957. However, it wasnÊt until the following month that Starkweather got Fugate involved. Sometime in late January 1958, Starkweather brought his .22 rifle to FugateÊs home. While the exact details of the murders remain unknown, Caril FugateÊs stepfather, Marion Bartlett, her mother, Velda Bartlett, and her two-and-a-half-year-old half sister, Betty Jean, did not survive StarkweatherÊs visit to the familyÊs home in Lincoln, Nebraska. Evidence found at the time of the murders, however, suggested that Starkweather and Fugate had lived in the house for six days with the bodies of FugateÊs family, who are believed to be killed on January 21, 1958. When friends

424 | Caril Fugate

or family members came to the house, Fugate reportedly told them that her family was sick with the flu. The young couple, however, became worried when receiving more visits from family members, and they packed up and left the house. FugateÊs extended family soon discovered the bodies of FugateÊs family, and the police began looking for Starkweather and Fugate. The couple had driven to Bennet, Nebraska, on January 27, where Starkweather may have thought he could get help from a family friend named Augusta Myer. Apparently, Starkweather and Meyer argued, and Starkweather shot Meyer to death. Later that same evening (January 27, 1958) when their car got stuck in the snow, teenagers Robert Jensen and Carol King offered Starkweather and Fugate a ride. Apparently, Starkweather demanded they drive him and Caril back to the Meyer farm. They stopped at an old storm cellar, where Starkweather shot Robert Jensen and may have attempted to rape Carol King before shooting her as well. It has been reported that Caril Fugate was jealous of StarkweatherÊs attention toward King and that she demanded Starkweather stab King as well. Caril Fugate denies that she played any role in the killing. After killing King and Jensen, Starkweather and Fugate continued on their way. They took the teensÊ car and drove back to Lincoln where Fugate allegedly chose a house where the couple would spend the night on January 28. The house was owned by Lauer and Clara Ward, who were then murdered along with their maid Lillian Fencl. Starkweather and Fugate took the WardsÊ car and continued their journey on January 29. Radio announcers warned listeners of the coupleÊs activities as police set up roadblocks throughout Lincoln. Nebraska governor Victor Anderson called out the Nebraska National Guard to help capture the fugitives. Starkweather and Fugate, however, had already fled to Wyoming where they tried to change vehicles again. Starkweather shot Merle Collison and attempted to steal his car, but Starkweather was unable to disengage the parking brake. Joe Sprinkle, believing there had been an accident, stopped to help when he noticed Collison was slumped over and Starkweather had a rifle. Sprinkle and Starkweather struggled over the rifle as deputy sheriff William Romer drove by and noticed the two men fighting. When Romer approached, Fugate momentarily distracted the deputy by yelling that she needed help which allowed Starkweather to drive off, but he was apprehended quickly, and the murderous spree ended on January 29, 1958, with a total of 10 dead. Fugate and Starkweather were each found guilty in separate trials. Starkweather was sentenced to death on May 23, 1959 and executed on July 25, 1959. At the time of her trial, Fugate was the youngest women ever charged with murder in the United States. In her trial, which began on October 27, 1958, Fugate was also found guilty of murder. FugateÊs attorneys argued that she was an unwilling captive of Starkweather and that she did not take part in the murders of her family or others. They maintained that Fugate only stayed with Starkweather out of fear for her life and to protect her family who she believed were still alive. However, law enforcement

Caril Fugate | 425

officers reported that she failed to make these claims when she was apprehended, and Starkweather also testified against her. The jury failed to believe that Fugate acted out of fear, and they found her guilty of the murder of Robert Jensen on November 21, 1958, for which she received a life sentence. FugateÊs attorneys attempted to gain a new trial, but the judge overturned the motion for a new trial on December 20, 1958, and held that her sentence of life in prison would stand. Again on January 21, 1959, FugateÊs attorneys attempted to get her a new trial. This time they requested a suspended sentence and a new trial with the State Supreme Court of Nebraska. On February 6, 1959, the Nebraska Supreme Court refused Fugate both a new trial and a suspended sentence. On October 31, 1973, FugateÊs sentence was commuted to a term of 30 to 50 years by the Nebraska State Pardon Board. All reports indicate that Fugate was a model prisoner, which may have played a role in the Nebraska Board of ParoleÊs decision to parole her the first time she came up for parole after her sentence was commuted. On June 21, 1976, after serving 18 years of her sentence, Caril Fugate was paroled and relocated to Michigan where a job was waiting for her. A couple who had seen a documentary film on Caril and believed her to be innocent had arranged for her to move to Michigan after her parole. Fugate was forbidden to do interviews about the murders as a condition of her parole. After her parole was up in 1981, she appeared on a 1983 television program called Lie Detector where she passed a lie detection test and maintained that she was not a willing accomplice to Charles Starkweather. Since this 1983 television appearance and interviews she granted at the time of the program, she has mostly stayed out of the public eye and led a quiet life working at a hospital. Still, Fugate remains a topic of conversation on various true crime Internet sites on which individuals comment about her innocence or guilt. Some bloggers have reported that she has married. The killing spree of 1958 was horrendous and terrifying to a nation that had seen very few murderous rampages. Since that time, the coupleÊs murderous spree has served as inspiration for both films and music. Badlands and Natural Born Killers are two of the most acclaimed films based on the multiple murders by Starkweather and Fugate. Bruce SpringsteenÊs 1982 song „Nebraska‰ was also inspired by the 1958 killing spree. More recently, in 2005, Liza Ward, a granddaughter of two of the victims of the Starkweather/Fugate killings, published Leaving Valentine, which is a fictional account of the murders told from three viewpoints; including FugateÊs point of view. Resources Davies, Kim. 2007. The Murder Book. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dzwonkowski, Ron. 1983. „KillerÊs Companion Takes Lie Detector Test.‰ Spokane Chronicle, February 16: 90.

426

| Caril Fugate

Levin, Jack, and James Alan Fox. 1985. Mass Murder: AmericanÊs Growing Menace. New York: Plenum Press. Lincoln City Library. „The Starkweather Timeline.‰ Accessed on June 26, 2010, at http:// www.lincolnlibraries.org/reference/StarkweatherTimeline.pdf. Newton, Michael. 1998. Waste Land. New York: Pocket Books. Weiser, Charles. 1976. „Carol Fugate Leaves Prison for Michigan.‰ St. Petersburg Times, June 21: 5.

Kim Davies

G Guin Garcia (1959–) On January 16, 1996, Guinevere „Guin‰ Garcia was the first woman to be scheduled to be executed in Illinois in almost 60 years when Illinois governor Jim Edgar commuted her sentence to natural life in prison. She had been convicted of killing her husband four months after being released from prison for killing her baby daughter. Garcia was born in 1959 to an alcoholic mother and an absent father. When she was 18 months old, her mother died after failing from an apartment window. GarciaÊs maternal grandmother gained custody of her, but failed to protect her from the repeated sexual abuse by one of her uncles. The molestation began when Garcia was six years old and continued through her adolescence. One time, her grandmother came into the room while her uncle was forcing intercourse on her, but her grandmother merely walked out of the room, closing the door. By the age of 11, Garcia was drinking alcohol heavily. At age 14, she was gangraped by five boys at a birthday party. The perpetrators were arrested but were not convicted. In addition to enduring emotional and psychological traumas throughout her life, Garcia experienced at least three head injuries, one requiring hospitalization. Due to interpersonal difficulties and intense conflicts with her grandparents, Garcia dropped out of high school and soon began working as a stripper/call girl in a local bar. When Garcia was 16, GarciaÊs grandfather gave written consent, in exchange for $1,500, for her to marry a 28-year-old Iranian student who was seeking permanent residency in the United States. Shortly after Garcia gave birth to their daughter, Sara, they divorced. Garcia was living the life of an addict and a prostitute so her grandmother cared for Sara. Because the uncle who had molested Garcia was living in her grandmotherÊs home, Garcia was afraid that he would also molest Sara. As a result, 18-year-old Garcia suffocated her baby daughter with a plastic bag. The infantÊs death was ruled an accident, but her death tormented Garcia who set fires on the anniversaries of SaraÊs birth and death because she was upset and remorseful about her babyÊs death. Eventually she confessed to killing her daughter. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. 427

428

|

Guin Garcia

While in prison, Guin married George Garcia, an older man who had been one of her clients when she was a prostitute. She was released on parole after 10 yearsÊ incarceration and lived with her husband for only a few weeks. Then she moved in with her grandparents and began a relationship with another man. A few months later Guin, armed with a .357 Magnum, went to her husbandÊs home. The couple quarreled, and after a struggle for the gun, Guin shot him at pointblank range. The prosecution argued, and the jury agreed, that Garcia had killed her husband in an effort to obtain money from him. In contrast, Garcia claims that he had tormented her mentally and physically for 15 years and that she killed him in the heat of passion. There were several accounts that George Garcia inflicted severe physical and sexual abuse on Guin throughout their relationship. On one occasion, supported by medical records, he had placed glass inside GuinÊs vagina, causing a two-inch laceration of her vaginal and rectal wall. Guin Garcia was convicted of first-degree murder. At her sentencing hearing, Dr. Lyle Harold Rossiter, Jr., a forensic psychiatrist, testified that she suffered from a very serious mental disorder and was under the influence of an extreme emotional or mental disturbance at the time of the murder. Still, Guin Garcia was sentenced to death. After losing her initial appeals, Garcia stopped all her appeals. Nevertheless, several death penalty opponents, including Amnesty International and Bianca Jagger, fought to save her life against her wishes. In televised interviews with journalist Carol Marin, Garcia stated that she was responsible for the murders and was taking responsibility, and described herself as an alcoholic who would kill again if she were abused. The only thing she felt would help her was to go back to her childhood. She wanted one day to be a child and not be afraid. Just prior to her commutation, which she did not seek, she stated that she asked for no sympathy and wanted to die with dignity and self-respect. She equated further appeals with a lack of dignity and begging the legal system, which she refused to do. On January 16, 1996, Illinois Governor Jim Edgar stopped GarciaÊs execution, and he commuted her death sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. She is currently residing at Dwight Correctional Center in Illinois. Resources People v. Garcia, 165 Ill. 2d 409, 651 N.E.2d 100 (1995). Rapaport, E. Equality of the Damned: The Execution of Women on the Cusp of the 21st Century. Ohio North University Law Review 26 (2000): 581. Schmall, L. Forgiving Guin Garcia: Women, the Death Penalty and Commutation. (1996). 11 Wisconsin WomenÊs Law Journal. 283.

Jo-Ann Della Giustina

Mildred Elizabeth Sisk Gillars (Axis Sally) | 429

Mildred Elizabeth Sisk Gillars (Axis Sally) (1900–1987) Mildred Elizabeth Sisk Gillars was an American who was convicted of treason for broadcasting Nazi propaganda radio programs for Radio Berlin during World War II. Nicknamed „Axis Sally‰ by American soldiers, she used her sultry and sexy voice to demoralize American soldiers and talk about the futility of war against Germany during her daily radio program titled Home Sweet Home. Gillars was one of the first women to be convicted of treason in the United States (Fugate 1998, 38). Mildred Elizabeth Sisk was born on November 29, 1900, in Portland, Maine, to Vincent and Mae Hewitson Sisk. After her parents divorced in 1907, her mother re-married and Mildred adopted her stepfatherÊs last name. During her early years, MildredÊs family moved around a lot. She graduated from high school in Conneaut, Ohio, in 1917 and attended Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio,

Mildred Gillars, aka Axis Sally, in a prison cell in Germany on January 25, 1947. Axis Sally was a commentator on Radio Berlin who broadcast German propaganda to Allied troops during World War II. She was eventually returned to the United States and convicted of treason. (National Archives)

430 | Mildred Elizabeth Sisk Gillars (Axis Sally)

and Hunter College in New York City with the hopes of pursuing a drama career. Gillars spent much of her time as a young adult struggling to be an actress. In 1929, she went to Paris with her mother for six months to study music. She returned to Europe in 1933 and worked various jobs before beginning her career in German radio. In 1940, Gillars was hired by her former Hunter College professor and lover, Max Otto Koischewitz, to work with the German Radio Broadcasting Company in Berlin. She eventually became one of the most highly paid radio personalities, earning an income of 3,000 deutsche marks a month. In 1943, Gillars launched the radio program Home Sweet Home. While she introduced herself as „Midge at the mike,‰ she became known as Axis Sally by American GIs (Thomas 1999, 328). Gillars was known for beginning her shows by saying „Hello gang. Throw down those little old guns and toddle off home. ThereÊs no getting the Germans down.‰ (Associated Press 1988). During her radio programs, Gillars played popular music interspersed with political commentary, humorous skits, and so forth, all the while playing on the loneliness, fear, and homesickness of American soldiers (Fugate 1998, 53ă54). Gillars frequently referred to herself as a „one hundred percent American girl‰ (Fugate 1998, 54). Her radio broadcasts were beamed to American forces in North Africa and Italy. While Gillars admittedly played an active role in promoting Nazi propaganda during the war, she maintained the view of herself as a patriot stating, „I love America, but I do not love Roosevelt and all his kike boyfriends‰ (Thomas 1999, 327). On May 11, 1944, Gillars participated in the doomsday drama, written by Koischewitz, entitled Vision of Invasion. In the drama, which was broadcast to soldiers preparing for doomsday, Gillars played the role of a GIÊs mother, crying out to American soldiers, „Everybody says the invasion is suicide. The simplest person knows that. Between seventy and ninety per cent of the boys will be killed, or crippled for the rest of their lives!‰ (Bergmeier and Lotz 1997, 58). Gillars continued broadcasting her propaganda programs until the fall of Nazism. After the war, she went into hiding and was discovered hiding in the cellar of a bombed-out building in Berlin. Gillars was brought back to the United States in 1946 where she was held in jail until her trial in 1949. Upon return, she was viewed as a traitor and was charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy from December 11, 1941, through May 6, 1945. The 10-count indictment accused Gillars of violating her allegiance to the United States and said she „knowingly, intentionally, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably did adhere to the enemies of the United States (New York Times 1948, 11). Her trial in 1949 captured public attention due to the soap-operatic quality of Miss Gillars and her crime. News accounts of GillarsÊs capture and criminal trial provide evidence of the complexity of motives behind Gillars activities. According to reports by the New York Times, after being captured, Gillars stated that she had become Axis Sally because of the „outlet for dramatic expression‰ (New York Times 1946, 20) and the salary she earned from her work with the German radio. At trial, she tearfully

Debbie Gindorf |

insisted that she never meant to harm the United States. She appeared to contradict herself, stating that she acted of her own free will and yet blaming her involvement on her love for Koischewitz and fear of reprisals from the Nazis. Gillars was convicted of one count of treason for her involvement with the Vision of Invasion broadcast. She was sentenced to 10 to 30 years in prison for her acts of treason and was fined $10,000. She appealed her conviction unsuccessfully and was paroled after serving 12 years in the federal prison in Alderson, West Virginia. Mildred Gillars died on June 25, 1988. Obituaries documenting the death of the infamous propagandist and traitor Mildred Gillars, aka Axis Sally, were published in various newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the London Times. While Mildred Gillars was only one of the Americans who were tried for treason for their activities during World War II, her case stood out due to the continuing debates about whether her radio broadcasts amounted to treason against the United States. After her trial, there was a general disagreement in society about whether Mildred Gillars deserved the death penalty. Did her actions equate to treason? The Axis Sally case illustrates the complexities inherent in the Constitutional definition of treason and the difficulties in determining exactly what types of activities constitute treason. Many of the same issues that arose in the case of Axis Sally are being raised in relation to cases of treason by American citizens in the on-going war against terrorism. Resources Associated Press. 1988. „Nazi Propagandist Dead at 87.‰ July 1. Retrieved online from the Lexus-Nexus Academic database. Bergmeier, Horst J. P., and Rainer E. Lotz. 1997. HitlerÊs Airwaves: The Inside Story of Nazi Radio Broadcasting and Propaganda Swing. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fugate, Tally Dawn. 1998. „The Berlin Bitch‰: An American Voice of Nazi Propaganda. MasterÊs Thesis. Edmond: University of Central Oklahoma. New York Times. 1946. „ ÂAxis SallyÊ Tells Why She Broadcast.‰ December 26, 20. New York Times. 1948. „Indictment Calls Axis Sally a Traitor.‰ September 11, 11. Thomas, Theodore N. 1999. „Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk (ÂAxis SallyÊ).‰ In Kenneth T. Jackson (Ed.), The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives. Volume Two: 1986ă1990. Biography and Genealogy Master Index (326ă327). Farmington Hills, MI: Thomas Gale. Note: Various articles on this case appear in the New York Times for the years 1949, 1950, and 1988.

Rashi K. Shukla

Debbie Gindorf (1964–) Debra Lynn Gindorf was convicted of first-degree murder after being found guilty for killing her two children in March 1985. Gindorf, who suffered from postpartum

431

432 | Debbie Gindorf

depression and psychosis, is currently serving a mandatory minimum sentence of natural life in prison for her crimes. At the time of Ms. GindorfÊs offense, postpartum depression was not recognized as an illness, nor was it available as legal defense. Debra Lynn Rutkowski was born to Donna and Walter Rutkowski on April 19, 1964, in Waukegan, Illinois. After her parentsÊ divorce at the age of 10, she spent her time shifting between her parentsÊ homes. Debra dropped out of high school during her junior year at Zion-Benton High School in Zion, Illinois. In 1982, 18 years old and pregnant with her first child, Debra married Randy Gindorf. The marriage between Debra and Randy Gindorf was unstable and turbulent. Randy abused Debra both mentally and physically. Debra had a miscarriage after a beating by Randy. In 1984, while pregnant with her son Jason, Debra was granted a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty. However, the problems that plagued the marriage persisted. Debra was an unemployed single mother who relied primarily on governmental support to care for her children. Debra Gindorf experienced severe depression after the births of both of her children. She sought assistance for her depression and was diagnosed with chemical depression while pregnant with Jason. Due in part to her unstable life circumstances, she did not receive appropriate therapy and medication. Although she was experiencing severe depression after the birth of Jason, Gindorf was described by neighbors as a responsible and conscientious mother. According to court documents, it is unclear whether Gindorf decided to kill her children the night of the offense or sometime before. On the basis of the suicide notes she wrote to her children, it appears that her original intent was suicide. In March 1985, after deciding to commit suicide, Gindorf asked a friend to take her to the store to purchase sleeping pills. On March 28, 1985, suicidal, extremely depressed, and drinking, Debra crushed the sleeping pills, placing them into three piles. She then mixed the pills into her childrenÊs drinks, feeding the mixture to 23-month-old Christina and 3-month-old Joshua. Debra put the children to bed and cared for them as they became sick. She then consumed the last pile of crushed sleeping pills. The next morning, Debra Gindorf awoke to discover that she had vomited up the pills. Her children, however, were dead. She spent the next several hours trying to commit suicide by inhaling fumes from her gas oven, attempting to suffocate herself with a pillow, and by slashing her wrists with a kitchen knife. Unsuccessful in her suicide attempts, she walked to the police station and reported her crimes. The key question in this case revolves around why Debra Gindorf committed her crimes. At trial, two expert witnesses testified that Ms. GindorfÊs psychotic episode and „departure from reality‰ were likely the result of GindorfÊs severe mental illnesses and posttraumatic stress disorder (Butterfield, 2006: 4). This argument was rejected, however, on the basis of testimony from the stateÊs expert witness and lay

Debbie Gindorf |

433

witnesses who provided evidence supporting the notion that although Gindorf suffered from a mental illness, she was „able to tell right from wrong‰ (4) and was „capable of conforming her conduct to the requirements of law‰ (4), thus defeating IllinoisÊ two-pronged test for insanity. GindorfÊs suicide notes to her children provide insight into her motives for suicide. In her letter to Christina she wrote, „Mommy had too many problems in her head, that she couldnÊt deal with, no matter what decision she made. Mommy was very depressed and unhappy woman . . . Mommy wanted you and loved you very much (emphasis in original)‰ (Petition for Executive Clemency, 2003: 7). In her letter to Joshua, she added, „Even tho IÊm not around I still love you very very much . . . (emphasis in original)‰ (Petition for Executive Clemency, 2003: 7). She later commented on her motives on March 25, 1985, stating, „there was really no concern that what I was doing was wrong or anything like that. It was just all about us leaving‰ (Skalski, 2004: 1). In a later interview, Debra described how she views her offense in retrospect, telling a reporter, „I donÊt ever say Âwhen I killed my kidsÊ . . . Even though it happened with my own hands, it wasnÊt me who killed them, it was the illness‰ (Zorn, 2009: 1). Although Debra Gindorf was deemed mentally ill by the court, she was found guilty of two counts of murder following a bench trial. She received a mandatory sentence of natural life imprisonment. Attorneys for Gindorf filed clemency petitions in 1989, 2000, and 2003, but the petitions were unsuccessful. In May 2009, Governor Pat Quinn finally gave her a commuted sentence for time served. Today there is a greater awareness of postpartum depression and its consequences within psychiatry, the criminal justice system, and society. However, little was known about the severity of such mental illnesses at the time of GindorfÊs crimes. Postpartum depression or psychosis was not even included in the American Psychiatric AssociationÊs Diagnostic and Statistical manual until 1994, years after GindorfÊs trial and initial appeal. In recent years there have been a number of highprofile cases similar to GindorfÊs in which mothers have been absolved of criminal responsibility or received more lenient sentences. The Committee to Free Debra Gindorf continues to work to free Gindorf and raise awareness for postpartum depression. In a letter to her supporters, Gindorf commented on the significance of her case, stating, „Regardless of whether I get released or not, just knowing that, because of my case, some of you have spread awareness of postpartum illness to others is awesome, gratifying and satisfying to me!‰ (Gindorf, n.d.). Resources Butterfield, Jessica. 2006. Comment: Blue mourning·postpartum psychosis and the criminal insanity defense, waking to the reality of women who kill their children. John Marshall Law Review 39: 515. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from the Lexis-Nexus academic database.

434

|

Emma Goldman

Gindorf, Debra Lynn. n.d. A Message of Thanks from Debra Gindorf. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from www.freedebra.org. The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Debra Lynn Gindorf, DefendantAppellant. No. 2ă86ă0147. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. 159 Ill. App. 3d 647; 512 N.E. 2d 770; 1987 Ill. App. LEXIS 3008; 111 Ill. Dec. 381. Filed August 10, 1987. Retrieved February 4, 2008 from Lexis Nexus Academic, Federal and State Cases database. Petition for Executive Clemency. 2003. Pardon Docket No. 24126, Before the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, Advising the Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor, In the Matter of Debra Lynn Gindorf, Register No. N-67063, P.O. Box 5001, Dwight, Illinois 60420, Retrieved December 13, 2007, from www.freedebra.org. Skalski, Ginny. 2004. Citing postpartum illness, woman who killed children seeks clemency. April 29. Associated Press State & Local Wire. Zorn, Eric. 2009. Quinn brave where Blago was cowardly·announces he will release Debra Gindorf. May 1. Chicago Tribune.

Rashi K. Shukla

Emma Goldman (1869–1940) Emma Goldman burst onto the American cultural scene during a tumultuous period in history characterized by a wide and ever growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots. As a powerful public speaker and social activist, she was arrested for public order crimes such as „inciting a riot‰ and the dissemination of illegal materials. Goldman looked upon her time in prison in a positive light, viewing it as an opportunity to bring public attention to her many causes, which, over the course of her lifetime, included freedom of speech, workers rights, legal access to birth control, and opposition to forced conscription into the army. She was born on June 27, 1869, to a Jewish family living in a region of Eastern Europe now known as Lithuania. In search of greater economic opportunities, her family eventually moved to Saint Petersburg, Russia, the heart of economically oppressive and anti-Semitic Czar1901 mugshot of Emma Goldman ist Russia. As a result of the harsh living con- taken after her arrest in President ditions, she chose to immigrate to the United McKinley’s assassination case. (LiStates at the age of 16, joining family members brary of Congress.)

Emma Goldman | 435

who had settled in Rochester, New York, some years earlier. Having worked as a seamstress in Russia, she quickly found similar employment in the United States. But she soon found the long hours and regimented factory atmosphere far more repressive than what she had experienced in her homeland, noting that the Russian factory working conditions, which permitted the women to sing, allowed for the development of a strong sense of camaraderie. Moving to New York City after a brief and unhappy marriage to a fellow Russian immigrant, she immediately became involved with the anarchist cause (one of many popular social movements, including socialism and „radical‰ labor, aimed at alleviating economic oppression and massive income disparities). Anarchism stands in opposition to any kind of organized governmental entity in the belief that the state serves to stand in the way of individual liberty and any kind of real social progress. Anarchists believe that if the constraints of organized government could be completely removed, people would naturally move toward collectivistic living situations that fostered cooperation rather than competition. Joining forces with notable anarchists such as Johann Most and Alexander Berkman, Goldman gradually began speaking on behalf of the cause, and she became a powerful public orator, lecturing to crowds of more than 8,000 people at the height of her popularity. Developing a passionate belief in individual freedom, she ignored many social conventions of the day, taking on as many as 20 lovers over the course of her lifetime Charged with inciting a riot in 1893, her first arrest occurred as a result of her participation in a demonstration involving scores of unemployed women and girls in New YorkÊs Union Square who were demanding work. As she marched alongside the downtrodden workers, she carried a red banner with a quote that stated „demonstrate before the palaces of the rich; demand work. If they do not give you work, demand bread. If they deny you both, take bread, it is your sacred right‰ (Falk, 1984: 26). After being convicted of inciting a riot, she was sentenced to a year in Blackwell Prison, where she was trained in nursing. This training subsequently led to her long career in midwifery. GoldmanÊs second arrest came in 1901 after police officials made the assumption that one of her fiery speeches induced audience participant Leon Czolgosz to shoot and kill President William McKinley. Suspected of planning the crime, she was arrested and held in a Chicago jail for several weeks, but she was ultimately set free after convincing law enforcement officials that she hardly knew Czolgosz and was in no way connected with the assassination. Continuing with her progressive activities, she founded Mother Earth magazine in 1906·a periodical dedicated to disseminating information in support of the anarchist cause. Soon thereafter, she was arrested while attending an anarchist meeting in New York City and charged with violating the dictates of the newly

436 |

Emma Goldman

instituted Anarchist Exclusion Act, but after being bailed out of jail by her anarchist comrades, the charges against her were dropped. A similar arrest took place in San Francisco two years later for unlawful assemblage, preaching anarchist doctrine, and denouncing organized government. On this occasion she was held in custody for several weeks until the $2,000 bail money could be raised, and the resulting month-long trial consequently led to her acquittal. By 1914 Goldman had become deeply involved in the „right to birth control‰ movement despite the fact that the dissemination of birth control literature on contraception had been outlawed under the 1873 Comstock Act, which rendered birth control information obscene. For Goldman, the Comstock law was just another example of the governmentÊs tendency to encroach upon the freedom of the individual, and her next major arrest occurred in 1916 for disseminating information on birth control. Given the choice of a $100 fine in lieu of 15 days in jail, she opted for detention believing that the sentence would bring greater public attention to the birth control cause. Shortly thereafter, the United States entered into World War I, instituting the Selective Service Act which required young men between the ages of 21 and 30 to register for the draft. Seeing this as a further infringement on the rights of the individual in the governmentÊs attempt to promote capitalism through military aggression, Goldman and fellow anarchist Alexander Berkman organized the No Conscription League of New York. For her activism against the draft, she was arrested on June 15, 1917. Convicted of espionage and conspiracy to prevent persons from registering for the draft, she was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and was sentenced to two years in prison with the recommendation of deportation once her sentence was completed. Upon being released from prison in 1919, she immediately resumed her speaking activities but soon discovered that her deportation papers had indeed been signed. After losing a legal appeal in December, she accepted her sentence opting to abandon her legal right to further appeals. Incarcerated at Ellis Island in the immediate days before her departure, she was forced onto a boat that set sail for Europe on December 21, 1919. Though she had asked to be sent to Soviet Russia because of her intense optimism towards the incipient socialist government, her hopes were soon shattered soon after witnessing the tyranny of the regime, and she eventually began to speak out against its oppressive rule. After a two-year stay in Russia, she spent a brief period in Berlin before moving to England and finally to France, where, with the help of friends, she was able to purchase a small home in Saint Tropez. It was there that she would go on to pen Living My Life, her 1934 autobiography. Towards the end of the decade she found time to support the Spanish anarchists by writing articles for European newspapers, even traveling to Spain to assist embattled anarchists in what was to become a lost cause.

González Valenzuela, Delfina; et al. | 437

From the very beginning of her 20-year exile, Goldman longed to return to the United States, but besides a brief three-month speaking tour in 1934 intended to promote her autobiography, she was never allowed permanent entry into the country. She died on May 14, 1940, from complications from a stroke while living in a small apartment in Toronto, Canada; thus concluded the life of a woman who did all that she could to live by the dictates of her anarchist ideals. Gaining permanent entry into the United States in death, she was buried at Waldheim cemetery in Chicago. Resources Bucklin, M. 2004. Emma Goldman: An Exceedingly Dangerous Woman. A Nebraska ETV Network Production for the American Experience Series, PBS. Dalton, D. 1995. The Idea of Anarchism and the Example of Emma Goldman. In Power Over People: Classical and Modern Political Theory. Part II Tape 2, Lecture 14. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company. Falk, C. 1984. Love, Anarchy, and Emma Goldman. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Goldman, E. 1934. Living My Life. New York: Garden City Publishing.

Kristyan M. Kouri

Delfina González Valenzuela (ca. 1911–?), María de Jesús González (ca. 1924–?), and Eva González (n.d.) The González Sisters, or „Las Poquianchis,‰ are on record for being some of the most notorious white slave operators in North America, operating out of the Angel Ranch (El Rancho El ˘ngel), near San Francisco del Rincon, Guanajuato, Mexico. Young women were lured to the operation with the promise of legitimate employment. These women then were systematically beaten and tortured, sold to brothels for an average of $80, and murdered if they were not compliant, attempted to escape, or lost their attractiveness. Those who were not sold to other brothels were kept at the sistersÊ own establishments. It is estimated that over 2,000 women were run through the ranch between 1954 and 1963. In late 1963, three young women had gone missing in and around Guadalajara, one of whom was Maria Hernández. The mothers of these three children made a complaint to the police in León, in Central Mexico. Apparently, they had been approached by a young girl who said that not only had she escaped from a brothel but that their children were being held on a ranch just outside of León. Through investigation, police found the Angel Ranch. One officer commented that as he was looking around the property, he stepped in a soft spot where a womanÊs hand was uncovered. Storming the house, and then a nearby brothel, they found 19 teenaged

438 | González Valenzuela, Delfina; et al.

girls, aged 14ă25. Among these women were the three who had recently gone missing. Maria Hernández told police a story that was repeated in various forms by many of the women who had been at the ranch. She said she was approached in a park by an older woman with a large mole on her face. This woman was later identified as Josefina Gutierrez, a procurer for the Angel Ranch. She offered Maria a job as a housekeeper in a middle- or upper-class family. Upon her arrival, she was systematically gang-raped and beaten. When she could not work the following day, she was beaten again. She was then sent off to a training brothel in San Francisco del Rincon. It is there that she was found. Josephina eventually told what she knew about her employers and their operation which lead to a formal investigation into this group. Others recounted how some girls were beaten and starved so badly that they could not work. These women were removed from the brothel and were told that they had „gone to the hospital‰ and were never seen again. Other stories involved a form of torture called the cama real, or „royal bed,‰ which was located at a ranch outside León, where women were sent to die or to receive discipline. The bed consisted of a narrow board where women were forced to lie wrapped in barbed wire, sometimes for days. The bed was designed to cause pain with even the smallest of movements. One woman described being forced to kneel against a wall with a brick in each hand and another on her head and being whipped. Another stated she was left alone to give birth to her baby which later died and was buried on the ranch. Reports vary as to the results of the search of the grounds of the ranch and brothels. One source states that the bodies of 17 women and 5 babies were found, and another pegs the adult female body count at 80 with a „large number‰ of infant corpses. Eventually the police established that there were at least 35 murders that took place as part of the slavery ring with some stating there were as many as 100. The ranch undertaker described how she „sprinkled the bodies with kerosene and set them on fire. Then we would call our gravedigger‰ (Sisters of Shame, 1964). In October 1964, the courtroom was cleared for the sentencing hearing to protect the sisters against attack. All three sisters were charged with and found guilty of first-degree murder, white slavery, and various other crimes. They received a 40-year prison term; the maximum allowed under Mexican law. This case is significant as it is one of the few documented cases of a white slavery ring existing post World War II. The fact that this ring was run by three women in the same family was shocking, and several Mexican papers followed this trial with interest. Jorge IbargüengoitiaÊs 1977 Las Muertas (The Dead) is a fictionalized interpretation of the crimes of these women. He used the facts of the case to illustrate the sensationalism of the media. He also utilized actual testimonies and documents to give an accurate representation of what went on at the ranch. Reports

Sandra Good | 439

of this landmark trial did not, however, make it over the American border; therefore, there are few reports in English on the nature and extent of these sistersÊ crimes. Most notably, this case highlights the dangers that face women in poor, developing countries who are looking for work. The sexual exploitation of women into this white slavery ring is representative of similar cases of human trafficking that are more recent. In each case, poor women, desperate to find work to support families, were taken with promises of good work and fair wages and then systematically groomed as fodder for the prostitution industry. The ring operated for almost 10 years without judicial repercussions. It is clear that the sisters had several contacts within the government who were aware of the operations of the ranch and thus allowed it to continue. The sisters received a tip before the police began their initial investigations at the ranch. It was rumored they were preparing to sell their assets and take the money earned from the operation to the United States. Resources Ibargüengoitia, Jorge. (1977). Las Muertas. México: Joaquín Mortiz. (In Spanish) „Sisters of Shame.‰ (1964, October 30). Time. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www. time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876317,00.html

Hannah Scott

Sandra Good (1944–) Sandra Good was a member of the notorious Manson family that terrorized California in the 1960s. Good was not involved in the infamous 1969 Tate/La Bianca murders, but she shaved her head and carved an „X‰ on her forehead during the trial to show her support. The youngest of three girls, Sandra Collins Good was born on February 20, 1944. In her early years she lived in a middle-class home in San Diego, California, but her parents divorced when she was four years old. Her father was a stockbroker, and her mother was a homemaker. Good attended the University of Oregon and SacraSandra Good, one of the members of the notorious mento State College. She has one Manson “family,” talks to reporters in California, son, Ivan, who was born on Sep1975. (AP/Wide World Photos) tember 16, 1969. The identity of

440 |

Sandra Good

IvanÊs father has not been confirmed; some suspect that the father is her former boyfriend Joel Pugh, son of a Mayo Clinic doctor, and another potential fatherÊs name is Charles Manson. Sandra GoodÊs criminal history spans several years. Good was arrested in 1971 while attempting to help Manson family associate Kenneth Como escape from the Hall of Justice and again in 1972 for trying to hide Aryan brotherhood member Steve Bekins after he robbed a supermarket. Finally, in 1975, Good was arrested for sending threatening letters to corporate executives whom she believed were polluting the earth. After MansonÊs incarceration, Sandra Good and Lynette Fromme, a second member of the Manson family, moved to Sacramento, California, where the two women became orders in MansonÊs new religion, the Order of the Rainbow. The two women changed their names to show their devotion to Manson and the order. Sandra took the name „Blue‰ because of her blue eyes and the ocean, and Lynette took the name „Red‰ because of her red hair and redwoods. Sandra and Lynette led drug-free lives of abstinence and became more and more concerned with environmentalism. Lynette Fromme went on to attempt to shoot President Gerald R. Ford in 1975, for which she served 34 years in prison and was released on parole in 2009. The two women created the International PeopleÊs Court of Retribution (IPCR), a fictitious terrorist group dedicated to ending pollution. In a CBC interview with Barbara Frum in 1975, Good made reference to the IPCR as a „wave of assassins watching those that were killing the wildlife and the earth‰ (CBC, 1975). Shortly after, Good and several other Family members sent out threatening letters that claimed there were thousands of terrorists in IPCR waiting to assassinate the CEOs of companies that polluted the earth. In a 1990 interview with WGR-radio in Buffalo, New York, Good claimed that 3,000 letters had been sent to the heads of corporations and industries in the United States and Europe (WGR, 1990). She further explained that the letters were not personal threats because „there is no way that I [Good] could give these people the justice that they [the letters] were calling for‰ (WGR, 1990). In December 1975, Sandra Good was arrested on five counts of conspiracy to send threatening letters through the mail. She was convicted on all charges and served 10 years in prison. Good was incarcerated first in Terminal Island Prison then moved to Pleasanton, California, and finally to Alderson, West Virginia, where she was housed until her release. Good was paroled in 1985 but refused her release terms because authorities would not allow her to move to the town where Manson was incarcerated. She finally agreed to parole conditions that allowed her to relocate to a small town, Bridgeport, Vermont, on Lake Champlain. She has since moved back to California to be closer to Manson. Good, under her nickname „Blue,‰ has been active in developing and maintaining a website dedicated to Manson and his beliefs (All the Way Alive; One World Order). She has continued to be a strong supporter of Manson and is

Gessina Gottfried | 441

publicly critical of the prosecution of the murders that resulted in MansonÊs life incarceration. See also Atkins, Susan; Kasabian, Linda; Krenwinkel, Patricia; Van Houten, Leslie Resources „Blue Interview.‰ All the Way Alive, One World Order (website dedicated to Charles Manson). http://www.allthewayalive.com/One_World_Order/blueinterview.html. Retrieved July 15, 2011. „Blue Thought.‰ All the Way Alive, One World Order (website dedicated to Charles Manson). http://www.allthewayalive.com/One_World_Order/bluethought.html. Retrieved July 15, 2011. CBC. (1975). Interview with Barbara Frum. Available at: www.archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1ă68ă 368ă2086/arts_entertainment/frum/clip4. Retrieved October 25, 2007. Emerson, Bo. Sandra Collins Good. Available at: www.cielodrive.com. Retrieved October 29, 2007. Endicott, William. 1975. „Sandra Good Indicted in Death Threat Conspiracy.‰ Los Angeles Times. December, 23, B1 and B12. „Sandra Good, Part of Manson ÂFamily,Ê Turns Down Parole. (1985, March 30). Los Angeles Times. B1 and B4. „Two Devotees of Manson Guilty of Death Threats.‰ (1976, March 17) Los Angeles Times. 3 and 27. „Quotes from BlueÊs Radio Interviews, 1975.‰ All the Way Alive, One World Order (website dedicated to Charles Manson). http://www.allthewayalive.com/One_World_Order/ true.blue.html. Retrieved July 15, 2011.

Tara N. Richards

Gessina Gottfried (1798–1828) Born is Bremen, Germany, Gessina Gottfried was a notorious female serial killer. Little is actually known about her life before she started killing. She confessed to 30 poisonings, 16 of which were fatal. Where possible, she had victimsÊ possessions signed over to her before the victims died, and but she admitted to operating without a conscience. Her crimes stand as some of the earliest recorded cases of serial murder, made even more rare as these murders were committed by a woman. Although little is known about her upbringing, it is known that at 20 years old Gessina married a drunkard named Miltenberg against her parentÊs wishes. They had two children. His alcoholism interfered with his ability to sexually satisfy her so she took a lover named Gottfried. When neighbors discovered the affair, she decided to kill her husband by sprinkling a white powder, later found to be mouse poison containing arsenic, in his beer. Wishing to marry Gottfried, she killed her own children by sprinkling poison on their meals. Doctors attributed the deaths

442 |

Gessina Gottfried

to a sudden onset of illness. Her parents were also poisoned over lunch when they objected to the speed of the remarriage. Her parentÊs deaths were attributed to old age and bowel inflammation. It is suspected that Gottfried was suspicious of these deaths. Gessina began poisoning him slowly, marrying him hours before he died ensuring all his possessions were signed over to her. No suspicions were aroused with his death. Her brother, also an alcoholic, moved in with her after GottfriedÊs death, succumbing to venereal disease just before signing all his savings over to Gessina. It was reported that she poisoned another unnamed suitor, who willed his estate to her before he died. She also admitted to poisoning an old friend in Hamburg who had asked her to repay a debt. Gessina Gottfried purchased a large house on the Pelzerstrasse in Bremen. Despite her acquisitions, she ended up being a housekeeper in her own house after the bank foreclosed on her mortgage. The house was bought by a wheelwright named Rumf, his wife, and four children. Rumf had a son during Gessina GottfriedÊs early tenure as housekeeper, living only one day under GottfriedÊs care. All remaining family members eventually died shortly thereafter with the exception of Mr. Rumf. He became suspicious after he started feeling ill after each meal, suspecting the white powder that was placed on each dish. Eventually, he took some meat from a meal in to be analyzed. The powder was found to be white arsenic. Gottfried was arrested March 5, 1828, and charged with the murder of six Rumf family members. She boasted of 10 other deaths and another 14 attempts while in custody. At trial she was stripped of her dentures, cosmetics, and the 13 corsets she routinely wore, giving her a skeletal appearance. She confessed to her crimes and testified as to how she liked to watch her victims suffer. She offered nothing by way of defense. She was put to death by decapitation later that year for her crimes. It is recorded that some of her last words were the following: „I was born without a conscience, which allowed me to live without fear.‰ There is anecdotal evidence that Gottfried was a psychopath or suffering from antisocial personality disorder, given her self-admitted lack of conscience. She liked to control others. She stated that she took all possessions of some of her victims but also admitted to enjoying the suffering of others. It is suggested that she liked the control that othersÊ deaths brought to her life. Although some female serial killers are motivated by financial gain, it is suggested here that she had possessions signed over to her as part of a sadistic practice of dominance and control. She is noteworthy as there are few early documented cases of female serial murderers. Resource Newton, Michael. 1993. Gottfried, Gessina Margaretha. In Bad girls do it!: An Encyclopedia of Female Murderers (85ă86). Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited.

Hannah Scott

Rose Greenhow |

443

Rose Greenhow (1814–1864) Biographers are uncertain of the date of birth of Maria Rosatta OÊNeale because she kept her exact age to herself all of her life. It was but one of the many mysteries surrounding a woman destined to be a renowned Confederate spy during the Civil War. She was the middle child in a family of five daughters. Her oldest sister was born in 1810, and her youngest sister was born in 1817. As the middle child, Rose, as she came to be called, was probably born between 1813 and 1814. The family lived on a small farm in Montgomery County, Maryland. RoseÊs father, John OÊNeale, died at age 34 in April 1817, either by falling from his horse when drunk or being killed by his attending slave who was also inebriated and later hanged even though he protested his innocence. OÊNealeÊs death left his 23-yearold wife, Eliza, in desperate financial straits. After selling first her slaves and then some furnishings to keep her family fed and housed, she was forced to sell nearly everything after 10 years of hardship. In January 1828, she sent Rose and her sister Ellen to live with their aunt and uncle, Maria and Henry Hill, in Washington, D.C., where the couple ran a boarding house for Congressmen. The move remade the sistersÊ lives from poor farm girls to favorites of the HillÊs influential boarders. These important men welcomed the spirited, intelligent, and beautiful young women into their company and confidence. It was here that Rose met and became a close friend of South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun. Their friendship continued until his death at the boarding house in 1850. RoseÊs oldest sister, Susannah, soon moved to Washington to marry a member of one of the capitalÊs first families, descended from Martha Washington on the paternal side. The marriage provided an introduction for Rose and Ellen into aristocratic Washington society where they mingled with men such as Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and James Buchanan. Their close friends were the nieces and a nephew of Dolley Madison. The latter, James Madison Cutts, courted Ellen and married her in 1833. Rose, still in her late teens, exotic looking with dark hair and brown eyes, had many suitors, and in 1835, she married one Rose Greenhow was a spy for the Conof the most eligible bachelors in the city, federacy during the American Civil War. She is reported to have continued her in- Robert Greenhow. He was a physician in telligence activity even after her capture by his early thirties with enviable family conthe Union in 1861. (Library of Congress) nections. At the time, he served with the

444

|

Rose Greenhow

Department of State as a highly paid librarian and translator of Spanish, French, German, and Italian. Within seven years, the couple produced three daughters and a son but lost the last two while they were still babies. Another son was born in 1848, but he died the next year, and another daughter was born and soon died the year after that. The Greenhows lost two sons and two daughters in three painful years. RoseÊs mother died within a few more months, and her close friend and mentor, John C. Calhoun, died in 1850, as she sat by his bedside at the boarding house. Rose had adopted CalhounÊs ardent pro-slavery and stateÊs rights positions and believed she must carry on in protests to protect slavery in territories being admitted to statehood. In her mid-thirties, Rose remained a beautiful and vibrant woman, in spite of the repeated sadness in her life and was ready to join her husband in a new adventure. Greenhow had tired of his work at the State Department and secured a diplomatic assignment in Mexico City from President Zachary Taylor. Leaving their three daughters in Washington with RoseÊs sister, Ellen, he and Rose set out for Mexico. Upon their arrival, they were welcomed by society leaders, including a French land speculator, Jose Yves Limantour, who held the titles to large parcels of land around a Mexican settlement, Yerba Buena, in the newly admitted state of California. Limantour asked for GreenhowÊs assistance in proving his land claims in California, and after only six months in Mexico City, the Greenhows left with him for the area that was soon to become San Francisco. Life in California was not easy since living accommodations were scarce and the gold rush settlers had taken the most desirable accommodations, and the muddy town was a far cry from what Rose had known in Washington. In addition, a devastating fire swept the city in May 1851, and Rose, who missed her children after an absence of over a year, decided to return to Washington without her husband. After an arduous trip and a few days of rest, once she reached Washington, Rose wasted no time contacting old friends to reestablish her social circle. She began work for James Buchanan in his presidential campaign in 1852. Although Buchanan lost to Franklin Pierce, her loyalty to him would serve her well since Buchanan, in line to become ambassador to the Court of St. James in London, would be elected president four years later. Greenhow paid a visit to his family in the summer of 1852 but returned to San Francisco without Rose and the children. Scarcely nine months later, Rose gave birth to another daughter, named Rose after herself. The child was never to know her father since 10 months later Greenhow fell on a plank walkway in San Francisco suffering injuries that led to a fatal infection six weeks later. Rose filed a lawsuit against the city and was awarded $10,000 (about $250,000 in 2006 dollars according to Measuring Worth statistics). This amount provided her with a substantial nest egg that allowed the two middle daughters to be sent to boarding school and provided an appropriate wedding for the oldest. Her youngest, „Little Rose,‰ was a constant companion.

Rose Greenhow |

445

A small, close-knit group of Southerners in Washington, of which Rose was a central figure, were favored with frequent invitations to the White House during BuchananÊs four-year term of office. However in 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln ended their social domination and brought about a split over slavery that drove wedges between friends and even family members. Rose was outspoken in her defense of Southern states and slavery even though she managed to keep social contacts with those who disagreed with her. She was urged to do so by Confederate General Pierre BeauregardÊs adjutant in order to gather information from all sources and to use her home as a center to help states that had seceded from the Union. She remained friends with the Confederate president, Jefferson Davis and agreed to help in any way that she could. To prove her loyalty, in July 1861, she passed information concerning Union troops to Beauregard, which Jefferson Davis later credited as key to the Confederate victory at Manassas in the First Battle of Bull Run. Allan Pinkerton, head of Secret Service, became suspicious and began to monitor her visitors, eventually putting her under arrest after a search of her home uncovered maps and notes about Union military movements. For six months, she was held with Little Rose in her own home, which had been turned into a guarded institution for women prisoners. During those months, she boldly continued to gather information from her guards and visitors, which she transmitted to the Confederacy. Lincoln finally had her moved to the Old Capitol Prison, where she remained with her eight-year-old daughter in squalid conditions for over a year until arrangements were made to exile her to Virginia with a promise not to return until the war was over. Rose was welcomed as a heroine in Richmond and had scarcely recovered from her voyage when Jefferson Davis sent her a much needed draft for $2,500 as a reward for her services to the Confederate cause (Blackman, 250). Davis, eager to gain recognition and support from the French and English to bolster his troops, soon made an unprecedented decision to send Rose to Europe as his emissary to the heads of those countries. Her cover would be that she was seeking a publisher in England for the diary she kept while in prison. Upon her arrival, she signed a contract for a book, which was published three months after her arrival. Her signature on the contract marked out the letter „e‰ at the end of OÊNeale, and she became known as Rose OÊNeal Greenhow, author of My Imprisonment and the First Year of Abolition Rule at Washington. In spite of being entertained by heads of state, being presented in French and English courts, including audiences with Queen Victoria and Napoleon III, and having a romance with Lord Granville, Leader of the British House of Lords, Rose was unsuccessful in her mission to win support for the Confederacy. After a year abroad, she was on her way home after having left Little Rose in a convent in France for safety until the war was over.

446 |

Belle Gunness

She carried the considerable royalties from her book in gold sovereigns which she intended to donate to the Confederate army. As her vessel neared the coast, surrounded by pursuing Union gunboats, a fierce storm ran it aground. Fearing capture by the Union, Rose insisted on escaping by rowboat which was quickly capsized by enormous waves. Weighed down by the gold coins, she drowned and later washed ashore. Her body was wrapped in a Confederate flag at her full military burial in Wilmington, North Carolina, in October 1864. In 1888, the Ladies Memorial Association marked her grave with a marble cross bearing the words: „Mrs. Rose OÊNeal Greenhow. A Bearer of Dispatches to the Confederate Government‰ (HarperÊs Monthly, 124). Resources Blackman, Ann. Wild Rose: The True Story of a Civil War Spy, Random House Publishers, New York, 2005. Greenhow, Rose. My Imprisonment and the First Year of Abolition Rule in Washington. Richard Bentley, London, 1863. HarperÊs Monthly. December 1911ăMay 1912. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1912. James, Edward (Ed.). Notable American Women, Vol. I. Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.

Marcia Lasswell

Belle Gunness (1859–?) Belle Gunness was a notorious female serial killer identified as a „black widow‰ type, killing husbands, lovers, and many of her own children. It is estimated that she murdered anywhere from 13 to 23 people. Although a variety of methods were used, she poisoned most of her victims. Bodies were then chopped up into pieces and buried under various structures on her farm. Belle Gunness often collected insurance monies for their deaths and various arsons she perpetrated. Belle Gunness was born Brynhild Paulsdatter Storset on November 11, 1859, in Selbu, Norway. Belle emigrated to the United States in 1883, anglicizing her name to Belle Paulson. She lived with her sister Olina (Nellie) Larson and her sisterÊs husband in Chicago until she met Mads Sorrenson in 1884. They adopted Jenny Olson in 1890, and in 1896, Belle bore her first child, Caroline, who died five months after her birth. A second child, Myrtle, was born in 1897. Her first son, Axel, followed in 1898, but he too died in infancy. Lucy was born the following year. Also during this time, a confectionary, in 1896, and a private residence, in 1900, were insured and burned to the ground. Caroline, Axel, and the properties were insured.

Belle Gunness | 447

On July 30, 1900, Mads Sorrenson died. Apparently, Belle had given her husband a „powder‰ for a cold, which sent him into convulsions. The cause of death was determined to be an enlarged heart. He died on the only day that two life insurance policies, filled out in her husbandÊs name, overlapped. Belle invested the $8,500 insurance claims in a farm near La Porte, Indiana. In 1902, Belle married recently widowed, Peter GunBelle Gunness, shown with three of her children. ness. Nine months later he died, in (Library of Congress) a rather bizarre manner. According to Belle, she stated that Peter must have accidentally tipped a large bowl full of hot brine onto him when reaching for a pair of shoes he had placed on the stove to dry. After being scalded, he had repeated complaints about a cut on his head. The blow was fatal. When asked about it, she stated: „I donÊt know . . . I picked up the meat grinder from the floor, and I think that must have tumbled on him, one way or another. That is what I think, but I didnÊt see it‰ (Shepherd, 246). Her daughter Jenny confirmed her story, and Belle collected a $2,500 insurance policy. She later gave birth to a child named Phillip. Three men in succession were hired and ended their relationship with Belle rather abruptly. Only Ray Lamphere stayed around the farm even after being fired. She then took out a succession of advertisements in a Norwegian paper. For example: „A rich and good-looking woman, the owner of a pig farm, desires to correspond with a gentleman of wealth and refinement. Object matrimony, Scandinavian preferred‰ (4 more skeletons in Indiana mystery, 2). Men began coming to La Porte to marry the rich widow, disappearing suddenly often after making a substantial withdrawal from the bank. On April 27, 1908, BelleÊs house burned. The bodies of her children Myrtle, Lucy, and Phillip were found in the basement. Authorities also found the charred, headless body of a woman. Lamphere was charged with the murders. Ten days later, on May 5, while still looking for the head of Belle Gunness. they found the body of Andrew Helgelein. who had been drugged, strangled, cut up. and packaged in old grain sacks. A few feet away were the bodies of Jenny Olson, who had supposedly gone off to school in California, and another unidentified man. In the days to follow, investigators found another body, suspected to be a female, the remains of three more men, two of which were identified as farm hands. The bodies had been sectioned and treated with quicklime, which hampered identification.

448 |

Belle Gunness

Additionally, positive identification of Belle Gunness was difficult. Bottom teeth in the jawbone were used for identification purposes. BelleÊs body was headless. Further, two doctorsÊ estimated that the womanÊs body found was probably too small to be BelleÊs. Upper denture work and lower bridge work, which was attached to a real tooth, was found May 19, 1908. Although she was officially declared dead, the denture work did not prove totally convincing, as it was later offered that it could have been thrown into the fire by Belle. She was sighted several times after her supposed death, and Lamphere was eventually found not guilty of murder but guilty of arson. He died in jail in 1909. He, like others, believed Belle Gunness to be alive and living near La Porte. Her case has inspired many books over the years and a folk song in 1938. As to motive, it is assumed that she killed all of these people for insurance monies or assets men brought with them. Her own sister remarked: „My sister was crazy for money . . . That was her greatest weakness. As a young woman, she never seemed to care for a man for his own self, only for the money or luxury he was able to give her . . . When living with her first husband in Austin she used to say ÂI would never remain with this man if it was not for the nice home he hasÊ ‰ (4 more skeletons in Indiana mystery, 2). This case is noteworthy for several reasons. As a female serial murderer she clearly used her gender to mask her activities, boldly killing all victims in one location. Belle Gunness also emerged in a time when the rights of women were severely curtailed in the United States. For example, when she first got married, U.S. law stated that women could not hold land if they were married. In her lifetime, newer laws were implemented that stated that widowed and single women could hold and purchase land, but once they married (or remarried), the land would transfer to her husband. Given that Belle was obsessed with money, it is doubtful that she would have separated with her assets easily. Resources 4 more skeletons in Indiana mystery. (1908, May 7). New York Times, 1. Langlois, J. L. (1985). Belle Gunness: The Lady Bluebeard. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Shepherd, S. E. (2001). The mistress of murder hill: The serial killings of Belle Gunness. Bloomington, IN: 1st Books Library.

Hannah Scott

H Clara Harris (1959–) The Clara Harris case sparked national debate on the mental state and emotional culpability of female offenders. Harris was charged with murdering her adulterous husband and was found guilty of murder with a deadly weapon by „sudden passion.‰ Clara was a dentist in the state of Texas. David Harris was an orthodontist. They married a decade previous to his murder and had twin sons. Clara and David owned two successful dentist practices in Texas, but Clara owned 51 percent of each practice. While Clara was working at her practice one day, one of her employees had warned her to watch David and to note anything unusual that he was doing. Clara became suspicious. Later, Clara found out that the employees at her dental offices were aware that her husband had been cheating on her with his receptionist. On July 17, 2002, David Harris admitted his affair, and Clara took advantage of her majority ownership to fire the receptionist, Gail Bridges. David was furious that Clara had released his mistress, and the couple sat down to discuss the situation. David provided Clara with the details of his affair. Shocked and devastated, Clara frantically attempted to become more attractive to her husband. She tried tanning, got new nails, went to the gym, stopped eating, and consulted a plastic surgeon about breast enhancement and liposuction. David and Clara made a list of „comparisons‰ in which David named all of BridgesÊs qualities and attributes and compared them to his wife. Clara wrote down all of her „shortcomings‰ and tried extremely hard to earn her husband back. She also hired a private detective to learn more about Gail Bridges. On July 24, 2002, David approached Clara and told her that he would be breaking off his relationship with Bridges that night. He was to meet her for dinner and tell her that he loved his wife and was not going to leave her. That night Clara took her stepdaughter out in the car with her to look for David at the place he told her he would be and bring him to be home with his family. She eventually found him with his mistress at the hotel where they had been married a decade earlier. After Clara had a physical altercation with Bridges in the hotel lobby, David Harris 449

450

|

Clara Harris

screamed, „ItÊs over, itÊs over,‰ and kicked Clara in the leg. Clara got into her car, and along with her stepdaughter, she watched David Harris walk Gail Bridges to her car. She then pulled out of her parking spot and ran over David Harris, taking BridgesÊs car door off. Her stepdaughter screamed and tried to get out of the car. She later testified that Clara intentionally ran over her father, and then she circled around to hit him two more times, killing him. Clara states that her act was an accident and that she only hit him once. The amount of times that Clara Harris ran over her husband was hotly contested in her trial. Murder defendant Clara Harris smiles as ClaraÊs actions have been widely debated. her father-in-law testifies in her behalf, She was a prominent citizen, a dentist, and a 2003. Harris is accused of running down business woman. She was a spurned woman her husband with her car after catchwho was reportedly trying as hard as she ing him with another woman. (AP/Wide could to salvage her marriage. Her step- World Photos) daughter filed a wrongful death suit against her claiming that she intentionally and maliciously killed her father. DavidÊs parents continued to stand by Clara through the trial. They forgave her and advocated for her to be released from her sentence so that she could raise her children. DavidÊs mother, father, and brother testified during the trial and attested that Clara deeply loved and cared for her family. All involved, including her daughter, stated that Clara tried to do everything possible to make David love her again, that she wouldnÊt give up on their marriage, and that she had tried to „look pretty‰ to gain back the attention of her husband. Clara Harris was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, and her side of the story was presented to a national audience. Web sites were created, devoted to releasing Clara Harris. Expert testimony was provided arguing that Clara acted in a moment of „sudden passion‰ and therefore was not rational at the time of the murder. The jury of nine women and three men found her guilty with this stipulation instead of charging her with murder. Over 20 potential jurors were omitted from the jury because they stated that they felt her pain, understood her reaction, and felt that he deserved it. Clara HarrisÊs case is currently on appeal. She is appealing on the grounds that it would have been impossible to run over David Harris numerous times. Her evidence includes two tapes that demonstrate how the radius of her Mercedes would make such movement impossible. The expert testimony regarding information on

Jean Harris | 451

these tapes was excluded from the first trial. They are also appealing on the point that the judge disallowed the defense counsel to impeach Lindsey Harris, DavidÊs stepdaughter, in spite of repeated inconsistencies in her story. Lastly, the judge would not allow the defense to provide the jury with information on lesser charges. This case divided the nation into two sides. Clara Harris is currently incarcerated, but some in society feel she should be released because of sympathy for her having „lost it‰ in the face of her husbandÊs adultery and the thought of losing her family. DavidÊs mother, father, and brother, initially supportive of Harris, later became upset that Harris gave custody of the children to a neighbor rather than to them. They filed a successful wrongful death suit against her. Others in society hold the belief that, regardless of what David did and how upset Clara was, she should be held accountable for her actions that fateful day. Resources Hollandsworth, Skip. 2002, November. „Suburban Madness.‰ Texas Monthly. Madigan, Nick. 2003, February 14. „Jury Gives 20-Year Term in Murder of Husband.‰ New York Times.

Alana Van Gundy-Yoder

Jean Harris (1923–) Jean Harris was the headmistress of the Madeira School, an exclusive girlsÊ boarding school in McLean, Virginia, but she is best known for being convicted of killing Dr. Herman Tarnower in 1980. Tarnower, a well-known, prominent cardiologist and author of the best-selling book The Complete Scarsdale Medical Diet, had been involved with Jean Harris in a long-time romantic relationship. Jean Harris, born Jean Struven on April 27, 1923, in Cleveland, Ohio, had attended Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, where she graduated magna cum laude in 1945 with a major in economics. She was married and had two sons. After her divorce in 1965, she began a relationship with Dr. Herman Tarnower, who gave her many gifts as well as took her on impressive vacations during their approximately 14-year relationship. Tarnower had „a reputation as being a Casanova, regardless of his balding head‰ and „generally unprepossessing appearance‰ (Noe 2011). Harris was at the time in her late fifties and considered quite attractive. Tarnower was 69 at the time of his death. While dating Harris, Tarnower had begun a relationship with Lynne Tryforos who was some 20 years younger than Harris. As TarnowerÊs relationship with Tryforos continued on for more than a few years, it became clear to Harris that she was being replaced by a younger woman.

452

|

Jean Harris

On March 10, 1980, Jean Harris drove from her school to TarnowerÊs home in Purchase, New York. She later claimed she had planned to commit suicide with the handgun she had brought with her, after speaking with her former lover one last time. Arriving at TarnowerÊs home, it was reported that Harris had found the lingerie of Lynne Tryforos on the bedroom floor. There was an argument, and allegedly Herman Tarnower told Jean Harris that she was crazy and ordered her to leave. Harris turned the gun on Tarnower and shot him four times, killing him. She was arrested for second-degree murder. Harris pled not guilty, claiming it was an accident. She was released on $40,000 bail and placed in the United Hospital of Port Chester, New York, for a psychiatJean Harris, charged with ric evaluation. She hired a lawyer, Joel Aurnou, and second-degree murder in the began to start her defense. shooting of The Complete The case went to trial on November 21, 1980, and Scarsdale Medical Diet author lasted 14 weeks. The New York news media focused Dr. Herman Tarnower, is shown intensely on the trial, and Harris seemed to make leaving the Westchester County Court House in White Plains, headlines every day. The jury, however, failed to beNew York, 1981. (AP/Wide lieve her story and found her guilty of second-degree World Photos) murder. There was much discussion as to why Harris and her attorney did not use a defense of extreme emotional disturbance, which might have led to a manslaughter conviction and a lighter sentence. Harris insisted that the killing was accidental, and she insisted on going to trial. During the trial, Jean HarrisÊs reputation as someone with a strong sense of morality was promoted, and it was noted that she had expelled four girls from school for marijuana use. She was also, on the other hand, described as being depressed and confused, and many wondered why her defense did not stress her questionable mental state. During the trial, it was shown that Harris had written a letter to Tarnower, chronicling the „many wrongs she felt she had suffered on his behalf and pled for better treatment by the doctor. This letter was notable for its rage and pain as well as its extreme hatred for Lynne Tryforos . . . In [this letter] Harris derided Tryforos as a Âvicious, adulterous, psychoticÊ . . . She repeatedly called Lynne a ÂslutÊ and a ÂwhoreÊ ‰ (Noe 2011). Jean Harris was sentenced to 15 years to life and sent to the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, in Westchester County, New York. There were appeals, but all the appellate courts decided that her trial was fair and that there was no reason to overturn the decision of the lower courts or send it back for a retrial.

Masumi Hayashi |

453

In 1993, approximately 12 years after serving time in the correctional facility where she helped found the Fisk House (a part of the prison where model prisoners had their own „room‰) and where she also tutored and mentored young female prisoners, she was given a pardon by the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo. Today, Harris, in her eighties, has worked for the Children of Bedford Foundation, „which raises funds to help the educational needs of children of the inmates of Bedford Hills‰ (Kagan 2005). Two made-for-television movies, The People vs. Jean Harris, starring Ellen Burstyn and Martin Balsam, and HBOÊs Mrs. Harris, starring Annette Bening and Ben Kingsley, have been produced, and several books have been published about Jean Harris and the killing of Herman Tarnower. Resources Alexander, Shana. (1983). Very Much a Lady: The Untold Story of Jean Harris and Dr. Herman Tarnower. New York: Little Brown. Alexander, Shana. (1993). Marking Time: Letters from Jean Harris to Shana Alexander. New York: Zebra. Kagan, Richard. (2005). „A Glimpse into the Imprisonment of Jean Harris.‰ http://www. educationupdate.com/archives/2005/May/html/FEAT-Harris.html Noe, Denise. (2011). „The Jean Harris Case.‰ Crime Library. www.crimelibrary.com/noto rious_murders/women/harris/1.html Trilling, Diana. (1982). Mrs. Harris: The Death of the Scarsdale Diet Doctor. New York: Viking.

Roslyn Muraskin

Masumi Hayashi (1961–) The whole nation of Japan was shocked in 1998 when 4 people were murdered and 63 people became sick from eating poisoned curry at a neighborhood summer festival. As the police investigated the case, the cunning personality and extended criminal career of the accused, Masumi Hayashi, were slowly revealed. In addition to the murder of these 4, she poisoned her husband and their acquaintances on different occasions in order to make fraudulent life and medical insurance claims. Furthermore, according to the prosecutor, Masumi and her husband paid in total approximately æ200 million (equivalent to roughly US$1.7 million) for insurance premiums and received about æ700 million (equivalent to almost US$6 million) through fraudulent insurance claims between 1983 and 1998 (Asahi Weekly, November 3, 2000). OsakaÊs high court found her guilty of seven crimes, although the police and prosecutor suspected more incidents of insurance fraud (see Table 12). After Masumi HayashiÊs conviction for murder and attempted murder, both WakayamaÊs district and OsakaÊs high courts sentenced her to death (Asahi

454 |

Masumi Hayashi

TABLE 12

Seven Crimes of which Masumi Hayashi Was Convicted by High Court

Charges

Year

Narrative

Damages

Murder/attempted murder

1998

Put arsenic in curry at a summer festival in her neighborhood

Killed 4 people and made 63 others sick

Attempted murder

1998

Put arsenic in their acquaintance’s food in an attempt to kill him and to fraudulently obtain insurance money

Attempted murder

1997

Put arsenic in her husband’s food in an attempt to kill him and to fraudulently obtain insurance money

Attempted tmurder/fraud

1997

Put arsenic in their acquaintance’s food in an attempt to kill him and fraudulently obtain life insurance money

Received ¥5.39 million

Fraud a

1997

Fraudulently filed an insurance claim that her husband’s legs and arms had become paralyzed

Received ¥138 million

Fraud a

1996

Fraudulently filed an insurance claim that she had accidentally burned her legs

Received ¥4.59 million

Fraud a

1993

Fraudulently filed an insurance claim that her husband had a motorcycle accident (although his injury was actually caused by falling)

Received ¥20.52 million

Note: From 1995 to 1998, the average exchange rate was about ¥120 = US$1 (Bank of Japan 1999). Kenji was convicted of three counts of frauds in 2000 and released from prison in 2005 after having served a six-year sentence. a

Source: Asahi Newspaper, June 28, 2005.

Newspaper, December 12, 2002; June 28, 2005). Although she appealed her sentence to the Japanese Supreme Court, she was denied in 2009. In addition to the notorious nature of the curry incident, the insurance fraud scheme masterminded by Masumi Hayashi raised the publicÊs awareness of the problems in the Japanese insurance system. Masumi Hayashi was born in Wakayama Prefecture in 1961. Her father was a fisherman, and her mother worked as an insurance agent. After graduating from a public high school, Hayashi went to a nursing school in Osaka Prefecture. Although she completed the course work and graduated from the nursing school, she did not take the national exam to become a registered nurse. While she was in the nursing school, she started dating Kenji Hayashi, who had a termite control business with a few employees. After MasumiÊs graduation from the nursing school, they married in 1983 and subsequently had four children. Masumi Hayashi started working as an insurance agent in 1990. Her insurance business record was relatively good, and she was rewarded a few times for high sales.

Masumi Hayashi |

455

However, she frequently obtained new insurance contracts through her husbandÊs gambling friends, many of whom signed multiple contracts themselves (AERA, October 19, 1998). As many people who obtained insurance policies through Masumi Hayashi often later cancelled their policies or made insurance claims, her company started casting doubts on her. The suspicion cast by the insurance company may be the main reason why Hayashi quit her job in 1995. After Kenji closed his termite control business in 1992, and Masumi quit her job in 1995, both became unemployed. But, using her knowledge of the insurance industry, Masumi masterminded insurance frauds. Masumi and Kenji paid extremely high life insurance premiums by borrowing money from consumer finance loans. They repeatedly utilized their fraudulent insurance scheme and obtained money illicitly. Then they used some of the money to further extend their illegal scheme by returning their loans and purchasing additional policies. Their house expenditures exceeded æ1 million to æ200 million (equivalent to roughly US$850,000 to US$1.7 million) per year, and Masumi and Kenji had an extravagant lifestyle until they were arrested in 1998 (Asahi Newspaper, December 12, 2002). In 1998, 4 people (2 children and 2 adults) died and 63 people got sick by eating curry poisoned with arsenic at a neighborhood summer festival in Wakayama City, which is located in the southwest region of Japan (Chiezo, 2006). As the police investigated the case, they discovered that there were more suspicious incidents of arsenic poisoning surrounding Masumi and Kenji Hayashi. Furthermore, the investigation discovered that large sums of money had been obtained by these two on multiple occasions through fraudulent insurance claims. Based upon such evidence, the police initially arrested Masumi and Kenji Hayashi for insurance fraud. Then two months later, Masumi Hayashi was charged with murder for the curry incident, to which she pleaded not guilty. Although Masumi Hayashi invoked her right of silence, the police and prosecutor built their case on the basis of circumstantial evidence such as reenactment of peopleÊs behaviors at the summer festival. WakayamaÊs district court determined in 2002 that only Masumi Hayashi had the opportunity to put arsenic into curry. The court suspected that her alienation from other housewives at the summer festival as a primary motive for poisoning the curry. However, the court could not determine the true motive since Masumi Hayashi did not want to talk about her relationship with people in the community (Asahi Newspaper, December 11, 2002; December 12, 2002; June 28, 2005). Based on circumstantial evidence, WakayamaÊs district court found Masumi Hayashi guilty of murder and attempted murder and sentenced her to death. OsakaÊs high court supported WakayamaÊs district courtÊs decision and rejected her appeal in 2005. She subsequently appealed to the Japanese Supreme Court. Although Masumi Hayashi broke her silence during her appeal to OsakaÊs high court and claimed her innocence, this high court dismissed her appeal.

456 |

Masumi Hayashi

The fraudulent insurance scheme masterminded by Masumi Hayashi shocked the insurance industry, and people started to develop skepticism about the Japanese insurance system. The system of insurance companies that allows people to make a contract and pay off claims easily without much investigation came into question, and the public demanded the companies to restructure their systems. An additional key point of the Masumi HayashiÊs case was that she was convicted of murder and attempted murder based on circumstantial evidence, and the appropriateness of such a criminal trial without physical evidence was debated for the first time in the Japanese justice system. There was also a debate as to whether the court could order the television company to submit its interview tapes with Masumi Hayashi as evidence and whether this order constituted an intrusion of freedom of the press (Asahi Newspaper, December 13, 2002). At the end, OsakaÊs high court decided not to introduce these interview tapes as evidence (Asahi Newspaper, December 17, 2004). Concerning the freedom of the press, two lawsuits were filed by Masumi Hayashi against a publishing company (Asahi Newspaper, November 19, 2005). First, a tabloid cameraman secretly took a photo of Masumi Hayashi during her trial in the courtroom and published her photo in the magazine, despite the fact that photographing of offenders was prohibited in the courtroom. Second, the same tabloid published a sketch of Masumi Hayashi wearing handcuffs and a rope around her waist during her trial. Although the media was allowed to draw sketches of criminal trials, the artists typically did not draw handcuffs or a rope. The publisher subsequently lost lawsuits in both cases. Finally, several issues regarding crime victims were raised. The mediaÊs insensitive treatment of Masumi HayashiÊs neighborhood residents raised a question about their rights of privacy. The negative effects of the media on these residents (i.e., secondary victimization) became the focus of its attention. Furthermore, the families of the murdered victims and those who survived the curry incident were awarded monetary compensation as a result of a civil lawsuit in 2003 (Asahi Newspaper, December 25, 2003). However, even if Masumi HayashiÊs assets had been sold through governmental auction, the likelihood that the victims would receive any monetary compensation is slim because the majority of the money collected would be diverted to national taxes. Masumi Hayashi did not pay taxes on her earned insurance money, which is subject to taxation, and the taxation office is expected to receive the money before any other parties get monetary compensation. The Masami Hayashi curry incident reminded people of the weakness of the victim relief measure in Japan. Resources AERA. 1998. Wakayama sagi jiken de huhu taiho. [Couple arrested for insurance frauds in Wakayama]. October 19, 10ă15.

Patty Hearst | 457

Asahi Newspaper. May 14, 1999. Wakayama no dokubutsu konyu hokenkin sagi jiken. [The poisoned curry incident and insurance frauds], 30. Asahi Newspaper. December 11, 2002. Karei dokubutsu jiken, Masumi hikoku ni genkei. [The poisoned curry incident: A severe penalty for Masumi Hayashi], 1. Asahi Newspaper. December 12, 2002. Hayashi Masumi hikoku ni shikei. [The death penalty for Masumi Hayashi], 1. Asahi Newspaper. December 12, 2002. Karei jiken hanketsu kosshi. [The poisoned curry incident: A summary of the trial courtÊs verdict], 32. Asahi Newspaper. December 13, 2002. Karei jiken Wakayama chisai hanketsu: Minpo bideo saiyou ni hamon. [The verdict for the curry incident in Wakayama: Effects of allowing videos as evidence], 37. Asahi Newspaper. December 25, 2003. Karei jiken: Hayashi Masumi hikoku ni baishou meirei [The curry incident: Monetary compensation for the victims and their families], 18. Asahi Newspaper. December 17, 2004. Rokuga tepu shoko husaiyou. [The court did not allow videos as evidence], 19. Asahi Newspaper. June 28, 2005. Hayashi Masumi hikoku nishin mo shikei. [The high court sentences Masumi Hayashi to death], 1. Asahi Newspaper. November 19, 2005. Mudan satsuei irasuto shouzouken shingai ka [Photographing without permission and violation of privacy rights], 37. Asahi Weekly. 2000. Hanketsu Hayashi Kenji hikoku ni choeki rokunen hokengaisha no itadeto kyoukun. [The verdict: A six-year sentence for Kenji Hayashi: damages and lessons for insurance companies]. November 3, 150. Bank of Japan. 1999. Economic and Financial Developments in the Second Half of Fiscal 1998. http://www.boj.or.jp/en/type/release/teiki/ar/data/ar9902.pdf. (Accessed February 26, 2007). Chiezo. 2006. Chiezo. [The encyclopedia of contemporary words]. 439. Tokyo, Japan: Asahi Newspaper.

Yumiko Watanuki, George Kikuchi, and Yoko Baba

Patty Hearst (1954–) Patty Hearst was one of the most notorious women in the United States in 1974. Having first been kidnapped and then later videotaped robbing a bank with the same militant group that abducted her, HearstÊs status as victim quickly changed to that of criminal. The controversy to this case and the focus of the trial was whether Hearst was a victim or a criminal. How does a young, wealthy, yet allegedly defiant, woman move from being a kidnapped victim to an armed robber? The case also called into question her status as a good girl in light of her cohabitation with her fiancé. Finally, the Hearst case signifies the strong impact of psychological trauma on victims and the condition of the Stockholm syndrome.

458 |

Patty Hearst

Patricia Campbell Hearst was born on February 20, 1954, in San Francisco, California, to Randolph A. Hearst and Catherine C. Hearst. PattyÊs grandfather was William Randolph Hearst, the prominent newspaper publisher who was wellknown in his use of tabloid journalism. She grew up in a very wealthy family of five girls. Some claim that Patty received everything that she wanted. In the aftermath of her return to her family, many journalists reported that Patty was spoiled and defiant. However, the 1970s was a decade of distrust of large corpora- Patty Hearst holds up an executive grant of clemtions and the wealthy. Yet, there was ency as she leaves the Federal Correctional Instialso an attempt to hold on to tradi- tution in Pleasanton, California, 1979. (AP/Wide tions. It is highly probable that Patty World Photos) was being condemned for stepping out of gender role expectations. For example, as a teenager, Patty had a crush on Steven Weed, a teacher and her math tutor. Patty and Steven had an affair and later moved in together. When Patty was 19 years old, she and Steven became engaged. While Patty did well in school and even earned an award for best student in her freshman year at Menlo College, her affair and cohabitation, especially at such a young age, was highly frowned upon. On the evening of February 4, 1974, Patty Hearst was kidnapped from her Berkeley apartment. Members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) knocked on the door, assaulted her fiancé, and kidnapped Hearst at gunpoint. Hearst was kept locked for two months in a closet, and she was continuously physically and sexually assaulted. Patty HearstÊs kidnapping was claimed to be a revolutionary political kidnapping in an attempt to free two SLA soldiers who had been recently arrested and were in police custody. The SLAÊs leader Donald DeFreeze had declared war on the wealthy and powerful. Initially, the SLAÊs ransom demand called for the Hearst family to distribute several millions of dollars worth of food to the poor. They also demanded that the Hearst family publish SLA propaganda that claimed that the SLA had arrested Patty Hearst and that she was in protective custody. PattyÊs father had complied with all demands; however, upon a second demand to distribute food to the poor, Randolph A. Hearst agreed on the condition that Patty be returned. It was at this time that the SLA ceased negotiations. Soon following, the Hearst family received a tape, allegedly from Patty, claiming that she had joined the SLA. The tape showed Patty dressed as a revolutionary holding a gun and standing

Patty Hearst | 459

in front of the SLA emblem. She also claimed that she was given the choice to be released or to join the SLA and fight for the freedom of oppressed people. She chose to stay and fight. Patty was given a new name·Tania. Later, Patty claimed that she was threatened to either join the SLA or be killed. At 9:40 AM on April 15, 1975, Patty Hearst and four members of the SLA walked guns in hand into the Hibernia Bank in San Francisco, California, and stole over $10,000. Bank surveillance cameras showed Patty holding a carbine rifle. In the robbery, two bystanders were shot. Many have asked why Patty did not flee when she was holding the loaded rifle. Furthermore, the FBI reported that on May 15, 1974, Patty fired 30 shots in an attempt to help SLA soldiers Bill and Emily Harris escape a robbery. Patty Hearst was arrested on September 18, 1975, and convicted of armed bank robbery. She claimed that she was under duress. During her trial, F. Lee Bailey hired psychiatrists who testified that Patty Hearst had experienced mental deterioration and brainwashing that resulted from the endless violence she experienced while in captivity. Patty was kept locked and blindfolded in a closet, beaten, sexually assaulted, and raped for several weeks. She was also subjected to SLA revolutionary ideologies. After 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found Hearst guilty, and she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. She criticized F. Lee Bailey for exploiting her case for personal gain and even being drunk during her closing statement. While Patty was convicted of the robbery, her case opened the door to the consideration that she could be a victim of the Stockholm syndrome, a condition named for a phenomenon that occurred in 1973 after people taken hostage for six days by bank robbers in Stockholm, Sweden, became emotionally attached to their captors. Characteristic of this syndrome, Patty Hearst was kept isolated, told that no one would rescue her, assaulted, and told she might die. Many believe that she developed positive feelings for her captors whom she relied on to keep her alive and interpreted their later behaviors as regard for her. Patty Hearst was given a partial pardon from President Carter on February 1, 1979, after serving two years of her sentence. In 1987, she failed to obtain a full pardon from President Reagan but was given a full pardon by President Clinton on his last day in office in January 2001. Patty Hearst married Bernard Shaw, her former bodyguard, and had two children. She has done some acting and has had roles in movies and television shows. Patty HearstÊs traumatic experience had tremendous significance for female victims of violence, including domestic violence. Resources Boulton, David. 1975. The Making of Tania: The Patty Hearst Story. New York: New English Library. Castiglia, Christopher. 1996. Bound and Determined: Captivity, Culture-Crossing, and White Womanhood from Mary Rowlandson to Patty Hearst. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

460

| Leona Helmsley

Freedman, Suzanne. 2002. The Bank Robbery Trial of Heiress Patty Hearst: A Headline Court Case. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow. Hearst, Patricia Campbell, and Alvin Moscow. 1981. Every Secret Thing. New York: Doubleday.

Venessa Garcia

Leona Helmsley (1920–2007) Leona Helmsley, better known as the „Queen of Mean,‰ was notorious for her fits of temper and schemes to avoid paying taxes. Her infamous reputation was based on the treatment of her employees, and her belief that she was beyond paying taxes added to her notoriety. It had been reported by many that her fits of temper for very minor infractions by employees usually resulted in personal attacks on the individual, followed by dismissal from the company. She was not always an extremely wealthy person, having started from humble beginnings. Leona was also a generous philanthropist and gave large donations to many charities. She was born Lena Rosenthal on July 4, 1920, in Ulster County, New York. She was the third in a family of four children. When the economy took a downturn, the family moved several times and eventually settled in Manhattan. Lena was close to her brother and father, but her relationship with her sisters and mother was strained. Lena became bored halfway through high school and dropped out to seek a more interesting life path. A name change was part of this new life, and she finally settled on Leona Mindy Roberts. Her claims of being employed as a cigarette model for Chesterfield Cigarette Company have not been verified. Leona married Leo Panzirer, and their son Jay was born after four years. Shortly thereafter, they were separated and divorced. Her second husband was her boss, Joseph Lubin, whom she married and divorced twice. With three failed marriages and a son, Leona was on her own again. She did some secretarial jobs and then was hired as a secretary by a real estate firm. There was a shift in ownership of the firm two years later which proved to be a life-changing development for Leona. She found she had a skill for selling real estate. She was confident and diligent, which created a client base for her, and generated profits for the Leona Helmsley, 1991. (AP/Wide company. World Photos)

Leona Helmsley | 461

By the late 1960s Leona had become very prosperous in the real estate business, though it did not satisfy her ambition and desire for success. While working in the real estate industry, she heard of Harry Helmsley and arranged a meeting through mutual acquaintances. The rumors of romance between Harry and Leona started shortly after she became employed at a Helmsley subsidiary, which was a problem because Harry was married. Harry and his wife Eve were divorced in 1971, however, and Harry married Leona in 1972. In 1971 Leona had her first encounter with the legal system when she tried to force the residents of a property she managed to purchase their homes. She allegedly verbally abused and threatened tenants until they gave in, but some residents became tired of this treatment and sued her. When she married Harry in 1972, she was reported to be in serious financial trouble. Harry Helmsley had a dream of building and running a world-class luxury hotel. Once the property for the hotel was secured, the building of the Helmsley Palace Hotel began in 1978. The hotel was completed in 1980, and Harry gave it to Leona to oversee operations. Some hotel employees reported that Leona acted irrationally, bestowing praise in one sentence, then berating the person in the next. She was in charge of operations for all the hotels in the Helmsley corporation. Her mistreatment of employees was believed to have led to an attempt on her and her husbandÊs lives in the 1980s. In 1989 Leona and Harry Helmsley were indicted for tax fraud, mail fraud, and extortion. They purchased an estate in Greenwich, Connecticut, for $11 million. They did an enormous amount of renovations to the estate, totaling $8 million. They were reluctant to pay for the work because they felt they were grossly overcharged. They charged the majority of the work done on this estate to Helmsley subsidiaries. The contractors and decorators who performed the work became frustrated and filed suit against the Helmsleys. This resulted in 188 counts of tax fraud, and an amount of $1 million in personal income taxes was owed to the government. Leona individually faced federal charges of extortion and mail fraud. The investigation also implicated two ex-employees as accomplices. When it was time for the trial to begin, Harry Helmsley was deemed incapable of being prosecuted due to failing health. Leona would face the trial alone. The prosecution presented extensive evidence illustrating the extreme lengths to which Leona Helmsley had gone to hide income and fraudulently bill expenses through Helmsley subsidiary companies. She was convicted of 33 felony counts of trying to defraud the government, including tax evasion, mail fraud, and filing false tax returns. The sentence was 16 years in federal prison and a fine of a little more than $7 million to be paid to the federal government. After an appeal in New York Superior Court, all but eight charges were dropped, and she subsequently served 18 months in federal prison. Harry died in 1997, leaving his entire estate to Leona. Another court trial stemmed from charges filed by ex-employee, Charles Bell, who claimed she fired

462

|

Myra Hindley

him for being homosexual. He was awarded $11 million, but an appeal reduced the settlement to $500,000. Leona died of heart failure on August 20, 2007. Though she was notorious for being tyrannical in her business practices and treatment of her employees, she was also a shrewd business woman. She was generous to many charities and relief funds. The distribution of her estate was a controversial issue. She left $12 million to her dog Trouble and excluded two of her grandchildren. When the matter of the estate came before a judge in 2009, it was ruled that the amount left to Trouble would be reduced to $2 million, and each of the excluded grandchildren received $6 million. The trustee of the estate designated $1 million of the estate to be evenly divided between 10 animal rights and welfare charities, including A.S.P.C.A and Guide Dogs for the Blind. The majority of the estate was designated for medical research and medical care centers. New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and Mount Sinai Medical Center were the two largest of the estate donations. The Helmsley Trust is a foundation that also supports different nonprofit agencies to promote research in the areas of health and medicine, conservation, education, and human services. Resources A&E Television Networks. 2009. Bio True Story. Leona Helmsley Biography. http://www. biography.com/articles/Leona-Helmsley-9334418 CNN.Com. 2007, August. Leona Helmsley, „Queen of Mean,‰ Dies at 87. http://www.cnn. com/2007/US/08/20/helmsley.obit/index.html Helmsleytrust.org. 2009. http://helmsleytrust.org/ Moss, Michael. 1989. Palace Coup: The Inside Story of Harry and Leona Helmsley. New York: Doubleday Publishing. NYTimes.com. 2009, April. Trustees Begin to Parcel Leona HelmsleyÊs Estate. http://www. nytimes.com/2009/04/22/nyregion/22helmsley.html

Dena Webster

Myra Hindley (1942–2002) Myra Hindley may have been the most well-known and notorious female criminal of 20th-century Britain. Her case remained prominent in the media from her conviction for murder in 1966 to her death in prison in 2002. She was an almost iconic figure who inspired books, plays, songs, and art exhibits. A police mug shot, taken at the time of her arrest in 1965, depicted 23-year-old Myra with a bleached blonde bouffant hairdo and impassive, unsmiling face. This photo became the defining

Myra Hindley | 463

image of her and the one that usually accompanied news stories, even when she had grown older and changed her appearance completely. In April 1966, Myra Hindley was convicted jointly with her boyfriend Ian Brady for the murders of two children, Edward Evans and Lesley Ann Downey, and as an accessory after the fact in the murder of John Kilbride. They were both sentenced to life imprisonment, the mandatory penalty for murder in England and Wales. While Hindley and Brady were awaiting trial, the death penalty had been abolished. Because the murders of three children were considered to be particularly horrific crimes, the fact that they could no longer be executed for their crimes increased public interest in the case. Hindley and Brady lived together in HindleyÊs grandmotherÊs house in Manchester, an industrial city in northern England. They abducted the children from Manchester and took them to their home, where Brady killed them. They buried the bodies of Lesley and John on the moors. On the evening that they had abducted Edward Evans, they invited HindleyÊs brother-in-law, David Smith, to visit them. He witnessed Brady attack the boy with a hatchet before strangling him, and then helped Brady and Hindley clean up. When he left their house, he informed the police of what he had seen, and EdwardÊs body was discovered in the house. During the investigation, the police discovered a safe kept by Brady that contained photographs of Lesley Ann without her clothes and a tape recording of her crying and pleading as she was stripped naked. These formed part of the evidence in the case. Two other children from Manchester were thought to have been murdered by Hindley and Brady, although their bodies had not been found. In 1987, Hindley broke her 21-year refusal to discuss the murders and her role in them during a session with a prison chaplain. She admitted that she and Brady had also killed Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett and attempted to help the police find where their bodies were buried on the moors. The search was successful in finding the remains of Pauline. The judge in HindleyÊs trial stated that he believed she could be rehabilitated. While in prison she obtained a university degree and reverted to the Catholicism and religiosity of her girlhood. Her supporters argued that she did not pose a threat to the public and should one day be released. Hindley expressed remorse for her part in the crimes. She stated that she had been infatuated with Brady and willing to do whatever he asked of her. She also said that he was physically violent towards her and that during their relationship, she was afraid of him. In 1994, Hindley discovered that a „whole life‰ tariff had been imposed on her in 1990, more than 21 after her original conviction. This meant that a decision had been taken that she should never be released from prison. It was not a penalty that existed at the time she had been sentenced. Supporters helped her to mount a legal challenge against what appeared to be a retrospective punishment, but it was upheld

464 |

Xaviera Hollander

by the House of Lords in 1997. Myra Hindley died in prison in November 2002 and was a rare example of a murderer who was never released. HindleyÊs case remained in the public eye throughout her life, and granting her parole or overturning her whole life sentence would likely have proved deeply unpopular with the public. Critics of her punishment have argued that she was kept in prison due to political expediency, rather than an objective assessment of her case. As a woman involved in the abduction and murder of children, Hindley was particularly susceptible to being stereotyped as a witch and a monster. She never managed to replace the image of herself as an expressionless 23-year-old in the publicÊs imagination, and she remained a high example of an evil woman. Resources Birch, H. (1993). „If looks could kill: Myra Hindley and the iconography of evil.‰ In H. Birch (ed.), Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation, London: Virago, 32ă61. Gurnham D. (2003). „The Moral Narrative of Criminal Responsibility and the Principled Justification of Tariffs for Murder: Myra Hindley and Thompson and Venables.‰ Legal Studies 23: 605ă623. Murphy, T., and Whitty, N. (2006). „The Question of Evil and Feminist Legal Scholarship.‰ Feminist Legal Studies 14(1): 1ă26. Schone, J. M. (2000). „The Hardest Case of All: Myra Hindley, Life Sentences and the Rule of Law.‰ International Journal of the Sociology of Law 28(4): 273ă289. Winter, J. (2002). „The Truth Will Out? The Role of Judicial Advocacy and Gender in Verdict Construction.‰ Social and Legal Studies, 11(3): 343ă367

Lizzie Seal

Xaviera Hollander (1943–) Known as the „Happy Hooker‰ for her love of sex work and her best-selling biography of the same name, Xaviera Hollander was arrested and incarcerated for crimes associated with prostitution. But Hollander was no ordinary prostitute. Through the success of her book The Happy Hooker and her lengthy career writing about sex for Penthouse, Hollander contributed to an era of more open sexual discussion and sexual freedoms for women. Born on June 15, 1943, in a place now known as Indonesia, Xaviera De Vries spent the first months in relative luxury as her father, Dr. Mick De Vries, was a successful physician who owned a hospital and two expansive villas. But all was lost when the Japanese invaded the Dutch-controlled island and her father was placed in a concentration camp for the crime of being of Dutch/Jewish extraction. Though Hollander and her French/German mother, Germaine De Vries, were detained along with him, Dr. De Vries was soon transferred to a separate camp to tend to the medical needs

Xaviera Hollander | 465

of other prisoners. Reunited at the end of the war three-and-a-half years later, the family eventually returned to Holland. Regrouping in Amsterdam, HollanderÊs parents reared her in what she describes as a loving home in which she was afforded privileges such as piano lessons and European vacations which helped her achieve fluency in five different languages. Upon graduation from high school, she continued her studies in music and later attained a secretarial position at an advertising agency. Her crowning achievement during this time period was a Best Secretary in Holland award which was bestowed upon her by the Manpower EmBritish writer Xaviera Hollander, author of The Happy Hooker, sits in a swivel chair ployment Agency in Amsterdam. While HollanderÊs first love affair was with while promoting her book in London, England, 1972. (AP/Wide World Photos) a female high school classmate, she eventually came to enjoy sex with both women and men, developing an almost insatiable need for sexual contact. Her quest for variety did not, however, stop her from falling head over heels in love. After moving to South Africa in the mid 1960s, she began a whirlwind courtship with Carl Gordon, a Jewish American economist, which quickly led to their engagement. Following Gordon to America six months later, Hollander arrived in New York City in December 1967. Though Hollander soon discovered that her fiancé had a dark side to his personality, she was determined to salvage the relationship·even if it meant enduring both insults and infidelities. But their betrothal ended 14 months later when Gordon left her for a job in South America. Emotionally crushed by his betrayals, she embarked upon what she referred to as a „sex binge.‰ By this time Hollander was fairly well established in New York City. She had secured a secretarial job at the Dutch Consulate which afforded her a temporary green card, and she had moved into an apartment shared with a female roommate 10 years her senior. Her sexual exploits, however, became a source of tension between the women, and the roommate took to calling her a nymphomaniac in times of anger. And it does indeed seem that Hollander had developed what many modern health care professionals might refer to as a sex addiction. She herself, in fact, came to a very similar conclusion. When comparing herself to her roommate in her memoir, The Happy Hooker, she writes that „[her] retreat from reality was the bottle in the same way that mine was sex. At night she would quietly drink herself into a happier world while I would screw myself into mine‰ (Hollander, Moore, and Dunleavy, 1972: 74).

466

|

Xaviera Hollander

During this same time period, a series of encounters with people who admonished her for „giving herself away for free‰ led her to the following conclusion: why not supplement her meager secretarial income with cash she could earn her for doing something she loved? With this realization, she began her career as a prostitute. Hollander first worked in a brothel run by a small-time New York City madam, but because the working environment in the madamÊs „house‰ was so poor, she took to bringing clients to her own apartment. She soon learned, however, that unsavory characters practiced in the art of extortion were watching her every move, and she was forced to navigate a situation common to many prostitutes. On one afternoon, a man posing as a police officer forced his way into HollanderÊs home, and after attempting to assault her, demanded that she pay him a weekly protection fee. Though Hollander refused, she soon discovered that he had stolen her entire dayÊs pay and some nude photos her former fiancé had taken of her. In another instance of extortion against Hollander, a moving man, who sensed she was a call girl, offered her his „protective services.‰ When a stranger pressured her to pay him $5,000 for the return of the stolen pictures, Hollander turned to the moving man for help. Murdering the blackmailer in the process, the moving man was indeed able to retrieve the photos. And after charging her for an exorbitant fee several weeks later, he would periodically return to her apartment to extort additional sums of money from her. Weary of working under the direction of other madams, Hollander eventually made the decision to open her own brothel. In the summer of 1970, she secured an apartment, installed telephones, and hired young, attractive, well-mannered female employees. The vast majority of these women worked as actors, models, flight attendants, and even as a university professor but moonlighted as call girls to make ends meet. But whatever their primary occupation, the women were allotted a percentage of the total cost for their services, and in return for the portion of the fee that went to the brothel, they were provided with clients, a place to work, and an attorney, should they be arrested. Hollander likened her role as a madam to that of a hostess who helped her customers to relax with a few drinks while waiting for their sexual services and depicted her „house‰ as „boutique where exclusivity and good-taste prevail‰ (Hollander, Moore, and Dunleavy, 1972: 174). And her business sense was right on target. For the next two years, she became the most successful madam in New York City. Working in the sex industry was not, however, always easy for Hollander, and throughout her tenure as both call girl and madam, she was taken into police custody on four different occasions. Her first arrest occurred in February 1970. While Hollander was working in a brothel run by a local madam, eight police officers broke through the door and arrested the call girls on duty. Once in jail, Hollander was photographed and forced to undergo a physical exam before a judge dismissed the entire case.

Xaviera Hollander | 467

In another instance, three undercover police officers posing as johns gained entrance into HollanderÊs private brothel. After spending an hour of laughing, joking, and drinking, they identified themselves as police officers, arrested Hollander and everyone on the premises, and hauled them off to jail. Initially charged with prostitution, the unlicensed storage of alcoholic beverages, and the possession of untaxed cigarettes, HollanderÊs crimes were later reduced to misdemeanors. According to Hollander, many of the police she encountered engaged in police misconduct. When she was driven to the police station after her very first bust, the cop sitting beside her grabbed her hand and placed it on his penis. Other police indiscretions involved money. When Hollander was busted in her own brothel, the arresting officers would keep any cash they found lying around her house. And because these raids proved so costly, she found herself paying off corrupt police officials in an attempt to prevent further arrests. As city leaders developed an increasing awareness of the rampant corruption that existed within the ranks of the New York Police Department, New York City mayor John Lindsay formed the Knapp commission·an undercover operation designed to weed out crooked cops. Hollander ultimately became a central figure in this inquiry because of her involvement with an undercover Knapp commission informant and her pay-offs to the police. At this same time, HollanderÊs book The Happy Hooker was released, and the publicity generated by the highly publicized Knapp Commission hearings helped to make the book a huge success. But Hollander had been living in the United States without a green card for some time, and her notoriety brought her to the attention of immigration and naturalization services. As a result, she was deported back to Holland in April 1972. With this, her career as a prostitute/madam was essentially over. Her legal woes, however, were not yet behind her. Resettling in Canada after marrying a Canadian antique dealer Frank Applebaum, Hollander was accused of stealing several nightgowns from an upscale department store and was eventually deported from that country as well. Hollander managed to remain in the lime light despite her legal setbacks. With her new-found reputation as a person who could write openly and intelligently about sex, she was hired to pen a monthly sex advice column for Penthouse magazine·a job that lasted 35 years. HollanderÊs book, The Happy Hooker, and her other writings have been instrumental in increasing the amount and quality of sex discussion in general social discourse. Additionally, Hollander, among others in the 1970s, helped open the door to womenÊs sexuality by demonstrating that women could and should seek sexual pleasure just like men. As of the publication of this biography, she continues to write, produce plays, and collect modern art. She and her second husband, Philip de Haan, divide their time between their bed-and-breakfast hotel in Amsterdam and a vacation home in Spain.

468 |

Karla Homolka

Resources Burnham, D. (1970). 7 Police Officers Face Knapp Unit. New York Times. November 6. Dunlap, R., and Hollander, X. (2008). Xaviera Hollander, The Happy Hooker: Portrait of a Sexual Revolutionary. Directed by Robert Dunlap. Red Productions. Los Angeles. Gage, N. (1971). Vice Arrests Follow Knapp Bribe Inquiry. New York Times. July 24. Hollander, X. (2009). Xaviera Hollander The Happy Hooker. www.xavierahollander.com. Hollander, X., Moore, R., and Dunleavy Y. (1972). The Happy Hooker: My Own Story. New York: Harper Collins. Kouri, K. (2009). Personal interview conducted with Xaviera Hollander. January 22. Parrot, J. (1972). SheÊs Happier in her New Profession. Los Angeles Times. April 18.

Kristyan M. Kouri

Karla Homolka (1970–) Karla Leanne Homolka (aka Karla Bernardo, Karla Teale; currently Leanne Teale) is CanadaÊs most notorious female serial killer. Although she plead guilty to two manslaughters in an agreement for her testimony against her husband, Paul Bernardo (aka the Scarborough Rapist), with whom she committed her crimes, she assisted in the assaults of other teenage girls, including her youngest sister. She was born on May 4, 1970, in Port Credit, Ontario. She was the first of three of Karel and Dorothy HomolkaÊs girls. She met her husband at a hotel restaurant on October 17, 1987, while attending a convention in Toronto. The couple immediately became intimate and later married on June 29, 1991. In February 1993, the couple legally changed their names to Teale, after the serial killer Martin Thiel in their favorite movie Criminal Law. In January, prior to their official name change, Homolka left Bernardo after he beat her in what an attending physician at the St. Catharines General Hospital described as „the worst case of abuse he had ever seen‰ (Williams, 1998: 285). Homolka sought the legal counsel of George Walker, prior to notifying police that she was implicated in two murders committed by her husband, against whom she was willing to testify. In February 1994, she Karla Homolka in 1993. (AP/Wide obtained a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. World Photos)

Karla Homolka | 469

During their time together, the couple drugged, raped, and murdered several girls, videotaping the sexual assaults for later viewing. Their first victim was Tammy Lyn Homolka, KarlaÊs 15-year-old sister, who was raped and killed on December 23, 1994, in the basement of the family home. Tammy was HomolkaÊs Christmas present to Bernardo·a virginal offering to her future husband, who was disappointed that she was not a virgin. To facilitate the assault, Homolka stole Halcion and halothane from work, the Martindale Animal Clinic. Homolka and Bernardo ground the Halcion and mixed it into TammyÊs drink. When Tammy passed out, Homolka held a halothane-soaked cloth over her face while she and Bernardo took turns raping her. The combination of food, alcohol, and drugs caused Tammy to vomit, asphyxiating her. The police were called but ruled the death an accident. Because Homolka „ruined‰ BernardoÊs Christmas gift, she tried to make up for it six months later with a similar wedding present. Homolka invited a young friend over whom she had met at her previous employment. Again, Homolka administered alcohol, Halcion, and halothane, and again she and Bernardo took turns raping the 15-year-old, while videotaping the assault. The girl survived this and a later assault. The coupleÊs next homicide victim was 14-year-old Leslie Erin Mahaffy, whom Bernardo abducted on June 15, 1991. Mahaffy was held captive, tortured, and raped. Because her body was dismembered, the circumstances surrounding her death are unclear. Homolka said she was beaten and strangled by Bernardo, but the only evidence of physical assault were „two unexplained equidistant, asymmetrical, subcutaneous bruises, chest high on either side of her back‰ (Williams, 1998: 486) suggesting, as Bernardo did, that Homolka tried to suffocate her (CBC, 2006). MahaffyÊs body was cut into pieces that were encased in cement and dumped in nearby Lake Gibson. MahaffyÊs body was found on Homolka and BernardoÊs wedding day by a couple canoeing. Fifteen-year-old Kristen Dawn French was the coupleÊs last victim. On April 16, 1992, she was abducted from a church parking lot after being lured by Homolka who requested directions with map in hand. French was raped and tortured for several days before Bernardo beat and strangled her prior to attending Easter dinner at the Homolkas. KristenÊs naked and beaten body was found April 30, 1992, in a ditch along Number 1 Sideroad, Burlington (Burnside and Cairns, 1995). On May 14, 1993, Homolka accepted a plea deal, whereby in exchange for testifying against Bernardo, she would received two 12-year terms to be served concurrently for the manslaughters of Mahaffy and French and „blanket immunity‰ for all related crimes. This agreement was negotiated prior to the discovery of six 8 mm videotapes of the rapes. The Crown entered the agreement out of desperation, as they had little evidence linking Bernardo to the girlsÊ murders. Although the police searched BernardoÊs home for 71 days, the tapes were not found until Bernardo told his lawyer, Ken Murray, of their location. However, Murray did not turn the tapes over to the police but kept them for 16 months before handing them over to his

470 |

Katherine Howard

replacement, John Rosen, upon his resignation (Chidley, 1995). Because HomolkaÊs July 1993 trial predated BernardoÊs May 1995 trial, a media ban was implemented by Judge Francis Kovacs to ensure that information from her trial would not prejudice his. Upon the disclosure of the tapes and evidence of her extensive involvement in the rapes, the public was furious that Homolka received such a light sentence. A petition, signed by 320,000 people, asked the Ministry to revoke her plea agreement (Williams, 2003). Similarly, there were attempts to put conditions on her upon her release from prison. Both efforts were in vain. On April 12, 2005, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant affirmed Homolka would not be indicted on additional crimes, and on November 30, 2005, a Québec Superior Court judge, James Brunton, lifted restrictions imposed on Homolka by Judge Jean Beaulieu (CBC, 2005). Homolka was evaluated numerous times throughout her involvement with the criminal justice system. Early evaluations found she suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, consistent with spousal abuse syndrome. However, a later evaluation by Dr. Angus McDonald indicated that „Karla Homolka remains something of a diagnostic mystery. Despite her ability to present herself very well, there is a moral vacuity in her which is difficult if not impossible to explain‰ (Cairns, 2005: 39). Homolka was released from prison on July 4, 2005, and is currently living in Montréal with her son, born on February 2, 2007, and Thierry Bordelais, the babyÊs father (Gatehouse, 2007). Resources Burnside, Scott, and Alan Cairns. 1996. Deadly Innocence. New York: Times Warner Books. Cairns, Alan. 2005. KarlaÊs life behind bars. Toronto Sun, June 5. CBC News Online. 2005. Homolka now free without conditions. November 30. http://www. cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/11/30/homolka051130.html. CBC News Online. 2006. Indepth: Bernardo. February 21. http://www.cbc.ca/news/back ground/bernardo/. Chidley, Joe. 1995. Bernardo: The untold story. MacleanÊs, September 11. Gatehouse, Jonathon. 2007. Is Karla fit to be a mother? MacleanÊs, June 4. Williams, Stephen. 1998. Invisible Darkness. New York: Bantam Books. Williams, Stephen. 2003. Karla: A Pact with the Devil. Toronto: Cantos International.

Kim S. Ménard

Katherine Howard (1521?–1542) Katherine Howard was the fifth wife of King Henry VIII and the second to be beheaded. She is a historical example of criminalization related to womenÊs sexuality

Katherine Howard | 471

and childbearing. HowardÊs alleged sexual improprieties violated expectations of women at the time, and her failure to contribute a child to her royal husbandÊs legacy further underscored her lack of proper contribution as a woman. Allegations resulted in her being found guilty of treason, as handed down by the Council. The act of treason was defined as misrepresenting herself to the King as chaste and sexually innocent and for allegedly committing adultery. This crime was punished in the most severe fashion: capital punishment by beheading. Howard was 1 of 10 children born to Lord Edmund and Jocasta Culpeper. She is not believed to have been a great beauty even though she did catch the eye of Henry probably within the first month of her being in his court. She had a sweet, childlike quality about her with a propensity to please the men in her life. Howard was raised in the house of her step-grandmother, Agnes Duchess of Norfolk. Given the vast size of the household, over one hundred persons, the living situation was more like a dormitory than a quiet grandmotherÊs house. Howard, being an adolescent girl with minimal supervision, found many opportunities to test her sexuality. It was common for many of the young girls to have boys come into the shared bedroom at night. HowardÊs first experience was with Henry Mannox, a music teacher, which proved to be inconsequential and was never fully consummated. The second liaison was much more serious and would eventually cost both lovers their lives. Francis Dereham spent many nights in HowardÊs bedchamber; they consummated their love and even referred to each other as „husband and wife,‰ indicating a pre-contract. By law, a pre-contract existed if a couple engaged in sexual intercourse with a promise of marriage at a later date. In 1539, Howard was invited to court to be a maid of honor to Anne of Cleves, at which point Dereham left for Ireland. Howard apparently forgot her pre-contract with Dereham, probably as her adolescent feelings for Dereham disappeared and in her excitement to be at court. One way for families to move up in society was to align themselves with other powerful families through marriage. Thus, marriage was largely a political activity which was engaged in to increase wealth, status, and power. Though few could hope for a union with the King specifically, the Howard family was successful. Over time, the family was able to arrange for the marriage of two relations to the King. Katherine HowardÊs cousin, Anne Boleyn, became HenryÊs third wife. Her marriage, like HowardÊs, was arranged by her uncle Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk. After two miscarriages, Anne was accused of sexually deviant behavior (incest and adultery) and was beheaded. Court was where one came to gain favor with the King, a requirement for success, and could be a dangerous place. The definition for treasonous behavior was very broad, and punishment was death. Treasonous behavior involved any intention to do harm to King Henry through either action or thought. Almost any behavior could be viewed as treason. Court was very politically centered as families jockeyed with each other to gain favor with the King. Though the Howard family

472

|

Katherine Howard

had already lost one woman to King HenryÊs suspicious nature, they did not hesitate to sacrifice another. Women were used as pawns by the men in their family, in order to gain the most advantageous position possible within the social hierarchy. Women were not viewed as free agents with desires and a will of their own; they did what they were told. Thus, nobody ever asked Katherine Howard if she wanted to marry King Henry, not that she would have refused. The King was viewed as being just under God, of having a direct line to his wishes and desires. To refuse the King would be an absolutely unthinkable action. Upon being proposed to, Howard, understandably, did not reveal her previous sexual experiences to Henry. She was probably following the example of her step-grandmother and uncle, Duke of Norfolk, who both knew about Dereham and Mannox. King Henry and Katherine Howard were married on July 28, 1540. The King was 30 years HowardÊs senior, sick and in extremely bad health. He would refuse to see Howard for days at a time, sometimes as many as 10 or 12. HowardÊs sexual affairs before marriage and her pre-contract to Francis Dereham were exposed by a family who had something to gain by unseating the Howards from the throne. During the investigation of a pre-contract with Dereham, the possibility was raised that Howard may have engaged in sexual relations with Thomas Culpeper, a member of the KingÊs chambers. Both Howard and Culpeper denied the accusations. Neither of them ever confessed to adultery even when Culpeper was under extreme torture. Katherine Howard was beheaded on February 13, 1542. Howard had four known or alleged lovers during the course of her life: Henry Mannox, Francis Dereham, Thomas Culpeper, and King Henry VIII. If Howard had been a man, these few sexual experiences would not even be worth noting. She was beheaded on the assumption that she might have committed adultery though this was never proven. Her secret meetings with Culpeper may have been nothing more than an attempt to bribe him into keeping her previous sexual encounters with Dereham quiet. There is a widely held assumption that had Howard borne a child, she would never have been accused of adultery. She failed to become impregnated by a man who was very sick from a wound in his leg and who was quite possibly impotent. In not divulging information about her past she mislead the King, though it should be noted that King Henry divorced Anne of Cleves for this very reason· her failure to divulge a pre-contract. It would seem that because King Henry adored Katherine Howard but was not as fond of Anne of CleveÊs, that HowardÊs indiscretions probably hurt King Henry much more. Her death may have been nothing more than a loverÊs revenge, which would probably have been overlooked had she had a child. Howard, Dereham, and Culpeper were all executed. Resources Fraser, Antonia. 1992. The Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Alfred A Knopf. Harris, Barbara J. Women and Politics in Early Tudor England. Historical Journal, 33, No. 2. (1990), 259ă281.

Melissa Huckaby | 473

Lindsey, Karen. 1995. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Smith, Lacey Baldwin. 1954. English Treason Trials and Confessions in the Sixteenth Century. Journal of the History of Ideas, 15, No. 4, 471ă498. Smith, Lacey Baldwin. 1961. A Tudor Tragedy: The Life and Times of Catherine Howard. London: The Reprint Society. Smith, Lacey Baldwin. 1971. Henry VIII, The Mask of Royalty. London: Jonathan Cape. Warnicke, Retha M. Kathryn Howard. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Accessed April 21, 2007. Wilson, Derek. 2001. In the LionÊs Court: Power, Ambition and Sudden Death in the Reign of Henry VIII. New York: St. MartinÊs Press.

James David Ballard and Shelley Azzarito

Melissa Huckaby (1981–) The case of Melissa Huckaby, who was convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and killing eight-year-old Sandra Cantu, demonstrates that women can and do partake in crimes largely committed by men. In fact, the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorders estimates that as many as 14 percent of childhood sexual assault cases are perpetrated by women (Whealin, 2010). But that said, HuckabyÊs crimes are still quite unusual. When women do engage in the act of molestation, the crime is often committed in association with a male and the age of the victim tends to be somewhat older than that of Sandra Cantu (Finkelhor, 2008). It is also rare for a woman to kill a child other than her own offspring. Melissa Lawless Huckaby was born on February 23, 1981, to Brian and Judy Lawless in Orange County, California. The information currently available suggests that she had a normal childhood without a history of psychological problems. People who knew her from Brea Olinda High School, which she attended from 1995 to 1999, remembered her as a likable person who was especially interested in dance. She had a number of friends, they recalled, and did not Melissa Huckaby listens to public deexhibit any kind of deviant behavior (Tully fender Ellen Schwarzenberg during Huckaby’s arraignment in a Stockton, and Ponsi, 2009). Her parents, who report being baffled by California, courtroom in 2009. (AP/Wide their daughterÊs violent deeds, contend that World Photos)

474 |

Melissa Huckaby

her emotional troubles began after being raped by a police officer at the age of 19. Although she was admitted to a series of psychiatric facilities for a number of shortterm stays, her father asserts that she never received any long-term therapeutic care. „Whenever she was admitted into a facility,‰ he told NBCÊs Today Show host Matt Lauer, „she would tell the doctor it was Âjust a bad momentÊ [and] the doctor would write it off and release her‰ (Lauer, 2010). Despite the lack of comprehensive treatment, she was prescribed number of psychiatric medications which she continued to take up until the time of CantuÊs murder. Melissa HuckabyÊs young adult life was also marked by a host of additional challenges. Her marriage to John Huckaby in May 2003 ended shortly after giving birth to their daughter Madison. Melissa cited alcoholism, domestic violence, and child abduction as the primary reasons for the dissolution of the marriage.1 And despite brief stints as a medical biller and event planner, she was never able to hold down a job for any period of time. Mired in debt, she subsequently filed for bankruptcy in 2003. She later found it difficult to secure child support payments from John Huckaby and was consequently granted $237 per month in public aid (Tully and Ponsi, 2009). A lack of financial resources may have led her to engage in the practice of shoplifting. She was convicted of petty theft for stealing items from a Target store in Los Angeles County in 2006, and at the time of her arrest for the murder of Sandra Cantu, she was in the midst of serving a three-year probation sentence for a petty theft conviction in San Joaquin County (Adams, 2009). In June 2008, HuckabyÊs paternal grandparents, Connie and Clifford Lane Lawless, asked her to travel to their mobile home at the Orchard Estates mobile home park in Tracy, California, a rural town east of San Francisco, to help them pack for an impending move. The move never took place, and Huckaby and her daughter Madison ended up staying in Tracy. Although Connie Lawless described her unemployed granddaughter as a loner who would intentionally cut herself on her ankles, Huckaby did have, at least, some contact with the people around her at that point. She taught Sunday school in the Clover Road Baptist Church, where her grandfather served as minister, and she formed an on-and-off again relationship with Daniel Plowman, a man she would eventually stand accused of drugging (Simerman and Kazmi, 2010). The tendency to drug people appears to have been part of an emerging pattern for Huckaby, for in January 2009, Huckaby was also alleged to have drugged a sevenyear-old neighbor girl with one of the many psychiatric drugs she was currently taking (Simerman and Kazmi, 2010). On March 27, 2009, Huckaby lured Sandra Cantu, her neighbor and her daughter MadisonÊs frequent playmate, to the Clover Road Baptist Church located just down the road from her home. And there, within the confines of the church walls, she drugged the child, sexually assaulted her with a rolling pin taken from the church kitchen, and strangled her (Goldman, 2010; Kazmi, 2010a). She then stuffed the

Melissa Huckaby | 475

childÊs body into a suitcase and dumped it in a nearby farming trench filled with manure and other liquid waste products (Simerman and Kazmi, 2010). Though Huckaby engaged in odd behavior immediately following CantuÊs disappearance, such as reporting that the suitcase that was ultimately used to dispose of the childÊs body had been stolen and checking into a hospital after allegedly swallowing an X-Acto knife blade, law enforcement officials did not initially view her as a suspect. FBI experts were instead looking for a „white male, 25ă40, with a criminal history of sexual assault or child pornography‰ (Simerman and Kazmi, 2010), but upon careful examination of the facts, investigators began to compile a case against her. After being presented with a plethora of evidence linking her to the murder, during a series of interviews with detectives, Huckaby finally admitted to killing the child. She was arrested on April 10, 2009, and ultimately charged with murder with special circumstances including kidnapping, rape with a foreign object, and lewd conduct with a minor. Huckaby surprised everyone when, on May 10, 2010, she pled guilty to the crime of murder with the special circumstance of kidnapping. According to the Contra Costa Times, „prosecutor James Willett decided to make the plea agreement because of the expense of a capital case that would likely be moved to Southern California, followed by perhaps decades of appeal‰ (Kazmi, June 16, 2010). In agreeing to this plea, Huckaby escaped the death penalty and the charges of rape with a foreign object, and lewd conduct with a minor. The unrelated charges of drugging her ex-boyfriend and a neighbor girl were also dropped (Dillon, 2010; Kazmi, 2010). The plea also allowed Huckaby to avoid a lengthy trial and to retain some contact with her daughter. She was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without parole on June 10, 2010. On the day of her sentencing, Huckaby told the court that she had no idea why she committed the crime, and at the time of this writing, HuckabyÊs motive for killing young Sandra Cantu remains uncertain. It is, however, evident that she has been plagued with some sort of psychological ailment. Although theories about just what this ailment might be abound, the Tracy Police Department reported that Huckaby had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Yet, it is unclear just who made this diagnosis and whether she had experienced any of the delusions and hallucinations associated with schizophrenia. Note 1. John Huckaby told Chris Cuomo of ABCÊs Good Morning America that the charges his former wife lodged against him were false (2009).

Resources Adams, C. (2009). Sunday school teacher arrested in murder of Sandra Cantu. Crime Examiner. www. examiner.com/x-1168-Crime Examiner. April 11.

476 |

Dolores Huerta

Breuer, H. (2010). Inside story: Clues to why Melissa Huckaby murdered an eight-year old girl. People Magazine. June 27. Cuomo, Chris. (2009). Television interview with John Huckaby. Good Morning America. April 17. Dillon, Nancy. (2010). Melissa Huckaby, who killed eight-year-old Sandra Cantu, pleads guilty to avoid death penalty. New York Daily News. May 10. Finkelhor, David. (2008). Childhood Victimization: Violence, Crime, and Abuse in the Lives of Young People. New York: Oxford University Press. Goldman, Russell. (2010). Melissa Huckaby used noose to kill eight-year-old Sandra Cantu. http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/melissa-huckaby-confessed-murderer-year-girl-sent enced-life/story?id=10910285. Kazmi, S. (2010a). Court records show Huckaby drugged, sexually assaulted Sandra Cantu with rolling pin. Contra Costa Times. June 14. Kazmi, S. (2010b). Melissa HuckabyÊs parents speak out for first time on NBCÊs Today. Contra Costa Times. July 2. Lauer, M. (2010). Television interview with Brian Lawless, Judy Lawless, and Joni Hughes. Today Show. July 2. Simerman, J., & Kazmi, S. (2010). A calculated killing: The case against Melissa Huckaby. Contra Costa Times. June 21. Tully, S., & Ponsi, L. (2009). Woman suspected in 8-year-oldÊs slaying grew up in O.C. Orange County Register. April 19. Whealin J. (2010). Men and Sexual Trauma. National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorders www.ptsd.va.gov.

Kristyan M. Kouri

Dolores Huerta (1930–) Dolores Huerta is an example of a woman who was apprehended for actions taken during attempts to bring about social change; most of her arrests were grounded in laws that prohibit acts of civil disobedience. A founding member of the United Farm Workers Union, Huerta was arrested on at least 22 different occasions while participating in strikes and demonstrations intended to bring about fair and equitable working conditions to hosts of downtrodden workers. Born on April 10, 1930, to Alicia and Juan Fernandez, the young Dolores spent the first three years of her life in New Mexico. Upon her parentsÊ divorce, her mother moved her and her four siblings to the San Joaquin Valley, located in Central California. After several years of hard work and careful planning, Alicia Fernandez was able to purchase a restaurant and hotel·an investment that allowed her to provide her children with what Dolores later described as a working-class

Dolores Huerta | 477

yet comfortable lifestyle. DoloresÊs mother often provided needy farm workers with rooms in her hotel for little or no money, and Huerta therefore credits her mother for imbuing her compassion for the plight of farm workers. Though she did not see much of her father during her formative years, Alicia kept his image alive by speaking of his political work and recounting stories of his attempts to organize New Mexican mine workers. These stories also served to inspire the future labor activist. Dolores Huerta entered into what is now known as San Joaquin Delta College immediately after high school graduation, completing her degree and teaching credential. It was while teaching elUnited Farm Workers cofounder ementary school in 1955, a job she obtained soon Dolores Huerta attends a dedication of the César Chávez Monu- after graduating from college, that she became acment on the San Jose State quainted with social activist Fred Ross. Founder University campus in California, of the Community Service Organization (CSO) in 2008. (AP/Wide World Photos) Los Angeles, a group dedicated to securing rights for Mexican Americans, Ross was determined to form a chapter in Stockton, California, and he enlisted Huerta and her mother to help him with this cause. „When I saw all the things they were able to do,‰ Huerta told Ms. magazine in 1997, „bring in health clinics, fight the police·it was like a revelation.‰ Huerta became acquainted with Cesar Chavez through her work with CSO. Because both Huerta and Chavez had become frustrated with the CSOÊs inability to secure basic rights for farm workers, they formed the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, and after merging with the Filipino-based Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee in 1967, the United Farm Workers Union of America (UFW) was born. Throughout these transformations, Huerta served not only as labor organizer, but also as a political lobbyist, contract negotiator, and job action strategist, or, as declassified FBI documents pertaining to the Delano grape strike assert, „the driving force behind the picket lines‰ (FBI, 1992). In the beginning, it seemed as though the UFW had won a significant victory in negotiating union contracts with growers, but the growers soon found ways to circumvent union mandates. Typically grapes would be purchased from nonunion farms, and growers would apply their own labels to the fruit to appear as though the grapes had been picked by union farm workers. To combat these practices, Huerta convinced the UFW to launch a nationwide boycott of grapes, a job action that she would ultimately go on to direct. The boycott caught on

478 |

Dolores Huerta

with Americans throughout the nation, and in 1970, after a sweeping decline in the sale of grapes, the entire California table grape industry bent to the will of the UFW. All of HuertaÊs more than 20 arrests took place while engaging in strike activities. Although picketing is considered a guaranteed form of free speech, it must be conducted within the confines of carefully constructed parameters. Strikers who step outside of these boundaries are usually arrested for actions that fall under the rubric of public order crimes which include misdemeanor offenses such trespassing, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or failure to disperse. Though the vast majority of HuertaÊs arrests for such crimes did not result in convictions, she was sometimes forced to spend as much as a week in jail after being taken into custody. One fairly recent arrest, however, did lead to two subsequent guilty verdicts. While working alongside the Hotel Workers Union in Palm Springs, California, she was arrested, and in 2005, she was convicted of trespassing and disorderly conduct and was sentenced to six months probation. In their attempts to force the strikers to disperse, the police would sometimes make use of physical force, and Huerta was not immune to these violent tactics· this in spite of her steadfast commitment to nonviolent protest. During a 1988 San Francisco protest rally, she was clubbed so forcefully and hurt so badly that she had to be rushed to a nearby hospital. As a result of these injuries, which ultimately consisted of a ruptured spleen and broken ribs, she sued the city and used the money awarded in damages to launch the Dolores Huerta Foundation, a nonprofit organization „whose mission is to build active communities working for fair and equal access to healthcare, housing, education, jobs, civic participation and economic resources for disadvantaged communities with an emphasis on women and youth‰ (Dolores Huerta Foundation). Dolores Huerta found time to form a very large family right in the midst of all her political activism. Celeste and Lori, the first 2 of her 11 children, were born during an early marriage to Ralph Head; Fidel, Emilio, Vincent, Alicia, and Angela arrived while she was married to her second husband, Ventura Huerta; and Juanita, Maria Elena, Ricky, and Camilla were the result of her long-time partnership with Richard Chavez, brother to Cesar. Over the years, Huerta has become involved in so many social causes that she has been likened to turn-of-the-20th-century social activist Emma Goldman. In addition to her work with the Dolores Huerta Foundation and her ubiquitous union activities, she also spends her time promoting womenÊs causes. She became formally involved in the feminist movement in the 1980s, partly because of the rampant sexism she experienced while working with the male UFW rankand-file, and perhaps because she has received so little credit for the instrumental role she played in securing rights for farm workers. She became an active member of the National Organization for Women in 1987, and she currently holds

Francine Hughes | 479

a seat on the Feminist Majority executive board. In the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, she campaigned for Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton. Resources Dolores Huerta Foundation. http://www.doloreshuerta.org/ Drake, S. S. Dolores Huerta. Progressive. September 2000. 34ă38 FBI. The FBI Mission: The Delano Grape Strike. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992. Felner, J. Women of the Year. Ms. January/February 1978. Kouri, Kristyan. Personal interview with Dolores Huerta. January 30, 2008. Murcia, Rebecca. C. Dolores Huerta. Bear, DE: Mitchell Lane Publishers, 2003.

Kristyan M. Kouri

Francine Hughes (1947–) On the evening of March 9, 1977, Francine Hughes set fire to the bed where her exhusband lay sleeping, then fled the house with three of her children, arriving at the police station shortly thereafter. In a landmark court decision in November of that year, Francine was declared not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, becoming one of the first women to be acquitted of murder for killing an abusive partner in a way that clearly fell outside traditional notions of self-defense. Her case represents one of the first successful uses of a battered womanÊs defense, although it was not called that at the time. Hughes was born in August, 1947, to Hazel and Walter Moran. Her family lived in the country outside of Lansing, Michigan. In her early life, HughesÊs father worked the onion fields, and her mother took waitressing jobs on and off as needed. Francine Hughes had two older and three younger siblings. Although she grew up poor, Francine recalls her childhood as happy·filled with playing outside and enjoying nature. She was very eager to please as a child, getting good grades in school and trying to make a good impression. She suffered only from the occasional reminders of her familyÊs relative poverty·lack of food, secondhand clothing, lack of certainty about the future. In 1962, when Francine was 15, she met James („Mickey‰) Hughes. She married him on November 4 of the following year, after a short courtship. Throughout the 14 years between when Francine married Mickey and when she killed him, Mickey was abusive. He was both physically abusive·hitting and kicking, later threatening her with weapons·and emotionally abusive·putting her down, pointing out any and every flaw. He was possessive of Francine, becoming upset if she visited

480 | Francine Hughes

neighbors or talked to anyone when he wasnÊt around. Early on, Mickey would apologize after the incidents and promise they would not happen again. Sooner or later, the beatings would resume, and eventually, the apologies stopped. By then, however, the couple had three children and Francine felt trapped. They were often short on money because Mickey was often out of work and did not want Francine to work outside the home. They would settle somewhere, and then get evicted because they couldnÊt pay the rent, either because Mickey lost a job or used the money for other things. Francine filed for divorce during her fourth pregnancy, prompted mainly by the need to get government benefits so she could feed the children. Late in 1968, Mickey was in a terrible car accident and nearly lost his life. He remained hospitalized for 40 days and was sent home to recuperate at his parentsÊ home. They depended on Francine to help so she rented the house next door to be close by. Eventually, Mickey moved in with Francine and the kids, despite the divorce·so Francine could take care of him. As Mickey regained his strength, the beatings and constant verbal degradation began again and escalated to a new level of cruelty. He refused to leave and would lash out at the smallest provocation. His abuse began to involve upsetting the children. Although he is never reported as hitting the children as he did Francine, on two occasions, he killed or refused to help animals the kids were attached to, and he had no qualms about beating Francine with them around. He would simply send them outside or upstairs as the beating escalated. By 1976, Francine was able to earn her GED. After completing it, she received a government grant and began classes at Lansing Business College. Unfortunately, her attending school was a constant sore spot with Mickey, but he didnÊt force her to quit early on. He would still beat her, threaten to kill her, degrade her, and lash out for seemingly no reason. Francine came to see school as her salvation but still could not seem to get away from Mickey. On the afternoon of March 9, 1977, Mickey became furious because Francine was late (she had given a fellow student a ride home), because she bought TV dinners for supper, and because he was drunk. He began to beat her and declared that she would not go to school anymore. Francine, in a rare show of defiance, said she wouldnÊt quit. Mickey was enraged, beating Francine all afternoon, not letting her feed the children, and insisting that she quit. The police came, and left as usual, and the beatings continued. Eventually, Francine gave in and burned her books in the barrel in the backyard as Mickey had ordered. She fixed Mickey something for dinner and then conceded to sex with him. When he fell asleep, Francine brought the children downstairs and thought about her life·how it was ruined and how the kidsÊ lives were just as bad. After a while, she decided that they would all leave and never come back. She had tried to leave many times before, but Mickey always followed and brought her back. She decided the only way to avoid coming back again was to have nothing to come back to. She got the children in the car, doused MickeyÊs bed in gasoline, lit a match, and left.

Francine Hughes | 481

Once driving, Hughes was overcome by stress and emotion and drove directly to the county jail where her oldest daughter told the police that their house was on fire (Francine was too hysterical to speak). She was soon taken into custody and confessed to setting the fire that killed her ex-husband. Francine was charged with first-degree murder and felony murder (committing murder while committing the felony of arson). Her trial lasted for eight days, much of which consisted of Francine testifying as to her life with Mickey·his beatings, his cruelty to her and the children, her attempts to leave, her inability to escape the situation. The jury returned with a verdict of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Francine was set free. Her crime and her trial had a tremendous impact on the popular understanding and legal reaction to domestic violence. It received a tremendous amount of press and brought needed attention to the issue of domestic violence and battered women. It came at a time when the public was newly willing and able to see the complexities in a case like hers. It represented a tremendous victory in the feminist cause of shedding light on domestic violence. As a result, there was some inevitable backlash·editorials claiming that to apply the law in such a way opened the floodgates to allow women to kill their husbands. One such article claimed that if the feminists get their way, the numbers of homicides would go up. They quoted a sheriff as saying „I wonder if these people [the feminists] know what theyÊre doing. If they get their way, there are going to be a lot of killings‰ („The Law,‰ 1977). Overall, however, the Hughes case paved the way for the public and those in the legal profession to see battered women differently. Rather than having to prove „temporary insanity‰ during a trial, women in HughesÊs position thereafter could present evidence regarding battered womenÊs syndrome as a way of understanding self-defense from the perspective of an abuse victim. Francine HughesÊs story became the subject of a true-crime book (McNulty, 1980) and, later, a made-for-television movie (1984) based on the book, both called The Burning Bed. The movie starred Farrah Fawcett. HughesÊs case remains one of the most well-known true stories of a woman killing her abusive partner (and being acquitted) to date, and HughesÊs story and its impact on the battered womenÊs movement cannot be underestimated. Resources Browne, Angela. (1989). When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press. Campbell, J. C., L. Rose, J. Kub, & D. Nedd. (1998). Voices of strength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinal analysis of womenÊs responses to battering. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 743ă762. Dutton, M. (1995). Understanding womenÊs responses to domestic violence: A redefinition of Battered Woman Syndrome. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 1191ă1242. „The Law: A Killing Excuse.‰ (1977, November 28). Time. Retrieved from www.time.com/ magazine/article/0,9171,919176-1,00.html

482

|

Anne Hutchinson

McNulty, Faith. (1980). The Burning Bed: The True Story of Francine Hughes·A Beaten Wife who Rebelled. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Sipe, Beth, & Evelyn Hall. (1996). I Am Not Your Victim: Anatomy of Domestic Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maureen Outlaw

Anne Hutchinson (1591–1643) Anne Hutchinson was a Puritan woman who would come to be seen as one of the greatest threats to the Massachusetts Bay ColonyÊs heavily structured religious society. Hutchinson was labeled a heretic by the colonyÊs authorities, based on her challenges to the colonyÊs religious order. Yet her willingness to violate societal rules about acceptable female conduct in order to explore and question Puritan doctrines has established Anne Hutchinson over the past few centuries as an early pioneer in the womenÊs right movement and in the fight for religious freedom and tolerance. Anne Hutchinson was born Anne Marbury in England in 1591 to Francis Marbury and Bridget Dryden. Francis Marbury was a preacher in the Church of England who was arrested several times for denouncing the political assignment of religious leadership, who he viewed as incompetent for their posts. Yet by the time of AnneÊs birth, Francis Marbury had renounced his former criticisms of the Church and went on to serve as minister of a London parish until his death. AnneÊs family educated her extensively, and they regularly engaged in energetic theological debates. These intense discussions gave her the opportunity to perfect the assertive, charismatic, and intellectual nature she would display as an adult. She was thus prepared early in life with the skills and knowledge she would need to embark on her challenge of the Puritan doctrines Anne Hutchinson led the first in Massachusetts. organized attack on the maleAnne Hutchinson left home when she married dominated Puritan religious esWilliam Hutchinson at the age of 21. They estab- tablishment. Banished from the lished a home in England with William managing Massachusetts Bay Colony for her independent views, she has a textile business and farming while Anne worked been hailed as one of America’s as a midwife. Anne was principally a housewife, earliest feminists. Illustration from taking care of the home and the 15 children that Harper’s Monthly, v. 102, 1901. they would eventually come to have. Anne also (Library of Congress)

Anne Hutchinson | 483

found time while living in England to conduct religious meetings for local women examining the Bible and church sermons. Religion served as the central point of AnneÊs familyÊs life. Her family had come to favor a Protestant minister named John Cotton who was teaching a growing Puritan theology. Cotton emigrated to Massachusetts in 1632 based on a growing scrutiny of Puritanism by the Church of England. Anne and her family would follow Cotton and the Puritans in 1634 to Massachusetts, looking forward to a more tolerant religious environment based on Puritanism. In Massachusetts, Anne Hutchinson began conducting religious classes in her home. Initially, these meetings were seen as in compliance with Puritan expectations, as Anne invited women in the community to discuss the religious lessons received through local sermons and through their reading of the Bible. Yet AnneÊs troubles in the community began as her gatherings grew so popular that they came to include not only significant numbers of women, but men also. While it was problematic according to the Puritan moral code for her to host men in her home, the biggest problems for Anne Hutchinson arose from her challenging Puritan theology. The Puritan way of life was based on the Covenant of Works doctrine which taught that it was only through good deeds that an individual could gain GodÊs approval and eternal life. Puritan leaders, such as John Withrop, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, preached the Covenant of Works and designated religious leaders to oversee each individualÊs adherence to this covenant. Anne Hutchinson began preaching a Covenant of Grace which went in opposition to the Covenant of Works. Specifically, Hutchinson taught that „ Âit is not by conduct, not by obeying the commandments, by giving alms, praying, fasting or wearing a long faceÊ ‰ that one gains salvation. Instead, „ ÂA serene spirit, coming from the consciousness of GodÊs spirit within, proves to the true believer that he is among the electÊ ‰ (Rugg, 1930: 119). Anne was thus teaching that one needed only to establish a personal connection with God to gain salvation and that to gain GodÊs grace, it was not necessary to perform all of the duties expected by Puritan leaders. Anne further taught that even a person who was performing all of the duties associated with a virtuous Puritan individual might not gain salvation eternally if that individual did not possess this personal connection with God. The leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony immediately realized the impact that such teachings by Anne Hutchinson could have on the order that they had established in the colony. Overall, she was questioning the legitimacy and competency of the authorities in Massachusetts Bay Colony to enact moral and legal measures deemed to be essential for salvation of the individuals in that society. She was professing to know the way to GodÊs salvation, and that way did not require adherence to the laws and expectations established by Puritan authorities. The leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, led by John Winthrop, thus brought Anne Hutchinson to trial in 1637 to suppress the uprising that was expected to result from her teachings.

484 |

Anne Hutchinson

Anne Hutchinson was charged with the crime of „ Âtraducing the ministers and their ministry in this countryÊ ‰ and for being „ Âthe breeder and nourisher of all these distempersÊ ‰ (Curtis, 1930: 62). She was charged with heresy and accused of unacceptably criticizing the teachings of religious authorities, based on her lack of authority on this matter and based on her status as a woman. These charges resulted in her banishment from the colony by the General Court of Massachusetts, and she and her family moved to what is now Rhode Island. Anne Hutchinson and her family would then move to New York following the death of her husband, and she and five of her children would die there as victims of an Indian attack on the colony in which they were residing. Anne HutchinsonÊs crimes of challenging religious authorities and going in opposition to norms about appropriate female conduct have been presented as revolutionary contributions to the establishment of rights for women and religious freedom and tolerance in the United States. Anne HutchinsonÊs legacy today is thus one of a pioneering feminist and intellectual. Resources Curtis, Edith. 1930. Anne Hutchinson: A Biography. Cambridge: Washburn and Thomas. LaPlante, Eve. 2004. American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson, the Woman Who Defied the Puritans. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. Rugg, Winnifred King. 1930. Unafraid: A Life of Anne Hutchinson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Winship, Michael P. 2005. The Times and Trials of Anne Hutchinson, Puritans Divided. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Juanita Ortiz

J Hélène Jegado (ca. 1803–1851) Hélène Jegado was a notorious French female serial killer, considered an Angel of Death who primarily targeted people she worked for as a housekeeper and cook. It is estimated she killed 28 people between 1830 and 1850 in northern France. Although she was accused of using arsenic to poison her victims, no one actually ever saw her with the deadly substance. She remains one of FranceÊs more notorious criminals. Born in the summer in Brittany at Plouhinec, department of Morbihan, in 1803, Hélène Jegado was orphaned at the age of 7 and resided with a M. Bubry with whom her two aunts worked as servants. At age 16, one aunt took her into service for M. Conan. In 1833 she went to work for a priest named Le Drogo. Between June 28 and October 3, seven died in his household, including HélèneÊs visiting sister, Anna; the priest; and both his parents. Although the deaths raised suspicion, JegadoÊs devout mourning of each death masked her actions. She returned back to the Bubry household to replace her sister where one of JegadoÊs aunts, the employerÊs niece and sister, all died within three months. Again Jegado cared and mourned for each one and managed to deflect suspicion. Jegado then moved on to Locmine to work as a seamstressÊs apprentice under the widow Marie-Jeanne Leboucher. Both the widow and her daughter died. The widowÊs son, Pierre Leboucher, did not like Jegado, refused her care, and subsequently improved. Fearing that people would suspect her in these deaths, she left. She was reported to have said to a relative of the deceased, „IÊm afraid that people will accuse me of all those deaths. Death follows me wherever I go‰ (Macclure, 1935: 16). She left the home shortly after taking an offer of a room in the house of the widow Lorey in the same town. Lorey also died. When the widow Cadic, LoreyÊs niece, arrived, Jegado threw herself at her in great sadness, eliciting much sympathy, lamenting how people die everywhere she goes. By 1835 Jegado was working for Dame Toussant, also of Lacmine, killing four: Anne Eveno (a maid), ToussantÊs father and daughter, and, eventually, M. Toussant. She was fired by ToussantÊs son. She now had a reputation of having a „white liver‰ and had „death in her breath‰

485

486

|

Hélène Jegado

(Macclure, 1935: 158). White liver, in this context, was used in conjunction to death in her breath to refer to her presence as somehow being deadly. Jegado then moved to Auray, where she was accepted as a pensionnaire in the Convent of the Eternal Father. Soon after members of the convent began getting ill, and studentÊs clothes and linens were slashed, Jegado was asked to leave. She resumed her apprenticeship as a seamstress inside Auray with 77-year-old Ann Lecouvrec. Lecouvrec died within two days after eating soup prepared by Jegado. Jegado then attempted to fatally poison Anne Lefur, another employer in Auray. She immediately began work for Mdm. Hetel, but her son-in-law learned of her activities at the convent and dismissed her. Jegado had already poisoned his mother-in-law who died the day after she left. She left and became a cook in Pontivy in the home of Sieur Jouanno, killing their 14-year-old son. Autopsy revealed an inflamed stomach and corroded intestines, but his death was attributed to the fact that he was known to eat a lot of vinegar. In 1836 she murdered M. Kerallic of Hennebont by serving him an herbal tea to nurse a fever. In 1839 she murdered Dame Venon, although the details on this death are not available. In 1841 she killed the granddaughter of M. Dupuy-de-Lome of Lorient, as well as sickening the remainder of his family. From 1841 to 1849, Jegado appears to have taken a hiatus from killing, turning instead to thievery and alcoholism. By November 6, 1849, she was working for a couple named Rabot. Their son Albert died in December after eating porridge prepared by Jegado. In March 1850, Jegado was given 10 days notice by M. Rabot for stealing wine. All family members became sick the following day. All survived. She then moved onto the Ozaane family, killing their youngest son. He was diagnosed with croup fever. Jegado left immediately to work for M. Roussell whose mother openly chastised Jegado and subsequently became ill, suffering 18 months, but recovering. A fellow housekeeper, Perotte Mace fell ill in August and died in September. Two doctors, Vincent and Guyot, became suspicious of these deaths but autopsy was refused. Jegado was dismissed for stealing wine. Two weeks later, she began work for a professor of law, M. Bidard. Two servants, Rosalie Sarrazin and Rose Tessier, died despite all administrations by the Bidards to these women. Doctors Pinault and Boudin, friends of the Bidards, became suspicious. Although autopsy on Rosalie did not reveal traces of poison, the doctors persisted, presenting evidence to the procureur-general in the City of Rennes. The three visited M. Bidard and told him of the suspected poisoning, to which Jegado blurted out, „I am innocent!‰ The law officer was then said to ask, „Innocent of what? You have not been accused of anything‰ (Macclure, 1935: 143). Her claim of innocence eventually lead to her arrest and an inquiry into her long past. There appeared to be no clear motive for these deaths. In some cases it appears she killed to cover up thefts, while in others jealousy resulted in the death of the person she perceived as a rival. She was able to hide behind her gendered, nurturing,

Genene Jones |

487

and caring identity, despite the fact that she had openly told people, „Wherever I go people die.‰ She was charged with and tried on 3 counts of murder, 3 charges of attempted poisoning, and 11 charges of theft. At her trial, it was commented that she „took snuff and was dirty‰ (Macclure, 1935: 162). She was found guilty and executed by guillotine at Rennes in December 1851. She remains one of the most prolific serial murderers on record, and her story is made more distinctive by her gender. Resources Jones, Richard Glyn. 2004. Women Who Kill, 2nd ed. Edison, NJ: Castle Books. LaSala, Francine. 2002. Mistresses of Mayhem: The Book of Women Criminals. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha. Macclure, Victor. 1935. „Arsenic à la Bretonne,‰ in She stands accused. Full text available at the University of Virginia e-text site: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ MacStan.html Macclure, Victor. 2005. She Stands Accused. New York: Cosino.

Hannah Scott

Genene Jones (1950–) Genene Jones (aka Genene Anne Jones Turk) is a female serial murderer considered a classic Angel of Death. She was a nurseÊs assistant prosecuted for killing 2 children under her care and suspected of killing at least 15 others using either heart medications or anesthetic drugs injected into the bloodstream. Her case is also a good illustration of Munchhausen syndrome by proxy directed towards nonfamilial members, and it became one of the significant forces driving policies and investigations around child and infant deaths. Genene Jones, one of four adopted children of Dick and Gladys Jones, grew up in San Antonio, Texas. She was born July 13, 1950. From the very beginning of her life she had felt unwanted and unloved. By age 17, she had lost her father to cancer and her disabled brother to injuries sustained from an explosion of her fatherÊs sign shop. She married Jimmy DeLany, a high school drop-out, only six weeks after she buried her father. Together, they had two children: a son and a daughter. After the deaths of her brother and her father, Jones began to show signs of Munchhausen Syndrome. Munchausen syndrome is psychological disorder characterized by the need for great amounts of attention, often medical. Patients lie about symptoms in order to garner medical and other attention. She had begun to lie about events that had happened to her before her senior year of high school. She also began appearing at hospitals in the area with symptoms that were vague such

488 | Genene Jones

as chest and/or head pain, but which were also indications that something more serious could be indicated. Doctors would issue a series of tests, all of which would turn up with no indication of serious illness. Eventually she became known to the emergency room community in local hospitals, and soon she was not getting the attention she desired and temporarily curtailed her emergency room visits. She divorced her husband and became a nurseÊs aide in 1977. She eventually was hired at Bexar County Hospital, a hospital for San AntonioÊs poor. It is here, in the pediatric intensive care unit, that an alarming number of children began to die under JonesÊs care. The children in the pediatrics ICU were going into unexpected cardiac arrests on JonesÊs shift. Eventually, children in her care were found to have died from overdoses of heparin, an anti-coagulant that effectively caused these children to bleed to death. Jones had moved her locus of her need for medical attention to her young patientsÊ need for medical assistance. In diagnostic terms, she had moved from someone suffering from Munchhausen syndrome to Munchhausen syndrome by proxy. Instead of faking her own symptoms, she began to create symptoms with various drugs and medication in her patients. After the children were in distress, she would heroically try to save them, often receiving praise and/or sympathy for her devotion to trying to save the young life even if she was not successful. Jones was asked to leave the hospital, rather than prosecuted. She was hired into private practice in Kerrville, Texas, by Dr. Kathy Holland, an intern in the Bexar County Hospital, who believed in JonesÊs innocence. Within days, a small 14-month-old child, Chelsea McClellan, had mysteriously stopped breathing and had to be resuscitated and taken to emergency at a hospital a few miles away. After dismissing this case as rare, Dr. Holland eventually noticed that, in a single month period, seven children had gone into seizures while being treated by Jones. She also found empty bottles of succinylcholine, a strong drug used by anesthesiologists to relax the body before surgical intubation. Chelsea McClellan was brought back to the office on September 17, 1982, for a check-up, but this time she did not survive. Her mother remembers Genene Jones injecting a clear liquid into her daughters arm and watching her go limp. She tried to stop her but by then it was too late. Jones was dismissed September 28. Genene Jones was eventually charged with this death and the death of onemonth-old Rolando Santos who died of an overdose of heparin, a blood thinner, while being treated by Jones at Bexar County Hospital. While under investigation Jones married a 19-year-old nurseÊs aid, Garron Ray Turk, in April 1983. She received a 99-year sentence in February 1984 and a 60-year prison sentence in October of that year, respectively, to be served concurrently. She was suspected of killing at least 15 children in the pediatric ICU at Bexar County Hospital for which she was never charged. After her conviction, the hospital where she worked immediately came under scrutiny for its investigation of the sudden increase of

Genene Jones |

489

child deaths during JonesÊs tenure. Because of the notoriety of this case, it became instrumental in setting investigation policy around sudden child and infant deaths in hospital settings. In hindsight, the hospital, by not acknowledging the potential for harm that was clearly suspect, allowed for Jones to continue to „save‰ children, albeit in another location. This case is also interesting from a diagnostic standpoint, in that it demonstrates behaviorally how a person moved from an illness from Munchhausen syndrome to Munchhausen syndrome by proxy. It also suggests that those who are diagnosed with Munchhausen syndrome may progress to Munchhausen syndrome by proxy if symptoms are not adequately addressed. Finally, this case ideally demonstrates the power of the master statuses of both gender and caregiver. The protections offered by these very powerful social constructs offered Jones to operate, often in plain sight, as it was assumed that someone of her gender and profession could not hurt a child. She would often inject drugs into children while others were present; in the last case, in front of the childÊs mother. Resource Elkind, Peter. 1983. The Death Shift: The True Story of Nurse Genene Jones and the Texas Baby Murders. New York: New American Library.

Hannah Scott

This page intentionally left blank

K Linda Kasabian (1949–) Linda Kasabian was the star witness in the Tate-LaBianca murder trials that resulted in the convictions of Charles Manson, Charles „Tex‰ Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel. Of the six who were arrested, Kasabian emerged as the one to receive the most favor from the court. She provided key testimony for the state at the trial of the other five, and her murder charge was subsequently dropped. Born Linda Louise Droin on June 21, 1949, in Biddeford, Maine, Linda grew up in a home that was characterized by a lot of parental fighting and childhood sadness. After her father permanently left the house, Linda and her mother grew close. She had a difficult time living with her stepfather whom she disliked because he was abusive to her and her mom. During arguments, Linda would spend time at her grandparentsÊ country home, a place which she enjoyed. She had a special love for animals who she felt were more accepting of her than people were. At age 16, she left her motherÊs home in New Hampshire, dropped out of high school, got married, and soon after, got divorced. Linda married again, this time to hippie Robert Kasabian. The two soon headed west „looking,‰ she said, „for God.‰ They both enjoyed the hippies lifestyle, traveling from commune to commune. In March 1968, Linda and Bob had their first child, Tanya. However, problems ensued between them, and Linda and Tanya returned to New Hampshire. In an effort to save the marriage, Bob coaxed Linda out to California where Bob was living with a man, Charles Melton. It was through Melton that Linda first met Manson family member Catherine Share (Gypsy). She also found lots of drugs, lots of sex, and on July 4, 1969, Charles Manson. Married, mother of a two-year-old girl, and pregnant at the time, Kasabian learned about „this beautiful man named Charlie‰ and the idyllic life his followers led at Spahn Ranch. To Kasabian, it was the „answer to an unspoken prayer.‰ When things failed with Bob, Linda stole $5,000 from Melton, returned to Spahn Ranch with her belongings, and joined the family. Linda later claimed that she thought Manson „could see inside her.‰

491

492 |

Linda Kasabian

Kasabian had only been a member of the family for six weeks when Manson announced, on August 8, 1969, „Now is the time for Helter Skelter.‰ Selected as the driver, Kasabian joined Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, and Patricia Krenwinkel in traveling to the Tate home. Kasabian maintained that she did not know that there were to be any kill- Linda Kasabian holds a press conference in Los Angeles after her testimony in the infamous Sharon Tate murders, ings that evening; she thought 1970. (AP/Wide World Photos) they were only going there to burglarize the home. Shortly after they arrived, she witnessed the shooting of Steven Parent while he was trying to exit the property. At this point, she was instructed to go back to the front gate and stand guard while the others went into the residence. As she heard people screaming for their lives, Kasabian ran to the front door, where she found a severely beaten and stabbed Wojciech Frykowski. At the trial, Kasabian recounted that after she saw Frykowski, they looked into each otherÊs eyes and she said, „ ÂOh, God, I am so sorry. Please make it stop.Ê And then he just fell to the ground into the bushes. And then Sadie [Susan Atkins] came running out of the house, and I said, ÂSadie, please make it stop.Ê And then I said, ÂI hear people coming.Ê And she said, ÂIt is too late.Ê ‰ At that point, Atkins asked Kasabian for her knife, saying that she couldnÊt find it. During this time, Kasabian observed Watson hitting someone over the head and stabbing him; Krenwinkel was in the background, chasing down Abigail Folger with a knife in hand. Kasabian did not directly participate in the murders, later telling Manson, „IÊm not you, Charlie·I canÊt kill anybody.‰ The next night, Kasabian rode with Manson and other family members to the LaBianca home, but she did not enter the home or see either of the murders. After the murders, Manson gave Kasabian a wallet he had retrieved from the LaBianca home. During her trial, Kasabian claimed that while they were leaving the crime scene, he told her to take the change out of the wallet and wipe off the fingerprints. After they drove for a few blocks, Manson instructed her to throw the wallet out onto the sidewalk. Kasabian said that Manson „wanted a black person to pick it up and use the credit cards so that the people, the establishment would think it was some sort of an organized group that killed these people.‰ After killing the LaBiancas, Manson and the others drove around, searching for more victims. Manson wanted Kasabian, Atkins, and Clem Grogan to kill a foreign

Linda Kasabian | 493

actor, Saladin Nader, whom Kasabian had met once while hitchhiking. Kasabian purposely brought Atkins and Grogan to the wrong door at the Venice Beach apartment complex, thereby aborting the mission. The next day, August 11, 1969, Manson wanted Kasabian to deliver a message to three family members who were in jail. Seeing this as her only chance to escape, Kasabian drove to New Mexico, leaving Tanya behind at Spahn Ranch. She rejoined her husband, Bob, who wanted to return to the ranch to get Tanya. They later learned that she had been placed in foster care following a raid on August 16. After speaking with a social worker, Linda returned to Los Angeles to retrieve Tanya, and from there, they flew back to New Mexico. Linda later hitchhiked first to her fatherÊs home in Florida and then to her motherÊs home in New Hampshire. California authorities issued a warrant for Linda KasabianÊs arrest on December 1, 1969. She voluntarily surrendered to police in Concord, New Hampshire, and was flown back to California. She wanted to tell her version of the story. Linda KasabianÊs attorney, Gary Fleishman, immediately proposed to prosecutors a deal whereby she would testify against other family members in return for complete immunity. Having previously made a deal with Susan Atkins, Prosecutor Vince Bugliosi initially rejected the proposal. When Atkins changed her mind and announced she would not testify at the trial, Bugliosi quickly negotiated a deal with LindaÊs attorney: the prosecution would petition for immunity after she testified. Kasabian took the witness stand again in a series of trials and retrials, and despite efforts on behalf of the defense attorneys, her testimony remained solid. After 18 days of testimony, she left the stand. In his closing argument, Bugliosi said Charles Manson „sent out from the fires of hell at Spahn Ranch three heartless, bloodthirsty robots and·unfortunately for him·one human being, the hippie girl Linda Kasabian.‰ After the trials, Linda Kasabian rejoined her husband and children, moving into a small farm in New Hampshire. She moved to the Pacific Northwest for a while, living under an assumed name. Later, she left her husband and returned to New Hampshire. A car accident left her mildly disabled and unable to work. In a police raid in 1996, Kasabian and one of her daughters who went by the nickname „Lady Dangerous‰ were arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Her daughter, who was also found in possession of a gun and rock and powder cocaine, was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison. Kasabian once again avoided jail by agreeing to attend drug abuse classes. Her current whereabouts are unknown. Like many heinous crimes, the Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969 dismantled societyÊs sense of social order. The victims did not know the murderers who delivered a bloody platter of Helter Skelter mayhem and chaos. Charles Manson has been thought by many to be the devil in human form; the women, his faithful servants. But it is still unclear whether Kasabian, or all of the women, were victims of Manson, who preyed on the womenÊs vulnerabilities, or whether the

494 | Gladys Cannon Kelly

female disciples were themselves evil, as many people believed, and unsuitable for society at large. See also Atkins, Susan; Good, Sandra; Krenwinkel, Patricia; Van Houten, Leslie Resources Bugliosi, Vincent, and Curt Gentry. (1974). Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Didion, Joan. (1993). The White Album. New York: Flamingo. Gilmore, John. (2000). Manson: The Unholy Trail of Charlie and the Family. Los Angeles: Amok Books. King, Greg. (2000). Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders. Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books. The Manson Family Today: News and Information. (2007). http://www.mansonfamilyto day.info/manson.htm Sanders, Ed. (1989). The Family: The Manson Group and Its Aftermath. New York: New American Library/Signet.

Sue Cote Escobar

Gladys Cannon Kelly (1942–1987) The case of Gladys Kelly is one of the most influential cases of womenÊs homicide in U.S. history. It began with a conviction in 1982 of an impoverished African American woman from East Orange, New Jersey, for reckless manslaughter in the death of her husband Ernest and ended as a nationally precedent-setting case for allowing expert testimony about battering in cases of battered women who kill. This 1984 ruling in the New Jersey Supreme Court opened the doors for other state courts to accept battered womenÊs syndrome and other testimony about the psychological effects of battering as a defense for women who killed men who had been abusing them. Little is known about KellyÊs early life. Kelly was born in 1942. According to the defense attorney for the first trial, Charles Lorber (2007), it is most likely that Kelly came to New Jersey from the South as a child with her family or that her family had other roots in the South. Lorber remembers that she had several siblings and that some of them had troubles with the law. Kelly was married prior to meeting and marrying Ernest Kelly. Little can be found with regard to her marriage to a man named Cannon except that she had at least one child with him. Their child Edith was born around 1963. Kelly had one reported prior conviction, revealed in the later murder trial. In 1971, prior to marrying Ernest Kelly, Gladys Kelly (then Cannon) was convicted

Gladys Cannon Kelly | 495

of conspiracy to commit robbery. In her testimony at her murder trial, Kelly stated that she committed the conspiracy with two other people and was given three years of probation. Presumably, she successfully completed probation as no further mention was made of it. Gladys Cannon met Ernest Kelly, and they were married in 1973. According to available sources, they had a daughter around 1973 named either Janice (Walker, 1989) or Annette (New Jersey v. Kelly, 1984). There is no mention of other children in the household other than ErnestÊs stepdaughter, Edith Cannon, and the coupleÊs daughter in common, Janice or Annette. The marriage between Gladys and Ernest Kelly was troubled from the beginning. In court records, it is referred to as „stormy‰ (New Jersey v. Kelly, 1984). Kelly testified that Ernest Kelly had knocked her down in public only one day after being married. Most of her husbandÊs beatings occurred in the context of drinking and were frequent (as often as once per week). Other than the first incident of violence right after they were married and the violence on May 24, 1980, which preceded his death, ErnestÊs attacks were done in private. In fact, Walker (1989) comments that it was due, in large part, to the public nature of the last attack that Kelly felt the need to defend herself. During these attacks, Ernest would physically assault her as well as threaten her. He beat her up severely on several occasions. He would threaten to „cut off parts of her body‰ (New Jersey v. Kelly, 1984, §II) or kill her if she tried to leave him. He also threatened to abduct their seven-year-old daughter. Gladys was aware that Ernest often carried a dagger with him. After the abuse, Ernest would be contrite and lure Gladys back to convince her to stay in the relationship. In fact, they had separated on several occasions only to have Ernest make promises to change, which persuaded his wife to take him back. This is consistent with the cycle of violence described by Lenore Walker (1989) who describes abusive relationships in terms of alternating battering, „honeymoon‰ or calm periods, and tension-building periods. In addition to the violence against Gladys Kelly, KellyÊs daughter Edith had disclosed that her stepfather had been sexually assaulting her since she was 13. EdithÊs testimony, however, was excluded from the original court case even though it was relevant for establishing a general pattern of familial violence. On May 24, 1980, Gladys Kelly killed Ernest Kelly. She stabbed him with scissors in self-defense, according to her version of the story, a version the prosecution disputed. It began the night before when Ernest demanded that Gladys give him money, even though it was needed for groceries for the rest of the week. He promised to give her the money back after he was paid the next day. The next day, Gladys demanded the money back even after he began to hit her. Ernest stormed out of the house to eat with friends. She took their seven-year-old daughter with her to the house, waited for him to finish dinner, and resumed asking for the money he promised to buy food. Ernest had been drinking and told her that she would get it

496

| Gladys Cannon Kelly

when they got home. The family left together. After walking for some time, Ernest angrily confronted her about going to his friendÊs house. According to court records (New Jersey v. Kelly, 1984, §II), Ernest angrily asked „What the hell did you come around here for?‰ He then assaulted her, grabbing her dress, and pulled the two of them to the ground. Once he had her on the ground, Ernest reportedly punched or hit GladysÊs face, bit her leg, and choked her by pushing his fingers against her throat. The physical fight drew a crowd of people on the street. According to Kelly, two men were able to pull them apart just as she was feeling like she was going to pass out from being choked. Kelly got up to look for her daughter in the crowd, afraid that Ernest would take her as he had threatened to do many times before. When she found Annette (or Janice), Kelly had discovered that her daughter had picked up her pocketbook after Kelly dropped it during ErnestÊs attack. Kelly took her pocketbook back. She then observed Ernest coming at her with arms raised, and she feared that he was going to attack her again or kill her. She didnÊt know if he had gotten a weapon of any sort, and out of fear grabbed a pair of scissors from her pocketbook. She claimed that she was going to scare him away but, instead, ended up stabbing him. According to Lenore Walker (1989), a consultant on the case, Ernest was taken to the emergency room after he fell down „apparently having a heart attack‰ (208). Staff in the emergency room assessed him for the possible heart attack and did not tend to the small wound in his chest. They put him in a room and monitored his condition. What they didnÊt realize was that the myocardium surrounding the heart had been cut, and he was bleeding internally. That is ultimately what killed him. Walker raises the question of whether it would have been a homicide at all if he had gotten appropriate treatment for his injury. Regardless of this information, Kelly was indicted for murder and put on trial in 1982. During the trial, KellyÊs defense team attempted to use testimony regarding ErnestÊs history of abuse including both his stepdaughter EdithÊs testimony about his sexual abuse and expert testimony regarding battered womenÊs syndrome from Dr. Lois Veronen, a clinical psychologist who was highly experienced with domestic violence victims. This testimony would establish the imminence and reasonableness of the fear that Ernest would, in fact, kill Kelly and that she acted in self-defense. The prosecution argued that Gladys Kelly had provoked the attack and that she had ample time to retreat from the scene, a fact that would preclude the use of a self-defense argument. It was also argued by the prosecution that she was angry that Ernest was allegedly going to leave her. Gladys was allowed to provide her side of the story, including the history of experiencing ErnestÊs violence. However, the trial judge barred the testimony of Dr. Veronen arguing that expert testimony was not allowable to establish defendantÊs state of mind in self-defense cases. The judge also refused to allow Edith, ErnestÊs stepdaughter, to testify claiming that it was irrelevant. The trial lasted two weeks and resulted in her conviction of reckless

Gladys Cannon Kelly | 497

manslaughter and given a five-year prison term at the Clinton Correctional Institution for Women. Kelly appealed the case, and the conviction was upheld in appellate court where it was stated that expert testimony was not needed because she was testifying about events and fears that the common person could understand. An appeal was filed with the Supreme Court of New Jersey which granted certification in 1983 to hear the case. There were several grounds for the appeal, but the most important was the need for expert testimony to explain the effects of battered womenÊs syndrome and how that led Kelly to believe she needed to defend herself. Amicus curiae briefs (friend of the court briefs) were filed on behalf of Kelly from both the American Psychological Association (APA) and the New Jersey American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) with the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women. The APA brief was directed toward establishing the scientific reliability of battered womenÊs syndrome, and the other was directed toward the admissibility of the evidence of battered womenÊs syndrome. Elizabeth M. Schneider, in an unusual move, was allowed to make in-person arguments on behalf of Kelly for the New Jersey ACLU/Coalition for Battered Women, in which she directly addressed the justices on the need for someone to help explain KellyÊs story. Ultimately, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided, in 1984, to reverse the conviction agreeing that Kelly did not receive a fair trial because of the denial of the expert testimony into battered womenÊs syndrome. The jury, they argued, did need someone to explain the reasons why a battered woman wouldnÊt be able to leave such a home. It was a bittersweet victory for advocates for fair treatment of battered women, however, as the focus was on the womanÊs failure to leave as opposed to the reasonableness of her actions. The court reversed the conviction and sent the case back for retrial. The retrial of Gladys Kelly included the testimony of nationally recognized expert, Dr. Lenore Walker (1989), whose account provides most of the additional detail of what happened. While Walker testified to the effects of battered womenÊs syndrome on Kelly, the prosecution called an expert who refuted this. Walker describes the trial as biased in that the trial court judge did not permit continuous testimony and cross-examination, as is customary, in the accommodation of the prosecutionÊs request to cross-examine at several intervals to help clarify details for her. According to Walker, Kelly by this time appeared angry after suffering both at the hands of her husband and now at the hands of the criminal justice system. Her anger played into the stereotypes of the angry black woman and provided an uphill battle with the jury. Ultimately, Kelly was convicted a second time of manslaughter. According to her original defense attorney, Charles Lorber, Kelly died of natural causes while waiting for sentencing. Gladys KellyÊs case stands as the precedent for cases of battered women who kill. It was the first time a key state appellate court had held battered womenÊs syndrome

498 |

Leila Khaled

admissible, and it was one of the most thorough considerations of this defense at that point. This opened the door for other states to consider testimony about battering. The syndrome of battered womenÊs syndrome has largely been replaced with broader considerations of the effects of battering, but this discussion could not have happened without the appeal of Gladys Kelly. Resources American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women. 1986. Brief and Appendix of Amici Curiae in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, September Term, 1982. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. Gladys Kelly, Defendant-Petitioner. Reprinted in Women Rights Law Reporter, 9 (3 and 4): 245ă252. Kinsports, Kit, Donald Bersoff, Bruce Ennis, and Nadine Taub (for American Psychological Association). 1983. Brief of Amicus Curiae, American Psychological Association, in support of Defendant-Petitioner, in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, September Term, 1982. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. Gladys Kelly, Defendant-Petitioner. On Petition for Certification from the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (Judges Bother and Forman). Lorber, Charles. Telephone interview. June 20, 2007. Margolick, David. 1984. „Court Allows Defense to Call Experts on Battered Women‰ New York Times July 25, 1984: A1. New Jersey v. Kelly. 1984. 97 N.J. 178; 478 A.2d 364; 1984 N.J. Lexis 2698. Schneider, Elizabeth M. 2000. Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schneider, Elizabeth M. 1986. „Describing and Changing: WomenÊs Self Defense Work and the Problem of Expert Testimony on Battering.‰ WomenÊs Rights Law Reporter 9 (3 and 4): 195ă222. Schneider, Elizabeth M., Mary Dunlap, Michael Lavery, and John DeWitt Gregory. 1988 „Workshop: Lesbians, Gays, and Feminists at the Bar·Translating Personal Experiences into Effective Legal Argument.‰ WomenÊs Rights Law Reporter 10 (1 and 2): 107ă142. Walker, Lenore. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper Perennial.

Vickie Jensen

Leila Khaled (1948–) Leila Khaled, while not the first woman hijacker (according to MacDonald [1991], an Argentine woman was the first woman hijacker), is arguably the most famous. She was involved in the hijacking of two airliners on behalf of Palestinian nationalist freedom fighters, though some consider her and her partners to be terrorists. She was born on April 9, 1944, to a middle-class family in Palestine, in

Leila Khaled | 499

Leila Khaled, who successfully hijacked a TWA airliner to Damascus, Syria, in 1969, totes a submachine gun at a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, 1970. (AP/Wide World Photos)

the city of Haifa, now a part of Israel. She was a small child when, in 1948, war broke out as a result of the creation of the state of Israel. Her father became involved in Palestinian resistance groups, while her mother escaped with Leila and her siblings (8 siblings at that time) to relatives in Lebanon. This displacement and subsequent experiences as a refugee motivated Khaled to political action, starting at an early age. Inspired by her fatherÊs example, Khaled and her siblings became involved in Palestinian nationalist activities, undertaken with the goal of reclaiming their land from Israel. At 15, she joined the Arab National Movement, an organization promoting the unification of Arab peoples under a left-wing, secular vision of governance. A bright girl, she obtained scholarships to secondary school and then the American University in Beirut. Her funds, and she wound up teaching English to

education was cut short for lack of small children in Kuwait. In 1967, Khaled joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), founded by George Habash. The PFLP is a left-wing faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which advocates armed struggle as the most effective means for Palestinians to reclaim their homeland. Khaled enthusiastically took part in guerilla training activities, based in Jordan, where she learned how to fight and use weapons. On August 29, 1969, Khaled, along with a fellow Palestinian, hijacked a Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight traveling from Los Angeles to Tel Aviv, Israel, with stopovers in Rome and Athens. Handguns and grenades hidden on their person, the two boarded the plane during the Rome stopover. They took over the cockpit midflight and, with Khaled taking the lead, they forced the airline personnel to divert the plane to Damascus, Syria. Upon arrival, the hostages were released and the plane blown up. She and her partner escaped without injury. After a brief detention in Syria, she went on to Jordan. Although the hijackers demanded the release of prisoners held in Israel, the more prominent objective was to thrust the Palestinian cause onto the world stage. In an interview, Khaled relates her reaction to a question posed by one of the hostages, „Who are the Palestinians?‰: „It said everything·she did not know of our fight· no one did; she did not even know we existed. But after the hijack, everyone knew. That is why we did it‰ (MacDonald 1991, 110).

500

|

Leila Khaled

This incident made Khaled an idol in Arab countries and propelled her to international fame, the latter helped in no small measure by a classic set of pictures taken of her at the time. As noted in a 2001 Guardian piece, she resembled a „delicate Audrey Hepburn,‰ albeit more heavily armed (Viner 2001). In revolutionary circles, she embodied leftist ideals of women as equal partners in armed struggle. More mainstream accounts depicted her as an attractive „girl guerilla.‰ She became so well-known that she felt it endangered her ability to adopt disguises for future PFLP undertakings. As a result, she had plastic surgery on her chin and nose to alter her appearance. KhaledÊs second hijacking incident in September 1970 was an even more notable affair. The PFLPÊs initial plan was to overtake several airplanes, all United Statesă bound, using them and their passengers to bargain for the release of Palestinian political prisoners, then held in European and Israeli facilities. Khaled and fellow hijacker Patrick Arguello (an American citizen raised in Nicaragua) were assigned to an El Al flight headed to New York (two additional hijackers were kept from boarding in Amsterdam). When she and Arguello attempted to overtake the plane, they were met with resistance by air marshals. Arguello was fatally shot, while Khaled was beaten and captured. The plane was landed in London, and Khaled was taken to a local police station. Efforts by the PFLP to commandeer three other planes were more successful. The airliners were brought to Jordan, where, as in the 1969 incident, passengers were taken from the planes which were later blown up. A British plane was hijacked a few days later. Throughout that September, the International Red Cross played intermediary in a complex series of machinations between the PFLP and Britain, Jordan, and the United States, among others, to exchange the hostages for Palestinian prisoners is this latter group now including Leila Khaled herself. She was held by Britain during the negotiations for her release. She describes humane treatment by police personnel, and says she received both hate mail and marriage proposals. On September 30, 1970, she, along with a small number of Palestinian prisoners, was released in exchange for the remaining airline hostages. The 1970 hijacking was her last; PFLP soon discarded this particular method of helping the Palestinians. In subsequent years, Khaled maintained a low-key presence in Lebanon, becoming involved in other PFLP activities. She became a member of the Palestinian National Council, a parliament-like body for the exiled Palestinian community. As of 2000, she was involved in the General Union of Palestinian Women, which works on various issues specific to women and Palestinians in general. A brief marriage in 1970 ended in divorce. In 1982, she married a physician and fellow PFLP member. She, her husband, and their two sons now live in Jordan. Khaled has faced steady condemnation for her hijacking activities. Some have pointed to the September 1970 incident in particular as setting the stage for the

Patricia Krenwinkel | 501

escalation of air-based terrorism, drawing a direct line between this incident and the attacks of September 11, 2001. In contrast, she views herself as having been a freedom fighter, rather than a terrorist, citing her main concern at the time as drawing international attention to the Palestinian plight. She rejects the idea of harming hostages as an end in itself and has criticized actions that have targeted civilians, for instance, referring to the 9/11 attacks as „criminal.‰ When asked in a 2003 interview about any misgivings concerning her youthful exploits, Khaled replied, „I have no regrets. Every action at the time and within that situation·not at this time, but at that time·was necessary. Part of the objectives was achieved. We succeeded in presenting the Palestinian cause with a force to the world. But freeing all the prisoners was not achieved‰ (Abdallah 2003). Resources Abdallah, Sana. July 21, 2003. Interview: Palestinian Leila Khaled. United Press International Online. http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/Interview_Palestinian_ Leila_Khaled/20030721ă082110ă7107r/ (Accessed March 14, 2007). Baum, Philip. 2000. „Leila Khaled: In her own words.‰ Aviation Security International. http://www.asi-mag.com/editorials/leila_khaled.htm (Accessed on March 8, 2007). Khaled, Leila, with George Hajjar. 1973. My people shall live: The autobiography of a revolutionary. London: Hodder and Stoughton. MacDonald, Eileen. 1991. Shoot the women first. New York: Random House. Makboul, Lina. 2006. Leila Khaled: Hijacker. First Hand Films Website: http://www. leilakhaled.com/ (Accessed on March 13, 2007). Public Broadcasting Service Online. 2006. Hijacked. American Experience. http://www. pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hijacked/index.html (Accessed on March 8, 2007). Viner, Katherine. 2001. „ ÂI made the ring from a bullet and the pin of a hand grenade.Ê ‰ Guardian Unlimited Online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,428510,00.html (Accessed on March 15, 2007).

Angela Taylor

Patricia Krenwinkel (1947–) Known as a member of the Manson family, Patricia Krenwinkel was involved in two of the nationÊs most heinous murders of the 20th century. Fully committed to Manson and his vision, Krenwinkel willingly participated in the infamous murders of August 9, 1969, at the home of actress Sharon Tate and director Roman Polanski and again on August 10, 1969, at the home of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca. While Krenwinkel was with the Manson family, she went by numerous aliases, including „Big Patty,‰ „Yellow,‰ „Mary Ann Scott,‰ and „Marnie Reeves.‰ However, to the family, she was best known as Katie.

502

| Patricia Krenwinkel

Patricia Diane Krenwinkel was born in Los Angeles, California. Her father was an insurance salesman, and her mother remained at home; her parents separated when she was about 14 or 15 years old. She had one older sister, Charlene, who became addicted to drugs and died around the age of 29. Krenwinkel attended Los Angelesăarea high schools and experienced a difficult adolescence. Krenwinkel had low self-esteem and was often teased for being overweight and having excessive body hair, which was caused by an endocrine system condition. Feeling unattractive and shunned by her peers, she maintained a reclusive persona. Her parents divorced when she was 17, and Krenwinkel stayed in Los Angeles with her father until she graduated from high school. Her mother moved to Alabama, and Krenwinkel later joined her there where she attended a Catholic college. Krenwinkel had dabbled in teaching Catholic Sunday school and had even considered being a nun at one point in her childhood. Krenwinkel completed only one semester of college before she left and moved back to California. She eventually got her own apartment in Manhattan Beach and got a job in an office as a processing clerk. However, this was not a fulfilling life for her. In 1967 on Manhattan Beach, Krenwinkel met Charles Manson for the first time. She also met two of „CharlieÊs Girls,‰ Lynette „Squeaky‰ Fromme and Mary Brunner. Krenwinkel stated that she slept with Manson that night. For the first time in her entire life, someone had thought she was beautiful. Attention-starved and mesmerized, Krenwinkel decided to go to San Francisco with Manson and the other girls, leaving behind her life on Manhattan Beach. The early years with the Manson family were similar to a long acid trip. As the family grew, Manson, Krenwinkel, and the others drove around the American West in an old school bus, enjoying a life of sex and drugs. During the summer of 1968, Krenwinkel and some other family members spent time with one of the Beach Boys, Dennis Wilson, but they had overstayed their welcome in his home when he found them partying inside, eating his food, and draining him dry financially. Later that same year, Krenwinkel was arrested for possession of marijuana in Mendocino, California, after she and other family girls gave some young people some LSD. By 1969, Manson and his family decided that isolation was the way to go, and to this end, they conned George Spahn, a blind, elderly man, into allowing them to live on his property in the hills above the San Fernando Valley. At SpahnÊs Movie Ranch, KrenwinkelÊs devotion to Manson became very intense as she devoted herself to him and to caring for several of the family membersÊ children. At the trial, she described her life with the family at Spahn Ranch: „We were just like wood nymphs and wood creatures. We would run through the woods with flowers in our hair, and Charlie would have a small flute‰ (Bugliosi and Gentry, 1974: 430). KrenwinkelÊs world changed permanently during and following the nights of August 9ă10, 1969. On the night of August 9, in the company of Charles „Tex‰ Watson, Linda Kasabian, and Susan Atkins, Krenwinkel drove to 10050 Cielo Drive,

Patricia Krenwinkel |

503

the home of actress Sharon Tate, who was eight months pregnant at the time, and director Roman Polanski, which was located just outside of Los Angeles. Prior to entering the residence, Watson cut the telephone wires leading to the residence; Krenwinkel and the other family girls climbed over a wall at the rear of San Vincente Drive. Krenwinkel maintained that Manson told her to do whatever Watson told her to do, though she has claimed that Manson never mentioned anything about killing anyone that first night. After climbing over the wall, she and the other girls stayed in the bushes where they heard gunshots. Watson had shot and killed one of the victims, Steve Parent, as he was leaving the house to go to his car. Krenwinkel maintained that Watson had told them that they were all there at the house to not only rob but kill everyone. She said that she realized what they were there to do only after they had arrived, not before. Once inside the home, chaos erupted. Krenwinkel found Abigail Folger in her bedroom and dragged her into the living room. She stabbed her as she fought with her. Folger then tried to escape out the back door, but Krenwinkel pushed her and pinned her to the ground, stabbing her continuously while Folger pleaded for her life. Folger ran out the back door where she was pushed and later stabbed numerous times in the back by Krenwinkel. In total, Folger had been stabbed 28 times. During her trial, Krenwinkel was quoted as saying, „And I had a knife in my hands, and she took off running, and she ran·she ran out through the back door, one I never even touched, I mean, nobody ever got fingerprints because I never touched that door . . . and I stabbed her and I kept stabbing her‰ (Bugliosi and Gentry, 1974: 430.) She was also asked how it felt, to which she replied, „Nothing, I mean, what is there to describe? It was just there, and it was right‰ (431). The next night, August 10, Manson made the orders to kill very clear. So, along with Manson and Krenwinkel, Charles „Tex‰ Watson, Susan Atkins, Steve Grogan, Leslie Van Houten, and Linda Kasabian drove to the home of grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary, in the Los Feliz section of Los Angeles. Manson and Watson entered the house first, and they tied the couple up. Manson then left the house and sent Krenwinkel and Van Houten inside to kill the LaBiancas, leaving Grogan, Atkins, and Kasabian in the car. According to Krenwinkel, she and Van Houten brought Mrs. LaBianca into the master bedroom and proceeded to look through her dresses. When she heard her husband, Leno, scream, Mrs. LaBianca grabbed a lamp and swung at Krenwinkel and Van Houten. She and Van Houten then restrained Mrs. LaBianca, and then Krenwinkel began stabbing her with a kitchen knife. However, the knife blade was too dull and actually broke against Mrs. LaBiancaÊs collar bone. Krenwinkel and Van Houten called for Tex Watson who brought in a sword-like weapon and who Krenwinkel claims ultimately stabbed Mrs. LaBianca, though she and Van Houten also continued to stab her as well. Krenwinkel left the master bedroom to find Mr. LaBianca lying on the floor in the living room. At the trial, Krenwinkel recalled saying, „You wonÊt be sending

504

| Patricia Krenwinkel

your son off to war . . . I guess I put WAR on the manÊs chest. And then I guess I had a fork in my hands, and I put it in his stomach . . . and I went and wrote on the walls . . . Death to Pigs and Helter Skelter on the refrigerator]‰ (Bugliosi and Gentry, 1974: 431). Krenwinkel later denied writing the word war on his stomach; That act has been attributed to Tex Watson. Before returning to Spahn Ranch, Krenwinkel, Watson, and Van Houten remained at the LaBianca residence eating their food, taking showers, and playing with their two dogs. Following the murders, a series of raids on MansonÊs family at Spahn Ranch and then later at Barker Ranch lead to dissolution of the family. A couple of months after the murders, Krenwinkel moved to Alabama to live with her mother until it was „safe‰ for her to return to Barker Ranch. The orders from Manson never came because he was arrested. During this time, Susan Atkins, who had been jailed on auto theft charges, began telling exploits of the Tate-LaBianca murders to her cellmate. Because of AtkinsÊs confessions and her cellmateÊs disclosures, Krenwinkel was arrested in Mobile, Alabama, on December 1, 1969. On December 2, Patricia Krenwinkel was indicted for seven counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Following her Alabama arrest, Krenwinkel asserted that she had left for Alabama because she feared Manson would find her and kill her, thus supporting her attempts to fight extradition to California. In February 1970, she waived extradition proceedings and voluntarily returned to California to stand trial with defendants Manson, Van Houten, and Atkins. During the trial, Krenwinkel remained loyal to Manson and stood united with the other defendants. They showed loyalty and unity by walking hand-in-hand with each other, singing MansonÊs songs, shaving their heads, and carving an X in their foreheads, just like Manson had done. At the end of the nine-month trial, Krenwinkel was convicted of all counts and was then sentenced to death on March 29, 1971. She, Atkins, and Van Houten were transferred to a new death-row facility built especially for women at the California Institute for Women (CIW). However, this death sentence was automatically commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme CourtÊs decision in People v. Anderson invalidated all death sentences given in California before 1972. At the start of her prison term, Krenwinkel remained loyal to Manson and the family, but over time, she distanced herself from them and the hold it had over her. In doing so, she has kept up a perfect prison record for her nearly 40 years of incarceration at CIW in Chino, California; she has graduated from high school and received a bachelorÊs degree in human services from the University of La Verne. Krenwinkel remains active with prison 12-step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous and the Long Termers Organization. In addition to these programs, she also works with fellow inmates, teaching them how to read. Additionally, Krenwinkel writes both poetry and music, plays the guitar, plays on a prison volleyball team, and she has even give other inmates

Patricia Krenwinkel |

505

dance lessons. Currently, she works with a canine support team where she trains service dogs. It has been reported that of all of the killers, Krenwinkel has expressed the most remorse for her participation in the Tate-LaBianca murders. In an interview conducted by Diane Sawyer in 1994, Krenwinkel stated that „I wake up every day knowing that I am a destroyer of the most precious thing, which is life; and I do that because thatÊs what I deserve, is to wake up every morning and know that.‰ Despite having been denied parole each of the 13 times she has sought it, Krenwinkel remains positive, works the 12-step programs, and places her faith in a higher power. She was most recently denied parole on January 20, 2011, but she will be eligible again in seven years. See also Atkins, Susan; Good, Sandra; Kasabian, Linda; Van Houten, Leslie Resources ABC News, Channel 7, Chino, California. (November 5, 2007). „Former Manson member trains ÂPrison PupsÊ for disabled,‰ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6e_1194330036, accessed July 3, 2010. Bugliosi, Vincent, and Curt Gentry. (1974). Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. King, Gary C. (2010). „Patricia Krenwinkel: From Manson Groupie to Model Prisoner.‰ Investigation Discovery/Discovery ID. http://investigation.discovery.com/investigation/ where-now/krenwinkel/patricia-krenwinkel-02.html, accessed July 3, 2010. Sanders, Ed. (1989). The Family: The Manson Group and Its Aftermath. New York: New American Library/Signet.

Sue Cote Escobar

This page intentionally left blank

L Catherine La Voisin (1640–1680) Known as „La Voisin‰ (1640ă1680), Catherine Deshayes was a French woman, considered a witch and a serial poisoner, who became a central figure in one of the worst scandals of the 17th century, the „Affair of the Poisons,‰ which involved prominent individuals at the royal court of Louis XIV in France. Born on 1640 in France to a poor woman who was thought to be a sorceress herself, Catherine Deshayes was initiated into what were considered magic powers at an early age. She married Antoine Montvoisin whose businesses in the silk trade and jewelry both led him into bankruptcy. As a result, her husband lapsed into heavy drinking, violently venting his frustrations on her. Having to support him and all her numerous children, she probably turned into the criminal, but lucrative, business of abortion and the preparation of poisons. Her marriage was so unhappy that she never made a secret of her intention to get rid of her husband; indeed, she made several unsuccessful attempts on his life. In any event, Madame Montvoisin engaged in many love affairs with other wizards and alchemists, among whom was Le Sage, who was later also dragged into the Affair of the Poisons. La Voisin belonged to several Christian congregations in Paris and was a pious worshipper who conceived her occult powers as a gift from God. Her clients, who primarily belonged to French high society, were likely reassured by such a religious devotion to her magical practices. During the late 1660s to the early 1670s, several mysterious deaths of influential members of the nobility followed one after the other. When, in 1676, the Marquise de Brinvilliers, who was accused of having heartlessly poisoned her father and her two brothers, was finally arrested and then prosecuted, she revealed that most of the individuals she knew, „people of quality‰ (Mossiker 1969, 145), were equally implicated in similar misdeeds. The king, concerned that the spread use of the practice of poisoning could endanger his own safety and that of the royal family, appointed Nicolas de La Reynie, the lieutenant general of the Paris police, to oversee the investigation. In 1679, he also established a special tribunal, known as the Chambre Ardente, to prosecute the cases. The

507

508

| Debra Lafave

court ruled for over three years, issuing 319 subpoenas, arresting 194 people, and sentencing 36 of them to death. Catherine La Voisin was arrested on March 12, 1679, as she was coming out from mass at her parish church, Notre-Dame de Bonne Nouvelle, in Paris. The search of her premises revealed all sorts of magic powders, venomous potions, sacrilegious objects, as well as a long list of her clients. She was accused of having attempted to poison her husband several times at the instigation of her paramour, Le Sage, and of having performed abortions for a fee, burying the premature infants in her garden. When in March 17, 1679, Le Sage was arrested as well, he provided Nicolas de La Reynie with detailed accounts of the La VoisinÊs business and customers. He revealed that a small oven was hidden in her house, „where the bones were burned if the infant body seemed too large to lay away in a garden grave‰ (Mossiker 1969, 185). He also claimed that most of the La VoisinÊs visitors belonged to the kingÊs entourage, and even a maid of the Marquise de Montespan, one of the favorite mistresses of Louis XIV, had purchased love powders from her. Catherine La Voisin admitted that some of her customers were indeed prominent figures of the nobility, but she firmly denied having ever served the Marquise de Montespan or even met with her. During her last interrogation, when she was subjected to torture, La Voisin only confessed that „a larger number of persons of all sorts and conditions had come to ask her help in killing off a large number of other persons‰ (Mossiker 1969, 216), but she refused to utter further names. Catherine La Voisin was burned at the stake in 1680. Spectators at her execution reported that „five or six times, she pushed aside the straw, but finally the flames leaped up, enveloped her, and she was lost to sight . . . So, there you have the death of Mme Voisin, notorious for her crimes and impiety‰ (219). See also Brinvilliers, Marquise de; Montespan, Marquise de Resources Mossiker, Frances. 1969. The Affair of the Poisons: Louis XIV, Madame de Montespan, and One of the HistoryÊs Great Unsolved Mysteries. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Somerset, Anne. 2003. The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Benedetta Faedi Duramy

Debra Lafave (1980–) In June 2004, Debra Lafave was arrested for molesting a male student who attended the middle school where she taught. In the two years that followed, her case

Debra Lafave | 509

garnered a great deal of news media scrutiny. This crime was one of several similar incidents reported between female teachers and male students. However, the media latched on to one unique element in this case·Debra Lafave was incredibly attractive. The crime itself, the legal sanction to the crime, and the social response to both, revealed underlying gender dynamics in attitudes towards child molestation. Born in 1980, Debra Jean Beasley grew up in Tampa, Florida. Raised in a workingclass family, LafaveÊs mother was a cosmetologist, and her father worked for a local power company; she had one sibling, an Former middle school teacher Debra Lafave leaves the Hillsborough County older sister named Angie. According to LaCourthouse after pleading guilty to two fave, her life took at tragic turn at the age counts of lewd and lascivious battery, of 13. She was raped by her boyfriend in 2005. Lafave, whose sexual liaisons with the bathroom of the middle school she ata 14-year-old middle school student tended. The act was interrupted and ended made tabloid headlines, avoided prison by a school official who mistook the rape as as part of a plea agreement. (AP/Wide consensual sex. Both Lafave and her boyWorld Photos) friend were punished, and she never clarified what had actually happened because she felt ashamed. According to Lafave, she began drinking heavily at 15 and tried to commit suicide twice during her childhood. In addition, her mother would later assert that LafaveÊs childhood was fraught with emotional disorders. It was these emotional disorders, later diagnosed as a bipolar condition, which Lafave cited as the reason for her distorted view of sexual relations and the subsequent motivation for her crime (Lauer 2006). At the age of 18, Lafave enrolled at the University of South Florida, majoring in English. Her sister was killed by a drunk driver in 2001. This incident exacerbated her emotional troubles leading to bouts of depression. These bouts would haunt her throughout the forthcoming years. While at college she met her future husband, Owen Lafave, whom she married in 2003. (They were divorced in 2005.) Following her graduation, she started teaching at Greco Middle School in 2003. In the spring of 2004, she met the 14-year-old student with whom she had the sexual liaison. Over the course of a couple months, she chaperoned a field trip and gave him rides to basketball games. During these incidents, they flirted with each other, and she admitted to having a crush on him. On June 3, as summer vacation was starting, they had their first sexual liaison at LafaveÊs townhouse while his cousin was watching television. Ten days later, this was followed by another sexual

510

| Debra Lafave

incident in LafaveÊs classroom. Over the next three days, the two had sex twice in the backseat of LafaveÊs car while his 15-year-old cousin was driving. Following the last incident, the cousin told his mother about the relationship who, in turn, told the boyÊs mother. The boyÊs mother called the police and reported the crime. Police affidavits later revealed they had sex six times in total. The police secured the boyÊs cooperation and convinced him to call Lafave. During these phone calls, Lafave incriminated herself, and she was arrested on June 21. She was brought up on charges of lewd and lascivious battery in two Tampa counties: Hillsborough and Marion. During preliminary negotiations between her defense attorney, John Fitzgibbons, and the prosecution, Fitzgibbons stated that her client was too attractive to be sent to prison. Anticipating a trial, Fitzgibbons planned to use an insanity defense, citing LafaveÊs diagnosed bipolar disorder. During November 2005, in Hillsborough County, a plea agreement was reached in which Lafave received house arrest for three years, probation for seven years, and life-time registration as a sex offender. When the same plea agreement was rejected by a judge in Marion County, in December 2005, the prosecutors dropped the charges upon urging from the boyÊs parents who feared the trauma the boy would experience from a trial. The social reaction to the crime and sentence was layered. There was a great deal of public outrage over the light sentence. This outrage was buoyed by similarly light sentences handed down to an increasing number of female teachers who had molested students. In addition, there was a perception that LafaveÊs sentence had been positively mitigated by her attractiveness. Her attractiveness received a lot of media coverage, including the claim of her picture being the most sought image on the Internet. What the sentence and social reaction revealed was a gender-based dynamic to child molestation with respect to the perpetrator and victim. In a 2006 Time article that examined the phenomenon of female teachers molesting children, the lighter sentences for Lafave and other female offenders were attributed to the perception that female molesters donÊt exhibit the stereotypical traits of sexual predators. In addition, unlike female victims, it was noted that male students are likely to be envied and held in higher esteem for having sex with female teachers. Consequentially, it was argued that a double standard has emerged in the legal system, one in which female teachers were generally given light sentences· including probation·whereas, male teachers usually received sentences in excess of 15 years imprisonment. It was this double standard, made so readily apparent by the media coverage, which resulted in the public outcry. Since the end of her case, Lafave has maintained a low profile working as a waitress and serving out her sentence. However, the media spotlight that her crime and punishment garnered ensure that she is a figure who will not be soon forgotten.

Lolita Lebron | 511

Resources Denov, Myriam S. 2004. Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial (Society & Welfare). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hillsborough County SheriffÊs Office. IndividualÊs Charge Report. 2004. Tampa, Florida. http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=04038892. Kowal, Jessica. 2005. Women who seduce teens: a series of headlines have been about women bedding boys. We look at what drives these females to commit statutory rape. Cosmopolitan, October, 168ă169. Lauer, Matt. 2006. „Debra Lafave: Crossing the Line.‰ Dateline, September 13. Newsome, Melba. 2006. Dangerous Liaisons (seduction of male students by female teachers). Time, April, p. B7. Tampa Bay Online. 2006. „Lafave Case Timeline‰ Tampa, Florida. http://reports.tbo.com/ reports/lafave/.

Matthew Grindal

Lolita Lebron (1919–2010) Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican political activist, made headline news for resorting to violence in her effort to achieve independence for Puerto Rico. While in the United States, she gained fame as a „lead terrorist‰; in Puerto Rico and elsewhere, for those who were advocating independence, Lebron became known as a freedom fighter. Lebron was born in Lares, Puerto Rico, a tiny town famous for its uprising against Spanish colonialism. Lolita and her family lived in poverty. Her father worked as a foreman in a coffee plantation while her mother stayed home taking care of their five children. Lebron was known for her exotic look. In her teenage years, she won the first place in an annual beauty contest, Queen of the Flowers of May. After Lolita became an unwed mother, she sailed for the United States in search of a better life, leaving her daughter, Gladys, in the care of her family. In early 1940, Lebron worked as a seamster for a clothing factory in New York City while attending school at night. Lebron had a brief marriage which resulted in the birth of her son, whom she sent to Puerto Rico to live with her family. In the New York City of 1940s, Lebron observed explicitly racist signs banning people of color entry to establishments. Contrary to the many stories Lebron had heard of New York being paradise, she described where she lived in New York as a ghetto. Lebron became involved in Puerto RicoÊs Nationalist party led by Harvardeducated Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos. The goal of the Nationalist party was to attack the expansion of U.S. imperialism on the island by whatever means necessary. Lebron, who was a victim of poverty, worker oppression, and second-class citizenship, was attracted to the ideology of the Nationalist party. In 1951, Campos was arrested

512

|

Lolita Lebron

and sentenced to 80 years in prison for plotting an attempt to assassinate Harry Truman. Lebron and other CamposÊs ardent followers continued to hold covert meetings. On March 1, 1954, Lolita Lebron, together with Andres Figueroa Cordero, Rafael Cancel Miranda, and Irvin Flores attacked the U.S. House of Representatives while more than 240 members of congress were debating an immigration bill. Standing in the visitorsÊ balcony, they fired 30 shots from their automatic pistols, injuring five House members. Alvin Bentley, a 35-year-old member of Congress was shot in the chest, receiving the worst injuries among the five. Witnesses Lolita Lebron, Puerto Rican nationalist, said that while the disturbing noise of gun shown at the federal courthouse after shooting was going on, they could hear Lo- her arraignment in the House of Replita Lebron yelling, „Long live Puerto Rico.‰ resentatives shooting that wounded five A doorkeeper witnessed that when someone members of Congress in 1954. (AP/ tried to take the Puerto Rican flag out of Leb- Wide World Photos) ronÊs hand, she demanded that they give her back the flag of her country. Lebron and her comrades did not resist their arrest at the scene. Written evidence found at the scene indicated that Lebron saw her place as a freedom fighter for Puerto Rico and accused the United States of betraying basic human principles in their continuous subjugation of it. At her trial, Lebron testified that she did not wish to hurt anyone, and during the attack, she aimed her gun at the ceiling. The jury believed her. Lolita Lebron was acquitted of the most serious charges she was facing: assault with intent to kill. Along with the other three, she was given a minimum sentence of 70 years in prison. Lolita Lebron was sent to the Federal Correctional Institution for Women in Alderson, West Virginia, where she stayed for the next 26 years. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter granted clemency to the three assailants: Lebron, Miranda, and Flores. CorderoÊs sentence was commuted two year earlier because of his deteriorating health. After the release, Lebron and the freed men went through a kind of victory tour before the cheering crowds in New York and Chicago, the epicenters of Puerto Rican communities in the United States. In Puerto Rico, a surging crowd greeted Lebron with signs that read „Welcome, Lolita.‰ Lebron had not softened in her perspective of the righteousness of her role, stating to Puerto Rican supporters upon her return: „We have done nothing to cause us to repent. Everyone has the right to defend his God-given right to liberty‰ („Nation,‰ 1979). However, Carlos Romero Barcelo, the governor of Puerto Rico, publicly opposed

Mary Kay Letourneau | 513

CarterÊs decision in granting the pardon to the attackers, stating that Carter had encouraged terrorism. On June 26, 2001, in Vieques Island, a municipality of Puerto Rico, Lebron, among others, protested against the use of bombing target practices in the island of Vieques. She and the rest of protesters were arrested with charges of trespassing on U.S. Navy property, resulting in LebronÊs imprisonment for 60 days. On May 2003, the Navy gave their facilities to the local Puerto Rican government and moved out of Vieques Island. Eight years after Lolita returned to Puerto Rico, she married Dr. Sergio Irizarry, a physician who shared the same dream with her·sovereignty for Puerto Rico. Even up into her late eighties, the struggle was not over for the political activist but became expressed in a different manner. Lebron became concerned with preserving the culture of Puerto Rico as well as the undoing the environmental destruction caused by industries and U.S. military bombing practices. LebronÊs activities also extended to philanthropic causes like visiting and serving hospital patients. Lebron died in 2010. To this day bullet holes from the incident still mark the desk of the Republican speaker and the ceiling of the United States House of Representative. Lolita Lebron did not regard herself a terrorist, instead considering herself a proud servant of her country and of her God. Resources James, Lesley. 2000. Women Whom Made a Scene. Oxford: Raintree Steck-Vaugh Publication. „Nation: We Have Nothing to Repent.‰ 1979. Time. September 24. http://www.time.com/ time/magazine/article/0,9171,947395-1,00.htm. Ojito, Mirta. 1998. Shots that haunted 3 generations. New York Times. May 26, p. E1. Roig-Franzia, Manuel. 2004. „A Terrorist in the House.‰ Washington Post Magazine, February 23, w12. Thompkins, C. M., & D. W. Foster, eds. 1998. Notable Twentieth-Century Latin American Women. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Vilar, Irene. 1998. The LadiesÊ Gallery. Translated by Gregory Rabassa. New York: Vintage Books.

Ladan Dejam

Mary Kay Letourneau (1962–) Mary Kay Letourneau (currently known as Mary Kay Fualaau) was a school teacher infamous for having sex with her student, Vili Fualaau, whom she married after serving seven-and-a-half years for statutory rape.

514

| Mary Kay Letourneau

She was born Mary Katherine Schmitz on January 30, 1962, in Orange County, California, to John and Mary Schmitz. Letourneau was the fourth of SchmitzÊs seven children; however, John Schmitz had two additional children with his long-time mistress and former student (he had been a professor at Santa Ana College). Letourneau attended Arizona State University until she became pregnant by Steve Letourneau, whom she later married in June 30, 1984. The couple had four children·two boys and two girls. After Letourneau got her degree from Seattle University in 1989, she began teaching at Shorewood Elementary School in Burien, Washington. Letourneau first met Vili Fualaau when she was the boyÊs second-grade teacher. It was not until June 1996, after the boy completed grade six and was once again a student in her class, that she began to have sex with him. Fualaau was only 13 years old. However, her criminal activity was not discovered until February 1997, when her husband found love letters. Steve LetourneauÊs relatives, in whom he confided, reported the affair to local child protection services. Letourneau was pregnant with FualaauÊs daughter, Audrey Lokelani, at the time. On February 26, 1997, Letourneau was arrested for child rape. On August 7, 1997, she plead guilty to two counts of second-degree rape of a child, and on November 14, she was sentenced to 89 months in prison by Judge Linda Lau. The court ordered her to confinement in county jail for 180 days with credit for the 100 days she had already spent there but suspended the remaining confinement conditional upon her compliance with the terms of a Special Sexual Offender Sentencing Alternative. Among other restrictions, the terms of her sentence required that she have no contact with her victim, undergo specialized treatment for sexual deviance, have no unsupervised contact with minors including her own biological children, not profit directly or indirectly from any commercialization related to her crime, and take medications and undergo therapy for bipolar disorder. Letourneau received the suspended sentence as part of a plea deal negotiated by her lawyer, David Gehrke, who argued that her actions were in part due to her diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Gehrke brought in psychiatrist Dr. Julia Tybor Moore who said it was LetourneauÊs condition that caused her to enter into a relationship with Fualaau. Letourneau was released from jail on January 1, 1998. However, she was soon arrested by Seattle Police Officer, Tod Harris, for violating the conditions of her parole on February 3. Letourneau was discovered in a car with Fualaau. In the vehicle she had clothes, her passport, and more than $6,000 in cash, suggesting she was about to abscond. Her original seven-and-a-half year sentence was reimposed, and she was ordered to serve the remainder of her time in prison. On October 16, 1998, Letourneau gave birth to FualaauÊs second daughter, Alexis Georgia, conceived while out on parole. However, her obsession with Fualaau did not end with her incarceration. She sent coded messages to him from prison on the labels of the frozen breast milk she sent for their daughter who was being cared for by FualaauÊs mother. She also got caught smuggling letters to him in November 1999, garnering her six months in solitary confinement. In May of that year, she divorced her estranged husband Steve, who obtained custody of

Teresa Lewis | 515

their four children. In 2000, Letourneau appealed two of her conditions: no unsupervised contact with her biological children and no profiting from her crime. She was successful in June 2000 when these conditions were struck down. After serving her full sentence, Letourneau was released on August 4, 2004. Two days after her release, the then 21-year-old Fualaau applied to have the no contact order on Letourneau lifted, and the request was granted. On May 20, 2005, Letourneau and Fualaau were married in a lavish wedding at Columbia Winery in Woodinville, near Seattle. Sources indicate that the Fualaaus received $750,000 for the exclusive rights to their wedding from Entertainment Tonight which recorded the affair. Currently, the couple and their two daughters, whom they gained full custody of in early 2006, are living in Normandy Park, Washington. They are living off of the proceeds from their wedding, their media appearances, and the books they have penned about their story including Un seul crime, lÊamour (Astudillo, 2007). Resources Astudillo, Teresa. 2007. The forbidden love that refused to die. Daily Telegraph (Australia), April 7. Bartley, Nancy, Cheryl Harris, and Christine Clarridge. 1998. LetourneauÊs freedom restricted. Seattle Times, January 7. Cloud, John. 1998. A matter of hearts. Time Magazine, May 4. http://www.time.com/time/ magazine/article/0,9171,988276ă1,00.html. Dress, Christina, Tama-Lisa Johnson, and Mary Kay Letourneau. 2004. Mass with Mary: The Prison Years. Trafford, BC, Canada: Trafford Publishing. Fitten, Ronald K. 1997. Teacher wonÊt go to prison for rape. Seattle Times, May 14. Kiyomura, Cathy. 2005. DSHS may want slice of Letourneau wedding payoff pie. KING 5 News, May 2. www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_091304WABletourneausonK C.11421dd7d.html. Letourneau, Mary Kay, and Vili Fualaau. 1999. Un seul crime, lÊamour (Only one crime, love). Paris, France: Robert Laffont. MSNBC. 2006. Letourneau and Fualaau, one year later. Dateline, June 2. http://www. msnbc.msn.com/id/13064459/ Olsen, Gregg. 1999. If Loving You is Wrong. New York: St. MartinÊs Press. Washington v. Letourneau, 100 Wn. App. 424; 997 P.2d 436, 2000.

Kim S. Ménard

Teresa Lewis (1969–2010) Teresa Lewis is one of the more controversial figures within the women and death penalty debate. Her case brings together several issues including mental capacity and appropriateness of capital punishment as well as how gender plays into

516

|

Teresa Lewis

considerations in giving women capital sentences. Two images of Lewis exist: (a) a cruel, greedy woman who used sex to mastermind the murder for hire of her husband and stepson for the insurance money; and (b) a mentally challenged woman, extremely vulnerable to the manipulation of a man who wooed her and convinced her to participate in killing her family for his own financial benefit. This case brought many perspectives to renew the argument about effects of gender on Teresa Lewis smiles at the camera in 2007. Lewis death penalty decisions and the was found guilty of conspiring to have her husband inhumanity of the death penalty. and stepson murdered for insurance money. She Not much is known about Te- was sentenced to death by lethal injection. (AP/Wide resa LewisÊs early years. She was World Photos) born Teresa Wilson on April 26, 1969, around Danville, Virginia. Both parents worked in a local textile factory. LewisÊs early life was characterized as difficult both from a home life described as „repressive‰ and from mental challenges related to borderline intellectual functioning IQ. Growing up and as an adult, Lewis regularly participated in Christian church services and activities. There is some question about how much she practiced her faith, at least in earlier years. Lewis publicly stated that while she went to church twice a week or more, she did not even read her Bible outside of church. Lewis also stated that she did drugs, stole, lied, and had several sexual affairs while she was putting on the face of a „good‰ church girl. There are conflicting accounts with regard to LewisÊs education with some stating that she dropped out of high school, and the court stating that she had finished high school and attended a year of college. The timing of events is not clear, and it is possible that she dropped out only to finish at a later time. According to LewisÊs father, his daughter dropped out of school in 1985 at the age of 16 and ran off to get married to a man named Bean she met from church. LewisÊs father described his daughterÊs life as immoral and self-serving, and he accused her of abandoning her child and having affairs with multiple men including her sisterÊs husband. Lewis publicly admitted having affairs during her marriages. Lewis and her first husband ultimately divorced after having two children including daughter, Christie, who later played a role in LewisÊs plan to kill her husband and stepson.

Teresa Lewis |

Around the time of LewisÊs divorce, she began drinking heavily and is reported to have become addicted to painkillers, taking as many as 600 pills per month to escape physical abdominal pain and the emotional pain of her motherÊs death. The only prior offense found for Lewis was a charge of forging prescriptions. Between the time when Lewis married her first husband and her second, victim Julian Clifton Lewis, Lewis is reported to have worked at nearly 50 low-income jobs, jumping from job to job. In March or April 2000, Teresa Lewis was hired at the Dan River textile factory, where she met recently widowed Julian Clifton Lewis, Jr., who was her supervisor. The two fell for each other, and by June, Julian and Teresa began to live together at JulianÊs home in Danville, Virginia. They were married the following year. Some, including LewisÊs mother-in-law, noticed LewisÊs difficulties with some basic daily tasks. For example, she could not manage a checkbook or other household finances. She was unable to buy more than a dayÊs groceries at one time. She was described as being like a child. Her mother-in-law described her as not being quite right. LewisÊs questionable mental capacities would later become the cornerstone of her argument in the appeal of her death sentence. Lewis was portrayed by the prosecution and seen by some others as highly greedy. When her stepson, Jason, died in a car accident in December 2001, LewisÊs husband inherited more than $200,000 from his life insurance policy. Lewis allegedly began to think of how to get more money from Julian and his family. Some claim she only wanted Julian Lewis for his money. In early 2002, the couple purchased an acreage and mobile home in Pittsylvania County. At this time, the prosecution claimed that Lewis began to plot ways to get more money. Her greed was intensified when Julian LewisÊs other son, Charles, executed a will and took out life insurance listing his father as primary beneficiary and Lewis a secondary beneficiary. Charles, an Army reservist, was about to be deployed to the war in the Middle East and wanted his affairs to be in order. In the fall of 2002, Lewis met two young men at the local Wal-Mart store: Rodney Fuller and Matthew Shallenberger. After some conversation, Lewis exchanged telephone numbers with Shallenberger. This was the beginning of a sexual affair between them. Lewis allegedly showered Shallenberger with gifts and sex. This relationship quickly led to a conspiracy between Shallenberger, Lewis, and Fuller to kill LewisÊs husband for insurance money, which Lewis and Shallenberger would split. The sexual affair and questionable morals of Lewis became important to both defense and prosecution. The defense wished to avoid a jury trial for fear that moral issues would overshadow the facts in the case. The prosecution used the sexually immoral behavior of Lewis as a highly visible and inflammatory part of their case. Particularly damning was LewisÊs offering her 16-year-old daughter Christie to Fuller for sex while she and Shallenberger had sex in another car. Prosecution also claimed Lewis had sex with both men.

517

518 |

Teresa Lewis

Lewis provided Shallenberger and Fuller $1,200 to purchase two shotguns, ammunition, and another weapon to kill LewisÊs husband. There was one aborted attempt to kill Julian prior to the murders on October 30, 2002. Lewis received news that JulianÊs son Charles would be staying with them, and the three then planned to kill both of them. On the night of the murders, Lewis left the rear door of her trailer home unlocked for the two men to come in. At some point after midnight, while Lewis was in bed with her husband, the two came into the house. Shallenberger told Teresa to get up, and she went into the kitchen to wait. Shallenberger shot repeated blasts into Julian Lewis while Fuller shot Charles Lewis multiple times. Charles Lewis died instantly, but Julian Lewis did not die until later. After the murders, Lewis retrieved her husbandÊs wallet, took out $300, and gave half to Shallenberger. Shallenberger and Fuller left, and Lewis waited between 30 and 45 minutes to call 911, after calling her former mother-in-law and a friend. Prosecutors described Lewis as a callous, cruel woman who took careful steps to avoid suspicion. She made a lunch for Julian and placed it into a paper bag with words like „I love you‰ written on the bag in ink, which was done as she undoubtedly heard her husbandÊs anguish and pain after being shot. Testimony later indicated that Julian never took lunches to work in paper bags. When deputies arrived, Julian Lewis was found curled up in the bedroom moaning „baby, baby, baby.‰ When asked who had shot him, he replied, „my wife knows who done this to me.‰ He died after that. Lewis initially claimed that two strangers broke into the home and killed her husband and stepson while she hid in the bathroom. Her demeanor was described as strange. When she was informed that her husband and stepson were dead, she did not appear upset. LewisÊs story was not consistent with other crime scene evidence. Several days later, Lewis confessed and lead police to Shallenberger who then pointed out Fuller. Lewis had tried to claim assets and insurance money, even before her husband and stepson were buried. These actions were also used to indicate her greed as well as ability to plan the murders. Teresa Lewis was indicted on November 20, 2002, on two counts of murder for hire and five other charges. LewisÊs defense counsel wanted to avoid a trial. They never raised the issue of LewisÊs mental capacities or her psychological weaknesses, and the case never went to trial. Lewis waived her right to trial and pleaded guilty in May 2003 to seven offenses, including the two crimes of murder for hire, without any guarantee she would avoid a death sentence. Fuller had already received a life sentence, and the defense did not believe that the judge would give Lewis death. Teresa Lewis was sentenced to death and identified as an evil mastermind of the murders who lured her coconspirators with sex. Judge Strauss of the Pittsylvania Circuit Court stated that she clearly met the legal standard of „depravity of mind.‰ With Fuller sentenced to life for his role in the murders, Shallenberger was also given a sentence of life as a measure of „fairness‰ of sentencing between the two. Lewis was remanded to the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Teresa Lewis |

where she awaited her execution in complete segregation as the state of Virginia did not have an actual „death row‰ for women. In 2004, James E. Rocap, III, took on LewisÊs case to pursue an appeal of the death sentence and began additional investigation which revealed three crucial areas not known to or pursued by defense counsel. These were LewisÊs low intellectual functioning; symptoms of dependent personality disorder, which hindered her independence; and evidence that Shallenberger was the actual mastermind of the scheme and that Lewis was manipulated by him. When Lewis was administered an IQ test, she scored a full scale IQ of 72, a verbal IQ of 70, and a performance IQ of 79. She was determined to be in the borderline range of mental retardation (borderline intellectual function) but was not diagnosable as retarded nor did she fall below the 70 IQ score established as the minimum cognitive competency allowable for capital punishment. Critics question whether differences in two or three IQ points are meaningful. She was also assessed by three different psychological professionals to have dependent personality disorder which impaired her ability to accomplish daily tasks without help, rendered her vulnerable to stronger individuals·particularly men, and made her eager and even desperate to please. The defense argued that Lewis could not have cognitively or psychologically been the leader of this murder conspiracy but, rather, a follower of the stronger and more intelligent Shallenberger. Investigation in 2004 discovered that Shallenberger had told a former girlfriend in a letter that he manipulated and used Lewis in order to get money to become a drug dealer. He said that Lewis was not very smart and eager to do what he wanted, and this was exactly what he wanted: someone who wanted money and who would fall for his affections. This was repeated to an investigator along with his claim that the money was the only reason he ever had sex with Lewis. Others claimed that Shallenberger fancied himself as a gigolo, a sharp shooter, and that he had sights on becoming a Mafia hit man in New York. Shallenberger killed himself in prison in 2006, but after he made those statements, the defense claimed that Fuller and two others had also substantiated ShallenbergerÊs claim. The argument that Lewis was too impaired to have planned and led the plot to kill her husband and stepson was soundly rejected by the circuit court. Additional arguments about gender disproportionality were made based on the severity of her sentence compared to similar cases as well as the sentencing of the actual triggermen in this crime. The court explicitly stated that they could not and would not accept an argument based on gender and denied the appeal in March 2004. A subsequent plea for clemency from the governor, Bob McDonnell, was also denied. When LewisÊs quest to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear her appeal was denied 7ă2 (Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissenting) on September 21, 2010, LewisÊs hope for a stay of execution dwindled. The governor denied clemency a second time that same day, and preparations were made for LewisÊs execution at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Virginia. She was executed September 23, 2010, with death proclaimed

519

520

|

Teresa Lewis

at 9:13 PM. Her last words were directed toward Kathy Clifton, her stepdaughter and the only remaining immediate relative of Julian Lewis. Lewis apologized to Kathy and expressed her love for her before she died by lethal injection. The Lewis case gained worldwide attention as countries around Europe and other parts of the world questioned why the United States would execute a retarded woman. The European UnionÊs human rights representative, celebrities, the pope, Amnesty International, and many womanÊs groups called for clemency. Even Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made reference to the case, publicly questioning why the United States would execute such a woman but also criticize IranÊs handling of criminals. While the support for Lewis reached a level rarely seen in a death penalty case, the outcome further demonstrates the deep entrenchment of capital punishment in the U.S. criminal justice system and harsher treatment of nonsympathetic, nontraditionally feminine women who kill. Teresa Lewis violated fundamental gender expectations for women: love for family, faithfulness, controlled sexuality. Ultimately, this case raises questions about current definitions of mental capacity and culpability as well as possible gender biases in with regard to capital punishment. Lewis was the 12th woman put to death in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. Resources „Amnesty International Urges Government to Commute Teresa Lewis Execution.‰ www. commondreams.org/newswire/2010/09/14_22. (Retrieved October 10, 2010). Eckholm, Erik. 2010. „Woman on Death Row Runs Out of Appeals.‰ New York Times. September 22. p. A14. Glod, Maria. 2010. „On Death Row, Killer Pleads for Her Life.‰ Washington Post. September 14. p. A08. Hammack, Laurence. 2010. „Teresa Lewis to be Executed by Lethal Injection.‰ Roanoke Times [Roanoke, VA] September 12. Jones, Ashby. 2010. „High Court Takes a Pass, End is Near for Virginia Woman.‰ WSJ Blog, Law Blog. www.blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/22/high_court_takes_a_pass_end_ is_near_for_virginia_woman/. (Retrieved October 14, 2010). Leonard, Tom. 2010. „Is it Because SheÊs a Woman that Double Killer is to be Executed by Lethal Injection?‰ Daily Mail. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article_1313614/ Is_Teresa_Lewis_woman_shes_executed_lethal_injection.html#. (Retrieved October 14, 2010). Lewis v. Commonwealth of Virginia. 2004. Opinion by Chief Justice Leroy R. Hassel., Sr., Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County. Record No. 032153. March 5, 2004. OÊConnor, Anahad. 2010. „Woman, 41, is Executed in Virginia.‰ New York Times. September 24. p. A20(L). Reber, Pat. 2010. „Roundup: Virginia Executes low-IQ Woman Through Injection.‰ AmericaÊs Intelligence Wire. September 24.

Joan Little | 521

Szkotak, Steve. 2010. „Virginia Puts Woman to Death; Rare Female Execution.‰ www. washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/24/va_inmate_first_woman_5_years_executed_ US. (Retrieved October 15. 2010). Williams, Carol. 2010. „WomanÊs Execution Could Signal Shift in U.S. Thinking; Her Death Breaks with Traditional Queasiness Over Such Punishment for Female Criminals.‰ LATEXTRA; Metro Desk. Part AA. September 24.

Vickie Jensen

Joan Little (1954–) Joan (pronounced Jo-Ann) Little was a petty criminal offender in the mid-1970s who went from alleged victim, to alleged murderer, to jail escapee·and became a cause célèbre for the womenÊs movement, the civil rights and black power movements, and the anti-death penalty movement. Her trial in the summer of 1975 for first-degree murder galvanized national focus on the emerging issues of a womanÊs right to defend herself against male sexual aggression (especially when incarcerated), on sexual and racial inequities in criminal processing, and on the legitimacy of the death penalty. Joan Little was born May 8, 1954, in Washington, North Carolina, the oldest of eight or nine children in a poor black family. Since her alcoholic stepfather did not contribute to the family income, her mother worked long hours at factory or domestic jobs to keep the family going, and Joan was drafted to look after her younger siblings. But she was bright and rebellious, and by the time she was a teenager, she was misbehaving so badly that her mother sent her to a nearby minimum-security youth training school. When Little ran away from that the school, her mother sent her to live with relatives in Philadelphia and Newark, New Jersey, where she apparently did somewhat better. After returning to North Carolina several years later for a medical procedure, Little rebelled against being placed in a grade below where she believed she belonged and abruptly quit school. A series of menial jobs followed, along with Little becoming increasingly involved with „the wrong crowd‰ and having run-ins with the law (McNeil, 2001; Reston, 1977). Though none of LittleÊs first arrests resulted in convictions, she eventually was arrested on a more serious breaking-and-entering charge in 1974 in Greenville, North Carolina. She jumped bail and ran but was soon recaptured. She asked to be detained pending trial at the Beaufort County Jail, rather than at the Correctional Center for Women at Raleigh, which would have been the norm. Depending on which story is believed, this was because she wanted to be closer to her home during her pretrial detention, or she wanted the more relaxed detention available in

522

|

Joan Little

the small county jail compared to the more rigid custodial arrangements in Raleigh (Reston, 1977). Whatever the reason, her stay at the Beaufort County Jail would prove fateful since it brought Joan into prolonged contact with Clarence Alligood, the white Beaufort County Jail night jailer. LittleÊs life became news after a deputy entered the Beaufort County jail at about 4:00 AM on the morning of August 27, 1974, to admit a prisoner and found Clarence Alligood lying half-naked and dead from multiple stab wounds. The only woman detainee, Joan Little, was gone. She was immediately suspected of the murder and declared a fugitive, and a massive hunt ensued. For a week Little eluded police, while newspapers gave vivid accounts of „an intentional Âbrutal murderÊ of a night jailer who was acting in the Âline of dutyÊ ‰ (McNeil, 2001: 260). Details about AlligoodÊs pants being off and dried semen trailing down his leg were omitted from press coverage at the time. The search for Little became so fevered that authorities contemplated whether to invoke the „outlaw‰ clause from a Reconstruction Era law that would have permitted Little to be shot on sight as a dangerous renegade (McNeil, 2001; Reston, 1977). Hearing about this helped impel Little to seek legal assistance and a way to turn herself in safely. She eventually submitted to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation accompanied by her attorneys on September 3, 1974. When finally given an opportunity to tell her side of the story, Little asserted that she had been sexually assaulted by the night jailer and had merely defended herself against him, turning the ice pick he had brought to her cell to intimidate her into her own weapon of defense. She claimed she did not even realize Alligood was dead when she ran away. Nonetheless, the grand jury immediately indicted her for first-degree murder, which at that time carried an automatic death sentence. Activist Angela Davis later claimed that, in a Southern county filled with many people named Alligood, at least one had served on the grand jury that indicted Little, raising questions about how impartial the justice was in this case (Davis, 1975). Southern justice in the mid-1970s was not known for being kind to blacks who killed whites. Joan Little claimed she fled the jail in fear for her life and stayed on the run once she learned of AlligoodÊs death for the same reason. Given the extent of the police search for her, it is clear that she was able to evade them only with the help of other local blacks·some of whom aided her precisely because the police were so aggressive toward them (Reston, 1977). Once jailed again, this time in Raleigh, LittleÊs case quickly gained national attention, due in part to a story in the New York Times in December 1974 and an article by Angela Davis in Ms. magazine in June 1975. Supporters quickly began to gather around Little. Support came from a Free Joan Little Committee and a Joann Little Defense Fund which tried to raise money for her $100,000 bail, to support from existing organizations such as the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church for Christ, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National

Joan Little | 523

Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, the National Organization for Women, the Alliance of Lesbian Feminists of Atlanta, and the Black Panther Party (McNeil, 2001). This unusual combination of supporters exemplifies the way in which LittleÊs case tapped into the concerns of the time. The womenÊs movement had been trying to raise the issue of rape for some time, and here was a case of a woman being prosecuted for defending herself against sexual assault. The black power and civil rights movements had long raged against the inequities of the criminal justice system, and this case of a black woman being sexually coerced by a white male guard was virtual replay of the racial and sexual inequalities of plantation politics. The case also raised uncomfortable issues about the death penalty at a time just after the U.S. Supreme Court had temporarily halted its use in Furman v. Georgia. Even before that landmark decision, executions had dropped off to nothing in the United States, and the Furman decision acknowledged that executions may have been racially biased in their application in the past. The prospect of giving a death sentence to a young black woman who said she had killed only in self-defense was discomforting. All of these combined to form national interest in·and support for·Joan Little, both while she was on the run and as she awaited trial. Her lawyers shrewdly encouraged public sympathy for her. And though she was a high school dropout, Little was smart and quickly picked up on the issues that swirled around her. She wrote an essay that appeared in the January 1975 issue of the radical womenÊs newspaper Off our Backs in which she articulated her „growing self-awareness‰ and „her right to defend herself and to have a voice in discussions about her life‰ (McNeil, 2001: 266). She began to model her behavior after that of her female attorney who was about her same size but more refined (Reston, 1977). Most important, however, she never wavered from her contention that she had acted only to defend herself, even in the highly charged trial, which took place in Raleigh, North Carolina, in the summer of 1975. Despite prosecutorial efforts to make her actions seem like those of a deliberate premeditated killer, Little was so well prepped by her attorneys that she handled the difficult cross-examination exceedingly well. The jury took only 78 minutes to acquit her (Reston, 1977). Forever a symbol of all individuals caught at the intersection of race, sex, and the criminal justice system, Joan LittleÊs case marked a new sensitivity in American politics to a womanÊs right to defend her body against male aggression, and the right of blacks to expect fair treatment from the justice system. As Angela Davis noted in her famous Ms. magazine essay on Little, it had been presumed up to that time that women who really resisted could not be raped so that women who were raped were doubly victimized·-by the rapist and by the system that did not believe them. Black women were victimized once more, since it was historically „acceptable‰ for white men to take advantage of the black women who were their property as slaves, or who were believed to have provoked their victimization by being

524 |

Joan Little

sexually seductive (Davis, 1975). Joan LittleÊs case touched on elements of all of these highly sensitive issues, and yet she was quickly acquitted. Resources Davis, A. (June, 1975). JoAnne Little: The dialectics of rape. First printed in Ms. magazine. Reprinted in James, J. (ed.). (1998). The Angela Y. Davis Reader, (149ă159). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. King, W. (December 1, 1974). Killing of Carolina jailer, charged to woman, raises question of abuse of inmates. New York Times. p. 41. Little, J. (December 29, 1974). Self-aware. Off our backs. As cited in McNeil (2001). McNeil, G. R. (2001). „Joanne is you, Joanne is me:‰ A consideration of African American women and the „Free Joan Little‰ movement, 1974ă1975 (259ă279). In B. CollierThomas & V. P. Franklin (eds.) Sisters in the struggle: African American women in the civil rights-black power movement. New York: New York University Press. Reston, J. (1977). The innocence of Joan Little: A Southern mystery. New York: New York Times Books.

Christine E. Rasche

M Winnie Mandela (1936–) Nomzamo Winifred Zanyiwe Madikizela, known to the outside world as Winnie Mandela, was a pivotal political figure in opposition to white supremacy of South Africa. Her political activities were marked with continuous prosecution, arrests, detention in solitary confinement, and life in exile by the South African apartheid government. Winnie was largely accountable for the international attention given to the plight of South Africans and the imprisonment of anti-apartheid leader, Nelson Mandela. After his release, however, she was implicated in and convicted of helping to conceal a murder. Winnie Mandela was born in Bizana, a poverty-stricken rural area of Southeast Africa. Her father, Columbus Madikizela, was a primary school principal, and her mother, Gertrude, was a teacher. Winnie proved to be an excellent student. At age 16, she received the scholarship to attend the Jan Hofmeyer School of Social Work. In 1955, Winnie Mandela became the first South African black to receive a degree in medical social work. She was offered a full scholarship to study sociology in the United States, but she decided to turn down the offer and work at Baragwanath Hospital, the only hospital that served the over million blacks who lived in Soweto. While Winnie was researching infant mortality rates, she was confronted with the depth and the scope of dehumanizing poverty that blacks in South Africa experienced. The existing connection between blacksÊ deprivation from resources and the apartheid system raised WinnieÊs political consciousness. She began to participate with the African National Council (ANC) which had originally formed to organize a nationwide nonviolent resistance to white supremacy. In 1957, Winnie was introduced to Nelson Mandela, a 39-year-old political activist and one of the ANCÊs leaders. A year later, Winnie and Nelson were married. In 1960, Nelson was forced to go underground for his political activism. Nelson was arrested in 1962, and the court found him guilty on conspiracy charges, plotting to overthrow the apartheid government. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 525

526

|

Winnie Mandela

Winnie at age 26 was left alone to keep MandelaÊs name and work alive as well as to raise their two daughters, Zindi and Zeni. In her 1986 interview, Winnie explained that she was young and politically immature when she married Mandela. As such, it made her path a very difficult one in which she had to fumble her way alone. As WinnieÊs role in the struggle against apartheid grew, she became the de facto spokesperson for the ANC. Consequently, she became the subject of investigation by the state and local police. In 1962, she was restricted to Soweto and lost her traveling privileges. Five years later, Winnie was sent to prison for a month for her political Winnie Mandela ponders a question activity. during a speaking engagement in In May 1969, when Winnie and her daugh- Washington at American University, ters were home sleeping, security police began 1996. Mandela said the struggle to to pound at her door. Under the new Terrorism overcome apartheid was a prelude to Act, Winnie was incarcerated in a solitary con- the challenges of establishing a stable democracy in South Africa. (AP/Wide finement at the Pretoria Central Prison. Two World Photos) weeks later, security police began to interrogate her. They wanted to know about the ANC and its communist contacts and whether Nelson Mandela was sending her instruction from Robben Island. Five months later, Winnie was charged for reviving the ANC by recruiting for them; finding targets for sabotage; distributing banned literature; using funerals to further the aims of the ANC; and encouraging hostility between whites and blacks. On the day of her trial, the state announced that they had 80 witnesses against Winnie, including her youngest sister, Nonyanison, but when the first 20 witnesses stated that they had all been threatened and tortured into testifying, the judge ordered a recess in the trial. In February 1970, the attorney general told the court that the state was dropping the case against Winnie and others who were arrested under the Terrorism Act. But soon after, Winnie was rearrested and returned to solitary confinement for the following seven months. Through the prison grapevine, Winnie learned that her detention had caused international outrage. In September 1970, Winnie among few other political activists were freed. However, she continued to be harassed and was subjected to searches at all hours. In 1977, Winnie was banished to Brandfort, a small town where the locals did not speak her language. At this point, Winnie Mandela was constantly in the

Winnie Mandela | 527

news. The security forces recognized the possible significance of her role and placed her under constant observation. Years later, reflecting back on her life, Winnie described having lived a day-to-day kind of existence. She and her two young daughters were harassed from the moment Nelson Mandela was arrested. It was extremely difficult for her to explain to them why they were constantly under strict surveillance, why security forces were present in their home, why they were constantly being raided, followed, and searched if their mother wasnÊt a criminal. In the following decade, in 1991, WinnieÊs reputation was tarnished when she was charged and convicted of close involvement in a murder case. Winnie appealed her conviction. In February 11, 1991, due to the international pressure and other factors, the ban on the ANC was lifted and Nelson Mandela was released from prison. In 1992, new evidence related to WinnieÊs involvement in the same murder case surfaced that resulted in her resignation as the head of the ANCÊs social welfare department. However, the court waived her six-year prison term, and instead, she was ordered to pay a fine. In April 1992, Nelson announced his separation from Winnie. In the following year, despite WinnieÊs criminal conviction, she was elected president of the ANCÊs Women League. In 1994, when Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa, he appointed Winnie to deputy minister of arts, culture, science, and technology. But Winnie was fired in April 1995 for her ongoing conflict with Nelson. At last, in 1996, the Mandelas were divorced. In years to come, her dented reputation did not destroy WinnieÊs political career. Many South Africans, especially women, have continued to support her. The 74-year-old political activist has been recently helping women in the areas of education, income generation, and health. Resources Gilbey, Emma. 1993. The Lady. The Life and Times of Winnie Mandela. London: Cape. Harrison, Nancy. 1986. Winnie Mandela. New York: George Braziller. Haskins, Jim. 1988. Winnie Mandela. Life of Struggle. New York: Putnam & Son. Hoobler, Dorothy, and Thomas Hoobler. 1987. Nelson and Winnie Mandela. New York: Franklin Watts. Mandela, Nelson. 1994. Long Walk to Freedom. The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Boston: Little Brown. Mandela, Winnie. 1985. Part of My Soul Went with Him. New York: Norton. Shreir, Sally, & F. John Harper. 1989. WomenÊs Movements of the World. An International Directory and Reference Guide. Letchworth, England: Keesing Publications.

Ladan Dejam

528

| Mother Mandelbaum

Mother Mandelbaum (1818?–1894) Mother Mandelbaum (or „Marm‰ as she was better known) was the most successful fence in New YorkÊs criminal history. Between the years of 1864 and 1884, she handled between $5 to $10 million in stolen goods, equivalent to between $120 million and $200 million today. Not much is known about her early life. She was named Fredericka, born to Jewish parents in the German principality of HesseKassel (Bryk, 2003: 1). She arrived in this country with her husband sometime in 1849 (Van Every, 1972: 240). Police records show her name first appearing in 1862. At that time she was peddling stolen goods door to door. She began managing teams of pickpockets, fencing their takes, and at the same time providing bail and legal defense for them (Bryk, 2003: 1). Mandelbaum and her husband opened a dry-goods and haberdashery store at 79 Clinton Street in the German neighborhood known as Kleine Deutschland in New York City. Later, they were able to purchase the three-story building and a twostory wing in the rear (Van Every, 1972: 240). It was here that she and her husband raised four children, living with them on the second and third floors which were furnished with more elegance than any other place in the city, while they were fronting the biggest fencing operation in New YorkÊs history. Mandelbaum had dances and dinners, entertaining lavishly both criminals and police officials and politicians whom were indebted to her (Asbury, 1927: 215). A one-time warden of Sing Sing described the squat and corpulent Mother Mandelbaum who weighed over 250 pounds, by saying, „The energy of her character seemed to be all drawn down into the capacious thick blubbered reservoir of her body, quiescent in reserve for things more vital than a handshake: and some of it welled up and shone forth in the rich geniality of her smile‰ (Fried, 1993: 26). It is said that she dealt honestly with the people who brought her stolen property, adhering to a strict code of criminal ethics that made them trust her with absolute confidence. She paid in cash and at times extended advance money for jobs not yet completed. She also paid a $5,000 yearly retainer to the law firm of Howe & Hummel for those of her suppliers who ran afoul of the law. Mandelbaum provided bail money and expenses for their trials, taxing them afterward to recoup her losses (Van Every, 1972: 242). Mandelbaum even declared that her business associates called her Ma „because I give them what a mother cannot sometimes give·money and horses and diamonds‰ (Fried, 1993: 26). Mandelbaum used a network of warehouses across the city to house the stolen goods, reselling them all over the East Coast to middlemen in New York and elsewhere (Bryk, 2003: 1). Once the goods were brought into the warehouses, all labels, trademarks, and forms of identification were removed or erased. She accepted everything including stolen bonds, but she loved silks the most. It is said that for years almost everything silk that was stolen went through her (Van Every, 1972: 242).

Mother Mandelbaum | 529

Mother Mandelbaum ran a school on Grand Street not far from police headquarters. Small boys and girls learned how to be pickpockets and sneak thieves. Advance courses were also offered in burglary, safe-blowing, blackmailing, and confidence schemes. She got scared and shut the school down when the son of a prominent police official applied to the school (Asbury, 1927: 217). The Great Manhattan Savings Institution Bank Robbery of 1878, which was planned by George Leslie, was financed with MandelbaumÊs money. Leslie began planning the heist in 1875 but was murdered by part of the gang a few months shy of the robbery (Lardner and Reppetto, 2000: 76ă78). Mandelbaum had an agent working for her identify the body as LeslieÊs. She is said to have given Leslie a decent burial (Asbury, 1927: 210). What proved to be MandelbaumÊs downfall in the end was her love of silks. District Attorney Peter B. Olney realized that the municipal police would not help him apprehend Mother Mandelbaum. He hired Pinkerton Detectives, who came to her in the guise of thieves, and eventually caught her with some silks in her possession known to be stolen (Van Every, 1972: 243). She was arrested along with her son on July 22, 1884, then released under $21,000 bail. A strong case was made against her, and on December 4, 1884, when she was to face trial, she fled with $1 million in cash to Toronto, where the United States had no extradition treaty. The police could not seize the property put up for bail because MandelbaumÊs lawyer Hummell had fraudulently backdated the title documents, transferring the property to MandelbaumÊs daughters. Mother Mandelbaum lived in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, until her death on February 26, 1894 (Bryk, 2003: 3ă4). There is not much societal response to Mandelbaum in general. Because New York had been famous for police corruption for years and because Mother Mandelbaum had held prominent police officials in her power for so long, when Thomas Byrnes became New YorkÊs „great detective,‰ the rich and famous began to put their trust in him. When something was stolen, he would promise to get it back for the person. Over the course of many years the idea of the detective agency was born and started to flourish with detectives under his leadership known as „men of prestige‰ (Lardner and Reppetto, 2000: 83). With Mother Mandelbaum no longer in business, those in society whom she had preyed on must have breathed a huge sigh of relief. Resources Asbury, Herbert. 1927. The Gangs of New York: An Informal History of the Underworld. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing. Bryk, William. 2003. Fences of New York: Mother Mandelbaum, the Jewish mother of the criminal class. New York Press, July 15. Fried, Albert. 1993. The rise and fall of the Jewish gangster in America. New York: Columbia University of Press.

530

|

Dollree Mapp

Lardner, James, and Thomas Reppetto. 2000. NYPD: A City and Its Police. New York: Henry Holt. Van Every, Edward. 1972. Sins of New York: As „Exposed‰ by the Police Gazette. New York: Benjamin Blom.

Cora Marie Bradley

Dollree Mapp (1937–) Dollree (Dolly) Mapp was born in 1937 and lives in St. Albans, New York. She is probably most known for her case establishing stronger requirements for law enforcement to adhere to search and seizure standards. In 1957 Dollree Mapp was under suspicion of harboring a fugitive wanted in a bombing case. When the police officers in Ohio arrived at the home of Mapp, she refused to allow them to enter her home to search for the fugitive believed to be her home. In due course, the police entered her home by force. In looking for this fugitive she was alleged to be harboring, the police found pornographic material in her home. Dollree Mapp was arrested and ultimately convicted under a state law in Ohio that made possession of pornographic materials illegal (Schmalleger, 2007, 246ă247). Dollree Mapp argued that the materials seized should have been suppressed as the police officers never produced a search warrant for such materials and therefore were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. She appealed her conviction on the grounds of the basis of freedom of expression. The case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) resulted in the exclusionary rule which led to a change in police training and attitudes. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially restrains the police. It tells the police that they must have probable cause to arrest, that they must have a warrant to search, and that the warrant must specify where and what is to be seized. As a result of the Mapp decision, the Fourth Amendment was made applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level (Muraskin and Roberts, 2009). Prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, including the case of Wolf v. Colorado (1949) had held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to agents acting on behalf of both local and state law enforcement agencies. According to Mr. Justice Clark who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, „Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs . . . As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though Âbased primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendantÊs (Mapp) homeÊ ‰ (170 Ohio St. 427, 428, 166 N.E. 2d 387, 388).

Dollree Mapp | 531

On May 23, 1957 three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellantÊs (Dollree Mapp) residence in that city pursuant to information that „a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home.‰ Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant. They advised their headquarters of the situation and undertook a surveillance of the house. (367 U.S. 643, 644 1961) The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four more additional officers arrived on the scene. When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately, at least one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened and the policemen gained admittance. Meanwhile Miss MappÊs attorney arrived, but the officers, having secured their own entry, and continuing in their defiance of the law, would permit him neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the house. It appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the hall. She demanded to see a search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. She grabbed the „warrant‰ and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which the officers removed the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been „belligerent.‰ (367 U.S. 643, 644) Running roughshod over appellant, a policeman „grabbed‰ her „twisted [her] hand‰ and she „yelled [and] pleaded with him‰ because „it was hurting.‰ Appellant, in handcuffs was then forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a draw, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. They also looked into a photo album and through personal papers belonging to the appellant. The search spread to the rest of the second floor including the childÊs bedroom, the living room, the kitchen and a dinette. The basement of the building and a trunk found therein was also searched. The obscene materials for possession of which was ultimately convicted were discovered in the course of that widespread search. (367 U.S. 643, 645) At the trial there was no search warrant produced nor was there any reason produced by the district attorney as to why there was no warrant. It was noted by the Supreme Court that „the rummaging of . . . drawers . . . constitutes the essence of the offence: but it is the invasion of . . . indefensible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.‰ It was in the case of Weeks v. Unites States (232 U.S. 383 1914) that the court had stated that „the Fourth Amendment . . . put the courts of the United States and

532

|

Dollree Mapp

Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints [and] . . . forever secure[d] the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law‰ (232 U.S. 383, 391ă392). Implicit in their discussion of privacy the court in reviewing their prior decisions stated that „we have no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run counter to the guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment‰ (367 U.S. 643, 651). Accordingly, the court pointed out in their reasoning of Mapp v. Ohio that „there are those who say, as did Justice . . . Cardozo, that under our constitutional exclusionary doctrine, Â[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.Ê Â[t] here is another consideration, the imperative of judicial integrity. The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws or worse, the disregard of the charter of its own existenceÊ ‰(367 U.S. 643, 659). The day that Dollree Mapp refused police authorities to enter her home without a proper warrant, impacted the way that the criminal justice system does business: [T]he right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States and the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner to like effect as other basic rights secured by the Due Process Clause we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment. Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no less that that which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice. (367 U.S. 643, 660). After the 1957 case in which she was arrested for possession of pornographic material, and the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding search and seizures based on the case, Mapp later made her way back into the news in 1973, when she was arrested for receiving stolen property and drugs. She had sold her home in Cleveland, Ohio, where she was first arrested in 1957, and she moved to New York a few years after her successful Supreme Court case. After the Supreme Court decision of Mapp v. Ohio, she subsequently tried her hand at some real estate and had a furniture business. It was in 1973 that „Dolly,‰ as she is known, heard a knock on her door. This time she found a group of Queens County, New York, police detectives at her door. She heard the words, „[W]e have a search warrant, this time‰ (Krajicek, 2007).

Dollree Mapp | 533

She proceeded to let the officers in, as required by law. „The cops had had Mapp under surveillance for six weeks as a suspected fence for stolen property. In her home police found stolen television sets, furs, silver and antiques. They also found 50,000 $3.00 hits of heroin. She was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison under New YorkÊs tough [then] new drug laws championed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Mapp served more than 9 years, from 1973ă1981, before Governor Hugh Carey, who opposed the Rockefeller laws, commuted her sentence‰ (Krajicek, 2007). This was the second time that Mapp made headlines: first in Mapp v. Ohio and then when she was once again arrested in 1973. To this day Mapp has yet to have forgotten a single detail regarding her arrest back in 1957. „They said they had a warrant, I said: What is your warrant for? When he wouldnÊt say, I stood firm. I guess I was a little belligerent at times. But I know right from wrong, and I knew I was right in this case. I think I might have died for my rights at that point‰ (Krajicek, 2007). Mapp had indicated that the police at that time were probably surprised to find a woman as determined as she was. Women, but particularly black women, „tended to cow to cops in 1957,‰ and she was not the one to give into the officers. „I was always a determined woman, and I suppose I grew even more determined as a single mother trying to raise a child. I knew I being railroaded, and I said IÊm not going to take this lying down. I was determined to take it as far as I needed to take it, and it turned out that meant going to the Supreme Court‰ (Krajicek, 2007). Dollree Mapp has said that she had no regrets over her decision. „I stand firm on my convictions. Always have. I believe you donÊt run away from nothing. You have to be man enough or woman enough to stand and fight if itÊs something worth fighting for‰ (Krajicek, 2007). And for Dollree Mapp, Mapp v. Ohio was worth fighting for. Resources Krajicek, D. (2007). „Dollree Mapp, A Determined Woman.‰ www.crimelibrary.com/ about/authors. Long, Carolyn N. (2006). Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Mapp v. Ohio. (1961). 347 U.S. 643. Muraskin, R., and A. Roberts. (2009). Visions for change: Crime and justice in the twentyfirst century (Fifth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schmalleger, F. (2007). Criminal justice today: An introductory text to the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall. Weeks v. United States. (1914). 232 U.S. 383.

Roslyn Muraskin

534

|

Marie Antoinette

Marie Antoinette (1755–1793) Marie AntoinetteÊs life is known for its extravagance and glamorous style, although in the end, she died as a shameful peasant and lowly prisoner. Her aristocratic lifestyle and actions, along with a scandal involving a diamond necklace, resulted in the common peopleÊs hatred and rebellion, which in turn led to the French Revolution. She was born Archduchess Marie Antoinette Josephe Jeanne into EuropeÊs most powerful royal family on November 2, 1755. Her parents were very influential figures in Europe: her mother, Maria Theresa, was the empress of the Austrian Empire, and her father, Francis I, was the Duke of Lorraine with the title of Holy Roman emperor. Together they ruled most of Central Europe and had authority over many European kingdoms. Marie Antoinette grew up in Vienna, the capital of Austria. During her childhood she was trained to be the wife of a noble man and learned to be a charming public figure. Maria Theresa was trying to create an alliance with France and arranged for her daughter to marry the son of King Louis XV, the crown prince of France. The two were wed in 1770, when Marie Antoinette was only 15 years old. Although the young prince was not interested in politics or economics, he was crowned King Louis XVI in 1774, and at the age of 19, Marie Antoinette became queen of France. The queen was bored of her husband, and of the life in court, and began to make new friends in order to entertain herself. She surrounded herself with men and women of the aristocratic class that she herself belonged to, and rumors of orgies and her infidelities soon began to spread. Many people among the nobility were envious of the queenÊs lifestyle and insulted by the neglect of her duties to the court. There were many stories circulating among the nobility and common people accusing her of committing sexual acts with men and women of the court and sending funds to Austria. The paternity of her children was also called into question. Jealousy and envy spread among some of the people surrounding the queen, which soon led to the Diamond Necklace Affair. Three separate people contributed to the unfolding of the affair: Madame Lamotte, a descendant of past Valois nobility who has been trying to gain a position in the court; Prince de Rohan, a high official of the Roman Catholic Church who was unhappy with his exclusion from Marie AntoinetteÊs inner circle; and Boehmer, a jeweler who has been unable to convince the queen Marie Antoinette. (Library of Conto buy an expensive diamond necklace. gress)

Marie Antoinette | 535

Lamotte convinced the two men that she was a lesbian lover of the queenÊs and that Marie Antoinette indeed wanted the necklace. Rohan obtained the jewel from Boehmer and gave it to Lamotte to give to the queen in attempt to gain her admiration and friendship. When the king and queen found out about the affair, they were enraged, and Marie Antoinette demanded justice, which resulted in a trial in front of the Parliament of Paris. During the trial, details of the private lives of the royal family were revealed in front of the whole nation. In the end, Rohan was acquitted of the charges of insulting the queen, due to the common belief that her lifestyle welcomed such insults. Lamotte was branded on her breasts with a burning iron and imprisoned. Following the trial, King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette settled into family life, with the queen spending less time involved with the Paris night life and more time at home with her children. Although the royal familyÊs life seemed to settle, the state of France did not, and in the late 1780s, France had a bad harvest and the poor suffered. The queen tried to aid the poor, but her small acts of kindness went unnoticed. During his time at the throne, Louis XV accumulated debts, and the current king, Louis XVI, was unable to repay them. The countryÊs debt became a crisis, and the crisis worsened between 1778 and 1783 with FranceÊs costly aid to the American colonies, at which point the position of the monarchy became fragile. The common people began to rebel against the monarchy and demanded that unless France created a constitution that gave more power to the people, the rebellion would continue. However, the queen insisted on preserving absolute monarchy and opposed giving more power to the common people. In retaliation, a mob attacked the Bastille prison, which they believed was a symbol of absolute monarchy. Louis XVI was not a forceful king, and although he went to Paris to restore calm, he failed to take prompt action. The mob succeeded in their attack, and no actions were taken against them. Many leading members of the court fled the country, and although the queen wanted to leave with them, the king refused to leave Versailles. The queenÊs pride and arrogance made her vulnerable to verbal abuse by the people, and her importance was lowered significantly. On October 4, the people decided they had had enough and formed a mob that would go to Versailles and demand bread from the king. They went in with knives and threatened to harm the queen, but again, ignoring the requests of his wife, the king refused to flee the country or open fire on the mob. Following the attack and request for bread, the mob insisted that the king and queen follow them to Paris. From that point on, the royal family was vulnerable to attack from the mob who kept a close watch on them. In 1797, after many nobles had already fled the country, and many more were killed, Marie Antoinette finally convinced her husband to leave Paris. The king and queen, with their children, disguised themselves as common travelers and began their escape. However, a citizen

536 |

Regina McKnight

recognized them and alerted the people who confronted the royal couple on arrival in Varennes. No one rescued the king, queen, and their children, and they were forced to return to Paris. When they arrived, they were met with complete silence as opposed to the customary cheers of respect and admiration. The royal family was detained and forced to listen to debates voting to end the monarchy. In September 1792, the Reign of Terror had begun with the murder of hundreds of aristocrats in the prisons. In September 1793, Marie Antoinette was transferred to solitary confinement in the Conciergerie Prison, which served as a holding cell, while she awaited execution. On October 14, the queen faced a trial in which she was attacked more for her acts as a person than a queen. She was found guilty. On October 16, 1793, she rode the garbage cart and was brought to the guillotine. Following her execution, her head was paraded for all to see, and her body was left on the grass before finding its final resting place in an unmarked grave. Even though she faced hatred and close scrutiny by the citizens of France, Marie Antoinette carried herself as a queen until the end, displaying courage in the face of adversity. Resources Fraser, Antonia. Marie Antoinette: The Journey. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Lever, Evelyne. Catherine Temerson, translator. Marie Antoinette: The Last Queen of France. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000.

Adi Levy

Marquise de Montespan. See Montespan, Marquise de Regina McKnight (1977–) Regina McKnight was brought into the national spotlight in the fall of 2003, as the first woman in America to be tried and convicted for using crack cocaine during pregnancy and causing the death of her baby, stillborn at delivery. Many believed it was an act indeterminable in regard to the fetusÊs ultimate fate as a stillborn, and the trial was heavily saturated with controversy involving moral, racial, and political overtones and factors involved. Advocates on both sides were further divided by the potential ramifications of the 12-year sentence and ruling by the presiding judge and jury of this unique legal battle. The trial brought to light the extent to which the law may regulate the actions of pregnant women in terms of the behavior they engage in weighed against the safety and well-being of their unborn children.

Regina McKnight |

537

Regina McKnight is an African American who was born in 1977 in Horry County, South Carolina, and who remained in the region until the time of her arrest. Throughout the course of her life, she maintained a strong connection and relationship with her mother, on whom she relied for both financial as well as emotional support. This relationship was shattered abruptly in 1998 when McKnightÊs mother was suddenly killed by a hit-and-run driver, an event that has largely been speculated as a turning point in her life. It may have led to an escalation in her involvement in drug use, arguably as a form of self medication. Regina McKnight, convicted in 2001 of Despite this tumultuous and bleak backhomicide by child abuse after her stillborn child tested positive for cocaine. ground, McKnight found herself pregnant On May 12, 2008, the South Carolina following the year of her motherÊs demise, Supreme Court issued a ruling overturn- and though expecting a normal and routine ing McKnight’s conviction because she birth, she instead delivered a stillborn. Durdidn’t receive adequate counsel. (AP/ ing the autopsy of the fetus, trace amounts Wide World Photos) of substances indicating cocaine use were found. A few months later, she was arrested for homicide, a flexing of preexisting law unknown beforehand but which would evolve over time to include charges in later cases involving child abuse and distribution of a controlled substance to a minor. From the beginning, the legal attempts to regulate motherhood were fraught with instability, as was well illustrated when Regina McKnightÊs first hearing ended in a mistrial, due largely to the inexperience of the legal system in terms of this recently discovered judicial frontier. A subsequent second trial, however, resulted in a guilty verdict that carried a suspended sentence of a required 12 years in prison. Debate on both sides intensified over the course of the trial on several key issues, many of which were admittedly plagued by arbitrary and ambiguous factors and circumstances. The prosecutionÊs charge of homicide, for example, denotes the acceptance of the belief that crack cocaine use was the primary reason for the demise of the fetus, when large amounts of medical research have shown evidence to the contrary. The stigma of crack cocaine use made popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s continues to permeate society despite the now wellaccepted acknowledgement and understanding of the mediaÊs previous exaggeration and distortion of the drugÊs effects after its initial introduction. Therefore,

538 |

Regina McKnight

itÊs difficult to determine whether the stillborn would have occurred regardless of drug use, making grounds for homicide charges difficult to justify. WhatÊs more is that even the prosecution admitted that Regina McKnight most likely did not intend to harm her unborn child, a revelation that would normally exonerate an individual from receiving full-fledged homicide charges and instead usually result in less serious charges along the lines of manslaughter or negligent homicide. Furthermore the success of the conviction raised legal questions as to the breadth to which such actions may lead to judicial hearings. The chief prosecutor for Horry County, South Carolina, expressed these views when he commented that the fact that the cocaine was an illegal substance was not a deciding factor in the case, and he further defined the courtÊs intent by stating that charges would be filed even if a legal substance was used and the mother was determined to be medically responsible for the childÊs death. This indicated the courtÊs willingness to use such tactics for mothers who put themselves in situations of potential danger for the fetus, theoretically covering everything from frequenting smoky barrooms to unhealthy dieting patterns, a broad spectrum from which to impose regulations and restrictions on indeed. This proposal of intense legal scrutiny on the activities of pregnant women and the plight of McKnight following her ordeal led to public outcry and rallying support from organizations with a vested interest in such matters. Defendants of McKnight counter arguments of these laws being enforced for the well-being of the fetus with evidence to indicate that such legal action may ultimately prove detrimental to the unborn child, as it would act as a deterrent for addicts to seek proper prenatal care or disclose information about drug use to their doctors. Organizations such as the American Public Health Association, the National Stillbirth Society, and the South Carolina Medical Association collaborated together in order to voice support for Regina McKnight, an effort that eventually led to a review of the case by the Supreme Court. An amicus curiae brief was submitted on behalf of no less than 27 such organizations in support of McKnight, outlining the medical communityÊs oppositional stance to the portrait painted by the prosecution in the original case. In 2002, McKnightÊs defense attorneys attempted to challenge the constitutionality of a homicide charge given for a stillbirth, yet they were unsuccessful, though the margin by which the decision was reached was noticeably slim. Regina McKnightÊs struggle through the legal system was arguably the end result of several collaborating factors that came to a head during her trial. At the time, South Carolina ranked last in the United States in terms of state spending on alcohol and drug treatment facilities, programs, and centers. It was also the only state to have extended its laws regarding child endangerment to include the unborn, meaning that had McKnight been in a hospital in any other state when she delivered her

Regina McKnight |

539

stillborn, legal action would not be sought despite the detection of cocaine in the fetus. Race was also a suspected motivation for moving through with the prosecution, as laws heavily targeting the users of cocaine in crack form have been notoriously harsher than those of the substance in powdered form, and there has been a firm racial dichotomy between users of these separate forms despite the fact that it is essentially the same narcotic. The fact that this case took place in South Carolina, a state with a history heavily impregnated with racial tensions, indirectly supports indicators toward this suspicion. McKnightÊs stillborn was also classified by law as a „viable fetus‰ giving ammunition to both the pro life and pro choice movements, causing political waves to ripple across the surface of this landscape while reaching the deepest depths of potential debate. McKnight also validly expressed discontent in terms of her representing counsel who, among other things, failed to attempt to reduce the charges to involuntary manslaughter, failed to undermine the interpretation of preexisting law to form the case against McKnight by the prosecution, and failed to introduce the autopsy report of the fetus into evidence. Factors such as these surmounted into a damaging scenario for the defense and contributed greatly towards the success of the prosecution. The negligence and ineptness of Regina McKnightÊs counsel was ironically the primary factor for her case to be submitted for review by the Supreme Court again in 2008, resulting in a reverse of her conviction. The victory was small due to the fact that her projected release date was but a mere two years away; yet, it was important as an illustration of the growing concern of the governmentÊs encroachment into the private lives of citizens. Opinions on the actions the courts should be allowed to mandate vary across the diverse population of our nation, and an acceptable solution to approaching such issues will be delicately carved only as time and awareness progress. In this sense, McKnightÊs case stands as a cornerstone on which the foundation for judicial balance is currently being laid, and the erroneous avenues of action that have been highlighted stand as a beacon for others to both observe and learn from in future legal proceedings. Resources Newman, Tony. Supreme Court Will Not Review Murder Conviction of Woman Who Suffered a Stillbirth. Drug Policy News. October 6, 2003. http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/ pressroom/pressrelease/pr100603.cfm Petition Filed Today Seeking U.S. Supreme Court Review of Unprecedented South Carolina Decision Treating a Woman Who Suffered a Stillbirth as a Murderer. National Advocates for Pregnant Women. May 27, 2003. http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/ issues/prmcknight.htm Regina Denise McKnight, Petitioner v. State of South Carolina. 2008. Supreme Court of South Carolina. 378 S.C.

540

| Sarah Metyard and Sarah Morgan Metyard

Talvi, Silja. Criminalizing Motherhood. Nation. December 3, 2003. http://www.thenation. com/doc/20031215/talvi

Jason Thompson

Sarah Metyard (?–1762) and Sarah Morgan Metyard (?–1762) Sarah Metyard and daughter Sarah Morgan Metyard were milliners who tortured their apprentices, killing two, in London, England, sometime around 1758. This case is of interest as it reflects a particularly gruesome case, receiving much publicity in media of the time. The British government required that pauper children be protected by making available apprentice positions within various trades. This case also highlights the conditions and dangers facing working pauper children in England before various child labor laws were enacted during the 19th century. Sarah Metyard, a widower, worked in London taking in five „apprentices‰ from various parish workhouses to learn the milliner trade. Apprentices were young children, orphaned or sold into the labor pool by family members. Children were often preferred as a source of labor as they did not have to be paid as much as adults·if at all·and their small hands were good at the fine work of making hats, cleaning machinery, and so on. One of the Metyard apprentices, Ann (Nanny) Nailer, age 13, was systematically beaten and starved until she died sometime after September 29 (Michaelmas), 1758. Before this date, she was fed little and beaten often as she was more sickly than the others and unable to do as much work. Witnesses recounted how Ann Nailer tried to escape just before her death. She was able to leave the Metyard home but was stopped by the milkman at the request of the Metyards just outside the door. Although Ann pleaded with the milkman to let her go as she would be starved to death and was „ill treated,‰ the milkman did not believe the story and returned her to the Metyards. Witness to the milkman incident, milliner apprentice Philadelphia Dowley testified that the daughter grabbed Ann by the neck, dragged her upstairs, and threw her on a bed where the mother held her head while the daughter beat her with a broken broomstick. Ann Nailer was then placed in the garret, denied food for three days, tied to a door around the waist, and her hands were bound behind her so that she could neither sit nor lie down. She was untied at nights by the daughter so she could rest. The other apprentices were forced to work in a nearby room so that they would experience the consequences of misbehavior vicariously. The day before she died, Dowley stated she was „senseless.‰ When Ann had been seen hanging from the door, doubled over, on October 4, 1758, by the other apprentices they called for the Metyards. The women released

Sarah Metyard and Sarah Morgan Metyard | 541

the girl from her bindings and laid her across mother MetyardÊs lap. Although Ann appeared dead, mother Metyard requested Sarah (Sally) Hinchman go for drops downstairs. Further, the young apprentices were dismissed to the floor below while Ann was administered to. Dowley did not recall the drops being used. Two days later, during a meal, Hinchman was told to go upstairs and fetch Ann, stating that if she promised to behave she could rejoin the group. Knowing Ann was dead, mother and daughter had conspired and left the garret door open and the front door slightly ajar. When Hinchman said she was not there, the mother stated that she must have run away. AnnÊs sister would not accept that explanation and she believed that Ann had been killed for she knew that her sister would not leave without her belongings. Eventually AnnÊs sister was also killed by the Metyards, although sources do not elaborate on how. AnnÊs body was kept in a box in the garret for two months until the odor began to cause concern. Although they thought of burning the entire body in the fireplace, concerns about the smell of burning flesh quashed the idea. The body was then hacked into small pieces and placed in a burlap sack and thrown into a gully near Chick Lane by the mother. The hand of Ann, which had a digit removed because of a whitloe (a form of abscess), was retained and burned in the fireplace most probably to hinder positive identification. The body was found shortly after by a night watchman who took it to the coroner. Decomposition and inability to identify the child lead to the assumption by the coroner and police that the body was one of those used for medical purposes and discarded into the gully. No investigation was launched. The deeds of both came to light four years later, in 1762, when daughter Sarah eventually moved out of the house to take a housekeeping position with a former lodger, Richard Rooker. The mother then took to harassing her daughter and Rooker on a daily basis. This continued even after Rooker took Sarah out to the country as his mistress. Eventually Rooker threatened the elder Metyard with not seeing her daughter. At this point the elder Metyard provoked her and began to mention some odd things occurring at the house on Cock Lane. Younger Sarah responded: „Mother you are the Chick Lane Ghost; remember the gully hole.‰ Later, Rooker asked for clarification on this statement, and the younger Metyard told her story. Rooker encouraged the girl to confess her story, convinced that the judge would show mercy given the daughterÊs ill treatment by the mother. At trial, both the mother and the daughter claimed that the other was the instigator of the majority of the violence; the daughter claimed that she was afraid of her mother because of the beatings and „ill treatment‰ by her. The mother claimed that her daughter committed the majority of the violence of her own accord. In the end, both were found guilty and sentenced to death. The younger Metyard „pleaded her belly,‰ but the women in the courtroom who were called to verify this statement

542 | Montespan, Marquise de

were not convinced she was with child. Mother and daughter were sentenced to hang on the following Monday, July 19, 1762. Resource Old Bailey Proceedings Online. (1762, April). Sarah Metyard, Sarah Morgan Metyard, killing: Murder, 14th July, 1762. Proceedings of the Old Bailey, Ref: t17620714ă30. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from www.oldbaileyonline.org.

Hannah Scott

Montespan, Marquise de (1640–1707) Françoise Athénaïs (Françoise Athénaïs de Rochechouart de Mortemart, or Marquise de Montespan) was one of the favorite mistresses of Louis XIV, King of France, who became personally involved in the scandal of „the Affair of the Poisons,‰ which brought many poisoning cases to justice. Born on October 5, 1640, in the Château de Lussac, she belonged to one of the oldest and most illustrious families in France. Her father was the Marquis de Lussac, who held several prestigious appointments at the royal court of Louis XIII, and her mother was a lady-in-waiting to the Queen Anne of Austria. Françoise Athénaïs studied at the Covent of Sainte Marie de Saintes and, in 1661, joined the royal court as a maid of honor to the kingÊs sister-in-law, Princess Henrietta Anne of England. Blessed with sovereign beauty and high aspirations, she soon set her eyes on Louis XIV, as another courtesan commented: „She had designs on the KingÊs hearth, and started laying her plans from the day she came to court‰ (Mossiker 1969, 45). However, in 1663, Françoise Athénaïs agreed to marry Louis Henri de Pardaillan de Gondrin, Marquis de Montespan, who was the younger brother of her previous fiancée who had tragically died in a duel the year before. The newlywed couple were soon burdened by the MarquisÊs debts, and the marriage eventually fell apart after the birth of their second child. Discouraged by the lack of ambition and the churlishness of her husband, Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan longed to return to the royal house and attain her previous goals. When in 1665, she was finally summoned to court again as the maid of honor to the queen, Marie Thérèse, she left her family behind without much regret. Once she arrived at court, her strong ambition was soon appeased. Indeed, within only one year, Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan managed to gain Louis XIVÊs affections, availing herself of the concurrent pregnancies of both the queen and his favorite paramour, Louise de La Vallière. During her long liaison with the king, she bore him eight children who were legitimized and hence integrated into the royal lineage. Acting as an enlightened patroness of the arts and surrounding herself with her protégés, among them Racine, Moliére, and

Montespan, Marquise de | 543

La Fontaine, Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan gained so much influence and respect at the royal house that she was often referred to as „the KingÊs second wife,‰ or even „the real Queen of France.‰ In 1669, Louise de La Vallière, who was still, at least nominally, the „favorite‰ mistress of the king, fell inexplicably ill. She was believed to have been mysteriously poisoned. Two sorcerers, who were on trial at that time before the court of Chatelet, indicated that Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan was responsible for the crime. The case was never made public, and any suspicion of the Marquise de Montespan was rapidly dismissed and forgotten. However, after the successful prosecution of the Marquise de Brinvilliers in 1676 who was held accountable for having ruthlessly poisoned her father and her two brothers, the practice of poisoning was finally acknowledged to be a deadly tool widely employed by the high-ranking society, and, thus, a clear threat to the security of the royal family. Indeed, during her trial, the Marquise de Brinvilliers revealed „[h]alf of the people I know·people of quality· are involved in this same kind of thing . . . and I could drag them all down along with me, should I decide to talk‰ (Mossiker 1969, 145). After the decapitation of the Marquise de Brinvilliers, many arrests for the same crime followed one after the other, leading to an infamous scandal better known as „the Affair of the Poisons.‰ A special tribunal, called the Chambre Ardente, was deliberately established to adjudicate those cases in 1679. Over the course of three years, the court issued 319 writs of arrest, sentenced 104 people out of the 194 arrested, and condemned 36 of them to death. Among those doomed to capital punishment was the sorceress Catherine Deshayes, Madame Montvoisin, better known as La Voisin. During her trial, she revealed that many of her clients belonged to the upper echelons of the French nobility. Upon her death, other witches who were imprisoned at Vincennes, and particularly, her daughter, Marie Montvoisin, claimed that Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan had regularly visited La Voisin to purchase her „magic powders.‰ Marie Montvoisin explicitly accused the Marquise de Montespan of having used such potions to retain the KingÊs love, recalling that: „Every time . . . she feared the good graces of the King were diminishing, she advised my mother of it so she could bring a remedy. My mother therefore said Masses over these powders destined for the King. They were powders of love‰ (Hilton 2002, 199). Marie Montvoisin further accused Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan of having participated in the black Masses held in 1667ă1668 intended to invoke SatanÊs help to obtain the kingÊs favor and affection. She reported that three to four newborn infants had been sacrificed on behalf of the Marquise de MontespanÊs demands. The priest who had performed the Masses, who was also imprisoned, confirmed such accusations, recounting that, during the black ceremonies, the Marquise de Montespan recited the following: „I ask for the friendship of the King . . . [and] that the Queen should be sterile and that the King should leave her table and her bed for

544 | Montespan, Marquise de

me; that I should obtain of him all that I ask for myself . . . ; that the King should leave La Vallière and look at her no more, and that, the Queen being repudiated, I can marry the King‰ (Hilton 2002, 201). Further allegations that the Marquise de Montespan had conspired to poison Louis XIV were also made. However, the Chambre Ardente never conclusively ruled on the direct involvement of Françoise Athénaïs de Montespan in the Affair of the Poisons. In 1691, no longer a favorite of the King, she retired to the convent of the Filles de Saint Joseph in Paris, where she lived out her final years in solitude and pain. The Marquise de Montespan died in 1707 taking the details of the unsolved mysteries with her. See also Brinvilliers, Marquise de; La Voisin, Catherine Resources Hilton, Lisa. 2002. Athénais: The Real Queen of France. London: Little, Brown. Mossiker, Frances. 1969. The Affair of the Poisons: Louis XIV, Madame de Montespan, and One of the HistoryÊs Great Unsolved Mysteries. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Somerset, Anne. 2003. The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Benedetta Faedi Duramy

N Frances Newton (1965–2005) Frances Elaine Newton was the 11th woman to be executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. She was lethally injected by the state of Texas on September 14, 2005, for the murder conviction of her husband and two minor children. Newton was the first black woman to be executed in Texas since 1853 and the third woman put to death in Texas since 1976. She is the second black woman to be put to death in the United States since 1976, following Wanda Jean AllenÊs execution in Oklahoma in 2001. Newton was born to Iva Jewel Nelms and Bee Henry Nelms, Jr., in 1965. NewtonÊs only recorded previous activity in the criminal justice system included a threeyear probation sentence she received in December 1985 for a forgery conviction. She began dating her future husband, Adrian Newton, when they were teenagers, and they had been together for seven years at the time of the murders. Leading up to the deaths, Newton and her husband had been experiencing difficulties with their relationship, and both were engaged in intimate relationships outside the marriage. On April 7, 1987, NewtonÊs estranged husband (age 23), her son Alton (age 7), and her daughter Farrah (age 20 months) were murdered execution style in their home. Each victim was shot once (Adrian in the head and the two children in the chest), and there was no forced entry into or destruction of the apartment. From the beginning of the investigation until her execution, Newton continually professed her innocence of committing the murders. She theorized that a drug dealer committed the murders. According to police records, NewtonÊs husband used and sold drugs, and Newton believed the killings occurred because of a debt her husband had to another drug dealer. Newton asserts that the last time she saw her family alive was earlier on the day of their deaths before she left the home to run errands. Newton stated that she found a gun in the apartment earlier in the day and took it with her when she left the home to run errands because she feared the trouble it would cause. After picking up a cousin and on her way to return to the apartment, Newton realized she still had the gun in her car. She took the gun, which she had stored in a bag, into the abandoned 545

546

| Frances Newton

house next to her cousinÊs residence that belonged to NewtonÊs parents. Upon returning to her husbandÊs apartment, Newton and her cousin discovered the bodies. Police officers later retrieved the firearm based on statements provided by Newton and her cousin. The firearm was examined and determined to be the murder weapon. Newton was arrested based on the motive that she killed her family in order to receive life insurance benefits. Newton took out three $50,000 policies on herself, her husband, and her daughter less than a month before the murders. She filed claims on these insurance policies three weeks after the deaths. Though the victims were found to have been shot at a close range, no blood or tissue was found on Newton and no gunpowder residue was found Frances Newton, 1998. (AP/Wide on her hands or shirt sleeves. The only evidence World Photos) found on NewtonÊs person was nitrites, which an expert for the prosecution asserted is consistent with gunpowder residue. However, this same expert could not rule out the possibility that the nitrites could have come from gardening fertilizer. NewtonÊs daughter had contact with fertilizer earlier the day of the murders. During her capital punishment trial, Newton was represented by a courtappointed attorney who did not conduct any interviews or investigation in preparation for the hearing. The attorney, Ronald Mock, has since received several misconduct charges brought against him by the Texas State Bar in other cases and most recently received a suspension of two years lasting through the end of 2007. Although the trial judge allowed Newton to retain a new attorney based on MockÊs established incompetence, the judge did not grant a continuance to allow new counsel time to prepare for the defense. This left Newton with the obligation to maintain Mock as her defense attorney. Newton was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death by a jury in October 1988. NewtonÊs first date of execution was scheduled for December 1, 2004. However, only two hours before the procedure, Texas Governor Rick Perry granted her 120 days to allow for additional testing of the evidence in the case. In spite of this, further testing could not be conducted on the skirt Newton was wearing the evening of the murders because the earlier tests ruined the nitrites on the garment and it was stored in the same container as the clothing the victims wore the night they were killed. There was never any investigation into a drug-related connection with the murders. In addition, NewtonÊs supporters proclaim there was a mishandling of

Frances Newton | 547

evidence in the case by the crime analysis laboratory at the Houston Police Department. Questions were raised by Professor David Dow and his Texas Innocence Network at the University of Houston Law Center, which took over as NewtonÊs defense team in the final years of her case. Dow and his students raised the possibility of the existence of another firearm of the same caliber and brand according to information gathered by the police during the initial investigation. Lastly, based on several witness accounts, the timeframe built for the homicides would have left Newton with no more than 20 minutes to shoot her family, clean her clothes and herself, and leave the home. In addition to NewtonÊs recent legal team, the parents of NewtonÊs husband requested of Texas authorities that Newton not be executed, since they had already lost three members of their family years before. Nevertheless, none of the numerous appeals for reprieve were able to spare Newton from the death penalty. She was given a second execution date of September 14, 2005. Newton did not make a final statement immediately prior to her death warrant being carried out. She was 40 years old when she was executed. Resources Carson, David. „Frances Newton.‰ Texas Execution Information Center. http://www.txex ecutions.org/reports/349.asp. „Media Advisory: Frances Newton Scheduled For Execution.‰ Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbot. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=697. Smith, Jordan. 2005.„Without Evidence: Executing Frances Newton.‰ Austin Chronicle. Sept. 9. http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A288994.

Hillary Potter

This page intentionally left blank

O Sarah Osborn (ca. 1640–1692) Sarah Osborn (aka Osborne, Osburn) was one of first three women accused of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, in late February 1692. The others were Sarah Good and Tituba, a Barbadian slave in the house of the Reverend Samuel Parris, whose daughter and niece were among the young women whose accusations led to the Salem Witch Trials, resulting in the execution of 20 people. As many as 13 died in prison, including Osborn. Sarah Osborn died in chains on May 10, 1692, after having been incarcerated for over two months awaiting trial. Born Sarah Warren in Watertown, Massachusetts, she married Robert Prince on April 5, 1662, and gave birth to two sons. Prince owned a prosperous farm. When he died in 1674, he left his land in trust to Sarah with the stipulation that she give it to their sons when they reached legal age. PrinceÊs executors were his relatives John and Thomas Putnam, members of a politically and economically influential family in Salem. It was customary for widows to receive one-third of their husbandÊs property, with the remaining two-thirds going to the children. Soon after PrinceÊs death, Sarah hired Alexander Osborn, an indentured servant from Ireland, to run the farm. Evidence indicates that their economic relationship soon turned romantic. They cohabitated for some time before finally marrying, shocking the Puritan sensibilities of the community. After their marriage, they further shocked the community by filing suit to gain full control of the land that Robert Prince had intended for his sons, in effect denying them their inheritance. The suit would drag on for nearly 25 years. Scholars contend that these two reasons·cohabitation out of wedlock and challenging the inheritance of her sons·led to her accusation as a witch. Osborn showed disregard of Puritan societyÊs views of sexual behavior by cohabitating, exhibiting what Cotton Mather called the type of „lewd and naughty kind of life‰ (1862: 33) lived by witches. Perhaps more damning was the challenge to PrinceÊs will. Both of these were particularly taboo for women of the time. Prince and the Putnams were Salem natives, while the Osborns·Sarah, from another town and Alexander, from another country·were deemed outsiders. Women 549

550 |

Sarah Osborn

who „stood in the way of the orderly transmission of property from one generation to another‰ (Karlsen, 1987: 116), especially from a man to his sons, tended to be considered the disorderly and aberrant women who were accused of witchcraft. In addition, Osborn had a reputation for being argumentative and challenging authority. During her legal examination, and despite her frail health, she argued with Judge Hathorne. Such defiance was a characteristic shared by many of the women accused of witchcraft. Scholars suggest that her notorious reputation, likely to be a subject of village gossip, was another reason for her accusation. Osborn had not attended church for over a year, further indication to many in Salem that she disregarded both the authority of man and God. The Puritan mind was likely to conclude that if she were not worshipping God, she must be worshipping the Devil. The fact that she was over 50 and in poor physical and emotional health was given little consideration. OsbornÊs alleged crime consisted of physically tormenting her accusers and tempting them to become witches. It has been suggested that the accusers·the majority of whom were young, orphaned, and single servants with bleak futures· were not only accusing the „witches‰ of activities that they themselves were guilty of, but were also giving voice to what the community thought and said about the accused. The accusations gave male community leaders their chance to punish women who challenged their authority, thereby establishing what they believed to be the God-given order and hierarchy of the community. The accused served as examples to other disorderly women. OsbornÊs husband, although guilty of the same activities as she, was never accused of wrongdoing. Like many accused of witchcraft, Osborn denied both practicing witchcraft and tormenting her accusers. She was bewildered to find herself, a woman of advanced years with a solid social standing, having to answer to such a crime. It is perhaps indicative of her confused state of mind during this examination that she claimed to have heard a voice telling her not to attend worship. She also suggested that the Devil might have taken her shape in order to torment her accusers. According to scholars, Osborn had been sick for most of the winter and was probably exhausted. She may have just been anxious to get the examination over with. Hoffer also comments on the cruelty shown to Osborn and the other witches. The remand into custody of the aged and sickly Osborn, and her confinement in chains, was essentially a death sentence. Osborn never went to trial. The Court of Oyer and Terminer (i.e., to hear and determine), at which the fate of the accused would be decided, did not begin until June 2, 1692, nearly a month after her death. The crime of witchcraft had a telling impact on the Puritans, whose power had been on the wane for some time. The hysteria wrought by the witchcraft trials, including the accusations of prominent community members, was the final blow. Despite a brief revival during the „Great Awakening‰ (ca. 1730ă1760), Puritan influence would never recover. The trials also predicted how women, especially those

Sarah Osborn | 551

who challenged the status quo, would be treated in U.S. society. They would discover that the male establishment was unwilling to cede power to them, witnessed by the fact that it would be nearly 230 years after the witch trials that women would be given the vote, and over 280 years before legislation would be passed to protect women from domestic violence. Resources Boyer, P., & S. Nissenbaum. 1974. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Breslaw, E. G. 1997. TitubaÊs Confession: The Multicultural Dimensions of the 1692 Salem Witch-Hunt. Ethnohistory 44(3): 535ă556. Burr, G. L. 1914. Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases: 1648ă1706. New York: Charles ScribnerÊs Sons. Hoffer, P. C. 1996. The DevilÊs Disciples: Makers of the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Karlsen, C. F. 1987. The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Mather, C. 1862. Wonders of the Invisible World: Being an account of the tryals of several witches lately executed in New England. To which is added, A farther account of the tryals of the New-England witches. By Increase Mather. London: J. R. Smith. Upham, C. W. 2000. Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village and a History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

James Geistman

This page intentionally left blank

P Dylcia Pagan (1946–) Dylcia Pagan was arrested on April 4, 1980, for conspiring against the U.S. government. She had been a former member of the Armed Forces of National Liberation of Puerto Rico (FALN), which was a secret and armed organization operating in the United States. Pagan was 1 of 11 Puerto Ricans imprisoned for seditious conspiracy. Pagan was born on October 15, 1946, in „El Barrio‰ in New York City to Puerto Rican migrant parents. She majored in cinematography and sociology at Brooklyn College, where she also founded the Puerto Rican Student Union. After graduation, she taught social studies in New York City schools and worked for ABC, NEC, and CBS, as well as for the newspaper El Tiempo. The objective of the FALN, which was responsible for more than 100 bombings in the United States between 1974 and 1983, was to gain the independence for Puerto Rico and make it into an independent island nation. Former FBI official Oliver Revell stated, „Their purpose was to make it so difficult for the United States to retain sovereignty of Puerto Rico that we would essentially reject and release Puerto Rico‰ (Black & Feverick, 1999). Pagan was included in a group of 11 FALN members arrested but never convicted of any actual bombings. Pagan and her comrades were sentenced to terms from 35 to Dylcia Pagan, center, speaking to the media after being released 90 years in prison. In an interview with Nuno from Federal Corrections InstituAndrade, Pagan attributed the length of their tion in Dublin, California, 1999. prison sentences to the groupÊs refusal to recogFour Puerto Rican Nationalist prisnize the U.S. judicial systemÊs legitimacy. „We oners were released in accordance were basically put inside [prison] for such long with a clemency offer by President sentences because of our [political] position,‰ she Clinton. (AP/Wide World Photos) 553

554

|

Bonnie Parker

said. „Eleven Puerto Ricans [stood] before the Federal courts and [said], ÂWe do not recognize the jurisdiction of the United States courts, we refuse to participate in this trial.Ê . . . The government, [in order] to [save] face, had to give us these long sentences‰ (Andrade, 2001). Pagan was sentenced to 55 years in prison on charges of seditious conspiracy but spent only 20 years in federal prison. Throughout her incarceration Dylcia Pagan remained active in the work of the FALN and maintained her position as „an anti-colonial prisoner of war resisting the illegal U.S. occupation of her homeland.‰ While in prison she helped direct a documentary about the Puerto Rican women prisoners of war (Prison Activist Resource Center, 1999). President Clinton granted Pagan clemency in September 1999. The conditions of her clemency included refraining from the use or advocacy of violence for any purpose and obeying all the statutory conditions of her parole (Black & Feverick, 1999). Dylcia Pagan now lives in Puerto Rico, and the terms of her parole allow her to travel outside of Puerto Rico only twice a year. Resources Andrade, N. 2001. www.oneism.com/articles/pagan.html. Black, C., & Feverick, D. 1999. Puerto Rican FALN prisoners face clemency decision. www.CNN.com/US/9909/06/puerto.rico.faln/. Prison Activist Resource Center. 1999. www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/dylcia-pagan. html.

Tara N. Richards

Bonnie Parker (1910–1934) A handful of influential women over the last one hundred plus years have transformed the way in which women in general are perceived in contemporary America. Historically, women were seen as delicate, vulnerable, and innocent·creatures in need of a manÊs guidance and help. One of the influential women who helped change this stereotype was Bonnie Parker. She was one of the first female criminals glorified by American popular culture, and while not a typical role model, she influenced how women became to be seen today. Her criminal career helped destroy the delicate, venerable, and passive images that society had assigned to women. After ParkerÊs life, women could hardly be considered weak and helpless. One lesson society learned is that women are as capable of committing terrible and violent crimes as are men. Bonnie Elizabeth Parker was born on October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas. She was one of three children. Her family was poor and struggled to make ends meet. Her father was a bricklayer and died when she was only four years old. Soon after her fatherÊs death, her mother moved all the children to Dallas, Texas. No extensive detail is known about her early life with her family or what she was like as a teenager. Some facts are clear·during her schooling, Parker did well

Bonnie Parker | 555

in creative writing classes, where she excelled in writing poetry. She was also known to give introductory speeches for the nearby politicians during election rallies. In her teenage years, she made money by waitressing at local restaurants. She has been described as being an intelligent, personable person who was also social and outgoing. Parker was also known as a strong independent woman despite her petite size of 4 feet 11 inches, 90 pounds. These facts seem like incongruities considering the very aggressive behavior she participated in during her criminal years. When Parker was 15 years old, she married a man named Roy Thornton in September 1926. Thornton had a long criminal history and spent Depression-era outlaws Clyde Barhis life in and out of jail. The two remained torow and Bonnie Parker strike a romantic pose. After one of the most gether for a little over two years, and in January sensational manhunts in U.S. his- 1929, they separated but never divorced. At the tory, Barrow and Parker were shot time of ParkerÊs death, she was still legally marto death by a posse of police offi- ried to Thornton. cers in an ambush in Bienville Parish, In 1930 Bonnie meet her future partner in Louisiana, on May 23, 1934. (Library crime, Clyde Barrow. Barrow, like Thornton, of Congress) had an extensive criminal background. Shortly after their meeting, Barrow was sentenced to prison for a stolen car. Parker stayed loyal to Barrow during his 20-month stay in prison. In 1932, Barrow was released from prison, and the two began a 21-month crime spree. Their crime spree occurred during the height of the Great Depression, a significant era for the poor in America. The coupleÊs popular image was as the flight of an in-love, romantic but criminal couple. They became Robin Hoodălike in the publicÊs eyes. This was despite the fact that their crimes ranged from robbing grocery stores, dry cleaners, gas stations, restaurants, stores, and banks; to kidnappings, casual killings, and assaults. From 1932 to 1934, they traveled the countryside in numerous stolen Fords passing through Texas, New Mexico, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. They were not successful by at least one measure·during so many robberies, the most money they ever stole at one place was $1,500. Throughout the crime spree, they evaded the police by stealing different automobiles and driving across multiple jurisdictions in 10 states. In December 1932, police discovered two stolen cars in two different states that were linked to them because of a prescription bottle left in the car with Barrows auntÊs name on it. This link to the cars resulted in the FBI issuing a warrant for their arrest for interstate transportation of a stolen automobile.

556

|

Bonnie Parker

Parker and Barrow were at that point officially on the run from the police and the FBI. During the next year and a half, they engaged in various shoot-outs with the police and escaped time and time again. One instance was during November 1933 in Dallas, Texas, where the police tried to capture them. In January 1934, they helped five prisoners escape a jail, and two prison guards were killed during the breakout that took place in Waldo, Texas. In April 1934, they murdered two police officers in Grapevine, Texas. Soon after, they killed a police constable and kidnapped a police chief in Miami, Oklahoma. There is no detail of exactly how much involvement Parker had in the murders and robberies. No definitive proof was found that she shot anyone. People close to Parker said that she had never shot a gun in any of the crimes or even during the shoot-outs with the police. Though Parker was assumed by the authorities to have some involvement in the crimes of murder, kidnapping, and robbery, a warrant for far less crimes was issued on May 20, 1933, in Dallas, Texas. This indictment charged her with only interstate transportation of an automobile that was stolen in Illinois and driven across state lines. During their violent spree, the two managed to kill 12 people, injure dozens more, and hold an estimated 5 people captive. The two created a following of people who were purchasing tabloids to get the latest details on the duoÊs adventures. Their reputation and relationship was unlike anything that had ever happened before, and to this day there have been few who captured the publicÊs imagination to their degree of notoriety. Parker and Barrow were both from poor backgrounds. Parker was working a menial job, and Barrows was using crime as a livelihood. ParkerÊs motive for being a criminal was seen as being partly financial and partly for the excitement and thrill. No one is really sure for certain what her exact motives were, but they do know that they both had little money and no real chance for a prosperous future given the Depression era economy. On May 23, 1934, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were killed by a group of six police officers along a highway in Gibsland, Louisiana. The police were hiding in nearby bushes to ambush the couple if they should try avoiding a road block. A friend of the couple had tipped the police off regarding their whereabouts, which led to the roadblock. During the shoot-out, 130 rounds were shot into their car. Parker and Barrow were never asked to surrender by the police. When the Texas ranger, Frank Hamer, who headed the ambush, was asked why he killed a woman who was not wanted for any capital offenses, he replied: „I hate to bust the cap on a woman, especially when she was sitting down, however if it wouldnÊt have been her, it would have been us‰ (Williams, 2007). ParkerÊs funeral was a public spectacle with twenty thousand people in attendance. She was buried at Crown Hill Memorial Park in Dallas, Texas. She was only 23 years old when she died. Parker had an impact on U.S. society in that she

Rosa Parks |

557

provided an alternative image of womanhood. She was a murderer and a criminal. Still, she did not care what society thought about her. Her crime spree enabled society to come to terms with the „idea‰ of a female criminal, and in the process, she probably singlehandedly invented the female gangster image. Her image and story were revived again in 1967 in the critically acclaimed, hugely popular film Bonnie and Clyde, starring Faye Dunaway as Bonnie Parker and Warren Beatty as Clyde Barrow. The film did not back away from portraying realistically and graphically the violence of their crimes or the ambush and shoot-out that killed Parker and Barrow. Resources Browder, Laura. 2004. „Bonnie and Clyde.‰ Encyclopedia of the Great Depression, edited by Robert S. McElvaine. New York: Macmillan Reference. Federal Bureau of Investigation. „FBI History. Famous Cases. Bonnie and Clyde.‰ http:// www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/clyde/clyde.htm#top. Phillips-Fein, Kim. 2004. „Crime.‰ Encyclopedia of the Great Depression, edited by Robert S. McElvaine. New York: Macmillan Reference. Robertson, Thomas. 2000. St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture: Bonnie and Clyde. Detroit: St. James Press. Williams, Sally. January 21, 2007. Bonnie and Clyde. Western Mail.

James David Ballard and Natasha Cooper

Rosa Parks (1913–2005) Rosa Louise Parks was an African American civil rights activist who was nationally recognized as the „mother of modern day civil rights movement‰ in America. On December 1, 1955, Parks was arrested for refusing to surrender her seat to a white male passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus. This incident prompted a wave of protest that echoed throughout the United States. It was her very courageous act that changed the view of American people toward African Americans and was influential in redirecting the course of American history. Rosa Parks was educated in a rural school in Alabama, and she was home-schooled by her mother. When she completed her early education, she enrolled in the Montgomery Industrial School for Girls (Miss WhiteÊs School for Girls), a private institution. She went on to Alabama State Teachers College High School, where she failed to complete her studies due to the death of her grandmother. As she prepared to go back to Alabama State TeacherÊs College, her mother fell ill, and she was forced to stay at home to care for her mother, while her brother worked outside the home. Rosa Parks was an early advocate in the effort to free the Scottsboro Boys, a case that took place in the 1930s. Together she and her husband, Raymond, worked with the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

558 |

Rosa Parks

After her arrest, black people of Montgomery and sympathizers of other races began to organize, and they promoted a boycott of the city buses, which lasted for over 380 days. Parks had had her first official confrontation on a bus during a rainy day in 1943 when the bus driver demanded that she get off the bus and re-enter through the back door. While exiting the front door, she dropped her purse, Rosa Parks is fingerprinted in Montgomery, Alabama. and others on the bus ran to Parks’s arrest for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man on December 1, 1955, inspired the Montpick it up. The bus driver evgomery Bus Boycott, a prolonged action against the segidently became enraged, and regated Montgomery, Alabama, bus system by African although he allowed her to American riders and their white supporters. (Library of barely step off the bus, he left, Congress) and she was forced to walk five miles home. It was in remembering this day when this white bus driver demanded that she move that she felt such determination that she was persuaded to continue her revolt. By ParksÊs account, the bus driver had said that: „YÊll better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats.‰ Three of the individuals complied, but Parks would not get up to move to the colored section. She yelled out: „I donÊt think I should have to stand up‰ (www.bio.com/articles/Rosa-Parks). The police were called to arrest Rosa Parks. And arrest her they did. She declared in interviews that she was a human being and had rights. In her biography written by Brinkley (2000), Parks stated that: „People always say that I didnÊt give up my seat because I was tired, but that isnÊt true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of the working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.‰ Like many people of color, Parks was deeply moved by the brutal murder of Emmet Till in August 1955. People who knew Parks described her as a person who, although sweet and soft-spoken, was capable of making statements that screamed loudly. She was a person who understood and believed in the words and writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, the most well-known spokesperson for the boycott who stood for nonviolence. King helped spur the nonviolent movement, which began to take hold throughout the South and the country as whole. Thousands of daring people joined the protest to demand equal rights for all people.

Rosa Parks |

559

Parks was employed from 1965 to 1988 by Congressman John Conyers from the First Congressional District of Michigan, where she co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development with Elaine Easton Steele in honor of husband Raymond (1903ă1977). The instituteÊs purpose was to motivate and direct youth to achieve their full potential. The institute traced the development of the underground railroad into the civil rights movement and beyond. Journeying primarily by bus as freedom riders did during the 1960s, her theme was „Where have we been? Where are we going?‰ Rosa Parks through her life was a modest person who encouraged young people to study those who contributed to world peace. During her life, she was the recipient of more than 43 honorary degrees, including one from Soka University in Japan. In September 1996, Ms. Parks was the recipient of the Medal of Freedom from President Bill Clinton. It is the highest award given to a civilian citizen. In addition to all her awards, the first Monday following February 4 has been designated as Mrs. Rosa ParksÊ Day in the state of Michigan. She was the first living person to have a holiday named after her. Time magazine voted her as one of the top 100 influential people of the 20th century. Both houses of Congress passed a bill unanimously naming Mrs. Parks as one of 250 individuals to receive the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. Rosa Parks is credited with bringing about an awareness of the plight of African Americans and the civil rights struggle. Martin Luther King in his work Stride Toward Freedom described ParksÊs arrest as a precipitating factor with respect to the protest. It was the tip of a history of similar injustices that were taxing and, ultimately, intolerable. Understanding the actions of Mrs. Parks, he explained, could not come without the realization that, eventually, there is a point when humans cannot suffer injustice interminably. Rosa Parks wrote four books·Rosa Parks: My Story (written with Jim Haskins); Quiet Strength (written with Gregory J. Reed); Dear Mrs. Parks: A Dialogue with TodayÊs Youth (written with Gregory J. Reed); and, I Am Rosa Parks (written with Jim Haskins). Rosa Parks remains an example of a person who had quiet courage, dignity, and tremendous determination which ultimately changed society. Resources Brinkley, Douglas. (2000). Rosa Parks. New York: Penguin. Francis, Samuel, Peter Gemma, Patrick Buchanan, and Joseph Sobran. (2006). Shots Fired: Sam Francis on AmericaÊs Culture War. Vienna, VA: Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Hare, Kenneth and Jim Earnhardt. (2005). They Walked to Freedom: 1955ă1956. The Story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Champaign, IL: Spotlight Press. „Two Decades Later.‰ (1974, May 17). New York Times.

Roslyn Muraskin

This page intentionally left blank

R Terri Rachals (1962–) Terri Rachals is a female serial murder who worked as a nurse and preyed on victims in the intensive care unit (ICU) at Phoebe Putney Hospital in Albany, Georgia. There was no victim preference, other than ICU patients, and all victims were injected with potassium chloride, causing the heart to go into arrest. Although she was charged and indicted with 6 murders and 19 aggravated assaults, she was found guilty of a single aggravated assault. She is suspected of killing six people during the latter part of 1985: Milton Luca (age 68) on October 19; Minnie Houck (age 58) on November 7; Joe Erwin (age 36) on November 10; Robert Parker (age 36) on November 15; Andrew Daniels (age 73) on November 24; and Norris Morgan (age 3) on November 27. Born in Hopeful, Georgia, Terri Rachals was adopted by the Maples family at the age of two after her mother had a nervous breakdown. At age 11, her adoptive mother died of a stroke, and her adoptive father became a heavy drinker and abusive towards Terri. Rachals states her father was sexually abusive, molesting her until she left home at age 16, although her father denied this accusation. Throughout school she was described as a good student, self-conscious, and hard working. She met Roger Rachals, a printer suffering from cerebral palsy, at a church meeting while attending college in Albany. They were married in 1980, and she started working for Phoebe Putney Hospital a year later after earning her associateÊs degree in nursing. She had one son, Chad, born around 1984. In early 1985, Phoebe Putney Hospital administration noticed an increase in their ICU deaths. The ward was put into high security mode for three months, and the deaths stopped. After the release of security measures, the deaths resumed, forcing staff to look at its own ward as a source of the problem. Eventually, upper administration figured out that all deaths had occurred on nurse RachalsÊs shift. When confronted by FBI agents, she confessed to the killings. She corrected an FBI official who asked about injecting the potassium chloride into the intravenous bags by responding that, for Samuel Bently, it was injected into the plasma bag instead. After the injection, she stated she watched the electrocardiograph (EEG) 561

562

|

Terri Rachals

strip, knowing something was going to happen. She called for a doctor once the EEG started to show signs of poisoning. Further questioning revealed that Terri Rachals was actually unsure if she committed these crimes, given that she often suffered from long periods of loss of memory, or fugue states. She was charged with 6 counts of murder and 20 counts of aggravated assault. She was handcuffed and taken to a psychiatric facility, where, after one monthÊs time, she was deemed fit to stand trial in September 1986. At trial, Rachals recanted her confession, and defense attorney George Pete Donaldson argued that Rachals was abused as a child, and this abuse caused severe depression which lead her to forget long periods of time. He also brought in psychiatric testimony stating that she was very suggestible. He argued that she confessed because of what was said at the interview by officers and her intense desire to please. The prosecution stated she was a „tigress stalking her prey‰ and that she sought control and domination because of her feelings of being a „second-class citizen‰ and low self-esteem emerging from the abuse she experienced as a child. After nineand-a-half hours of deliberations, five women and seven men returned a verdict of guilty on a single count of aggravated assault, acquitting her of all other charges. She was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Despite the fact that Rachals was suspected of serial murder, the jury stated that the prosecution „failed to make its case‰ even with a recanted confession and the admission of fugue states experienced by the offender. The jurors were polled in the newspaper, and many believed the defenseÊs argument that she was mentally ill and highly suggestible but also believed she was guilty and carried out the crimes in „poor mental health.‰ Throughout the trial, various people commented on what a good nurse she was, how she was a „natural‰ caregiver and was a very kind person. When asked about the verdict, district attorney Hobart Hind was outraged. He said that the verdict indicated that both the judicial system and the jurors present at that time were faulty. He considered her the most serious murderess of the century. During her trial and incarceration she had several supporters, including her long-time attorney, numerous friends, and family members. Attorney Donaldson stated that her case had changed his life, showing him compassion and giving him a desire to learn why women commit crimes. While in prison, letters written by Rachals to author Jennifer Furio before 2001 indicate that she had used her time in prison to begin the healing process caused by the childhood sexual abuse. In one letter she wrote while in prison she states: „I am not evil. I love God. I am living normally. I am a victim of abuse. It was extreme and so was my response. I can grieve, but I can no longer ignore the roots of my disorders‰ (Furio, 2001: p. 37). In this same letter she acknowledges that she was still not sure what it was that she actually did. She asserted that she was still working through memories of her

Leni Riefenstahl | 563

time in the hospital. Like her memories in her childhood, there are only piecemeal images rather than actual remembrances of that time. She was released from the Savannah WomenÊs Transitional Center after serving her 17-year sentence in April 2003, and then she completed three years of parole in April 2006. She remains one of the few identified serial murderers to complete a full prison sentence and be released from prison and into public life. As of this writing, her whereabouts is unknown. Resources Furio, J. (2001). Terri Rachals. Letters from prison: Voices of women murderers. New York: Algora Publishing, 21ă44. Manners, T. (1995). „ Terri Rachals‰ Deadlier than a male: Stories of female serial killers. London: Pan Books, 170ă209.

Hannah Scott

Leni Riefenstahl (1902–2003) Leni Riefenstahl is infamous for her film work on behalf of Nazi Germany. Between 1933 and 1936, Riefenstahl was commissioned by the National Socialist Party to create and direct four films highlighting Hitler, Germany, and the Nazi Party. Her most notable work, Triumph of the Will, has been held as the greatest propaganda film ever

Leni Riefenstahl (right) directs the filming of Triumph of the Will, a Nazi propaganda film, in 1934. Riefenstahl is alternately celebrated as a pioneering filmmaker and excoriated for her role in promoting the Nazi movement. (Library of Congress)

564 |

Leni Riefenstahl

produced. Although she was never a member of the Nazi Party, history has deemed her as „HitlerÊs filmmaker‰ and an ardent supporter of Hitler and the Third Reich. Leni Riefenstahl was born in 1902 as Helene Bertha Amalie in a time when women were not considered to have ambitions beyond their assigned roles as wife and mother. Although her father had intended her to obtain an education, Leni chose the life of an artist. Beginning her career as a dancer, she became immersed in the artistic world, but her life took a new direction when she obtained a role in Arnold FanckÊs film, The Sacred Mountain, which was a box office success and the Riefenstahl-Fanck team went on to make several films together: The Great Leap, The White Hell of Piz Palu, Storm over Mont Blanc, White Frenzy, and SOS Iceberg. It was just prior to the filming of SOS Iceberg that Riefenstahl first met Adolph Hitler. There was an instantaneous admiration between the two, and Riefenstahl remained enamored with Hitler for the rest of her life. Hitler had seen RiefenstahlÊs directorial debut, The Blue Light, and became interested in her filming the 1933 Nationalist Socialist Party Congress in Nuremberg. Riefenstahl agreed, and she proceeded to film the first of four documentaries, Victory of Faith. Although the film was said to be outstanding, Leni was unimpressed with the final product; however, Hitler was able to persuade her to film the conference the following year. Learning from her mistakes from the first attempt, Riefenstahl was able to create what would be considered her masterpiece, Triumph of the Will. The film was able to portray a unified Germany under the rule of a godlike Hitler. The documentary helped to guarantee Nazi control over Germany and shape the face of the Third Reich. With the success of the filmÊs release in 1935, the party leaders commissioned Riefenstahl to direct the third installment of her documentary work on the National Socialist Party, Day of Freedom. This third installment illustrated the might of the German military and HitlerÊs control over it. In contrast to the previous documentaries on Germany and the Third Reich, her fourth and final film funded by the National Socialist party, Olympia, chronicled the 1936 Olympics. This final documentary was the encore to her previous masterpiece, Triumph of the Will. Using filming techniques that were unheard of in the filming community, Riefenstahl was able to capture the sporting event and its participants in a realistic manner. Olympia (1938) was an instantaneous success upon release; the film won numerous awards including the German Film Prize, the stateÊs greatest honor. In 1939, she began to film Penthesilea; however, with the German invasion of Poland that same year, she was forced to shelve the project. Hence, Riefenstahl began filming on the Polish front. It was here that the most damaging material to classify her as more than a mere „sympathizer‰ occurred. While filming, she was witness to the killing of 31 Polish prisoners in the town of Konskie. Although there has been some disagreement about her role in the incident, evidence suggests that she was not a direct participant in the massacre. Many sources report that she did protest the

Leni Riefenstahl | 565

occurrence; however, her objections fell on deaf ears, even those of her friend and confidant Adolph Hitler. Tired of war, Leni Riefenstahl returned to making movies rather than documentaries/propaganda films. Riefenstahl began filming a shelved project, Tiefland. The film took years to finish with Leni Riefenstahl acting as producer, director, writer, and leading lady. When the allied forces entered Germany, filming halted. Upon release after the war, it was a terrible flop. With the news of HitlerÊs death, Riefenstahl fled Berlin. She had not foreseen what was to come. Her once-beloved status was gone, and she became viewed as a pariah. Riefenstahl was taken into custody by American troops and held in a detention camp. With her arrival in Salzburg Prison, she was questioned about her relationship with Nazi leaders. She maintained that she was an artist who had occasionally attended official celebrations at the request of the Nazi hierarchy. She failed to admit she had been a longtime friend and patron of Hitler and the Nazi party. She was cleared by the American occupiers and released. With the French occupation of the territory, Riefenstahl had to go through denazification hearings to ascertain her level of complicity with HitlerÊs regime. The first denazification hearing occurred in 1948 and found her free of „political incrimination.‰ Upon appeal by the French military government in 1949, she was again cleared of the charges against her. The third trial conducted by the Baden Commission found her innocent of specific crimes, but classified her as a „fellow traveler‰ who had willingly served the Third Reich. The ruling was extremely controversial since witnesses had testified that she had used gypsy prisoners to work on her film Tiefland. Moreover, two days prior to the ruling, Revue released the photos at Koskie, which placed Riefenstahl at the murders, which conflicted with her admission of ignorance. Nevertheless, her status was upheld, and Riefenstahl was free to work again since the classification of „fellow traveler‰ carried no prohibitions or penalties. Although Riefenstahl was able to avoid any reprisals for her relationship with the Reich, her career suffered and her reputation was ruined. No film company would associate with her; she was, in essence, ostracized from the movie picture industry. It was not until 1962 that Riefenstahl made a comeback with her „discovery‰ of the Nubas in the Sudan. Rather than film the tribe, Riefenstahl turned to photographs. Her work with „her‰ Nubas led to the publishing of two books. In 2002, she again reinvented herself with her work on underwater photography releasing her documentary on life in the oceans, Underwater Impressions. A year later, Leni Riefenstahl died of cancer and ended a brilliant yet controversial career. Until her death, Leni Riefenstahl maintained that she was guilty of nothing but being an artist. Many argued that her love of art led her to an obsession to create perfection at any cost. Her unwillingness to see „the real Hitler‰ and her own ambition allowed her to become a successful director at a time when women were relegated to domesticity, but eventually at a cost. Like many others in Nazi Germany, Riefenstahl chose to ignore the atrocities surrounding her.

566 |

Christina Riggs

Resources Bach, Steven. 2007. Leni: The life and work of Leni Riefenstahl. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Berg-Pan, Renata. 1980. Leni Riefenstahl. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Knopp, Guido. 2001. HitlerÊs women. New York: Routledge. Müeller, Ray. 1993. The wonderful horrible life of Leni Riefenstahl. 188 min. Kino Video, Videocassette. Trimborn, Jurgen. 2007. Leni Riefenstahl: A life. New York: Faber and Faber.

Tammy S. Garland

Christina Riggs (1971–2000) Christina Marie Riggs was a licensed nurse and the fifth woman in the United States to be executed after the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. When she was put to death for the murder of her two preschool-aged children, she became the first woman to be executed in Arkansas in almost 150 years. During the sentencing, she pleaded for the jury to give her the death penalty in anticipation of being reunited with her deceased children. As Riggs stated: „There is no way no words can express how sorry I am for taking the lives of my babies . . . now I can be with my babies, as I always intended‰ (CNN Special Report, 2007: 1). As she requested for her death penalty, she was put to death by a lethal injection of potassium chloride, which is also the drug Riggs had initially planned to use to kill her children. Riggs was executed by lethal injection on Thursday May 2, 2000, in Arkansas. Society has been unwilling to believe that women are capable of committing murder, and therefore, there is a tendency to justify women criminalÊs actions by associating them with mental illness or disability. Even RiggsÊs mother and lawyer explained RiggsÊs actions by claiming that post-traumatic stress disorder was the leading cause of her mental instability. What makes RiggsÊs case unique is the fact that she was not viewed by the prosecutor and the jurors as mentally ill or deficient but rather as and individual who was completely and willingly capable of murder. Christina Riggs was born in 1971 in Lawton, Oklahoma. Between the ages of 7 and 13, she had been sexually abused by her stepbrother and also by a neighbor. In adolescence, she experienced low self-esteem as a result of being abused and overweight, and she began drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. Once she graduated from high school, she went on to receive her license as a practical nurse and began working at the Veterans Administration hospital in Oklahoma City. In October 1991, she was pregnant with her son Justin, but his father chose to play no role in JustinÊs life. In July 1993, Christina married John Riggs and shortly after their wedding, she became pregnant again; however, she had a miscarriage. After the miscarriage, Christina was placed on Prozac after reporting feelings of depression and thoughts of suicide. In December 1994, Christina gave birth to her daughter

Christina Riggs | 567

Shelby, but soon after the birth of their daughter, Christina went through a painful divorce. As a single mom with little financial support from the childrenÊs fathers, she began to feel frustrated with long work hours and high living expenses. On November 4, 1997, during her shift at the hospital, Christina Riggs stole some antidepressants (Elavil), morphine, and potassium chloride. Around 10:15 PM, she made her two children drink half of an Elavil each in order to make them drowsy. While Justin was asleep, she injected him with potassium chloride, but she was unaware of the fact that the drug had to be diluted in order for it to work accordingly. Unfortunately, instead of feeling drowsy, Justin woke up screaming in pain, and Riggs ended up giving her son morphine as a pain reliever and suffocated him with a pillow. After her sonÊs reaction to the potassium chloride injection, she decided not inject her daughter, and, instead, she suffocated her with a pillow as well. Christina wrote a suicide note to her mother and to her ex-husband explaining how her life had been full of disappointments, and she felt that by killing her children they would not have to suffer as she had. The prosecutors and jurors held the view that Riggs killed her children because they had become an inconvenience to her lifestyle. According to the prosecution, she was a woman who frequented local bars and karaoke nights. She informed the detectives that she had been planning to kill herself and her children for about two to three weeks prior. However, the jurors viewed RiggsÊs motive as relating to her late night lifestyle. According to Riggs, 20 minutes after killing her children, she took numerous antidepressant pills and injected herself with potassium chloride causing her to become unconscious. The prosecution explained how Riggs would leave her children unattended in order to go out to bars. The recorded confession to the murder proved that she had been plotting to kill her children for several weeks. The following morning, RiggsÊs mother Carol Thomas arrived at her daughterÊs home and found the two dead children on the bed along with her daughter laying unconscious on the floor. She quickly called 911 for help, and once they got there they took Christina to the hospital and stabilized her. Christina Riggs was charged and arrested on two counts of capital murder on November 6, 1997. Her trial began June 23, 1998, and she pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, The defense claimed that Christina had suffered from depression along with low self-esteem and that she had experienced extreme forms of depression and had a family history of depression and suicide. The defense also brought up the claim that as a victim of sexually abuse, RiggsÊs mental state was unstable. In regard to the recorded confession, the defense believed that it was irrelevant because she was still drowsy from the drug overdose, which caused her to hallucinate. However, the court denied the notion that she was still drowsy during the recording because there were no signs of hallucination. According to Riggs vs. State (1999), Riggs claimed that she had been isolated from her family during her statement, and she retained counsel that resulted in an infringement of her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

568 |

Ethel Rosenberg

On June 30, 1998, the jury had reached a verdict of guilty on two counts of capital murder after only 55 minutes. The prosecutor explained that the jury was able to see her as a selfish woman who believed that her children were an inconvenience. During sentencing, Christina Riggs pleaded to the jury for the death penalty, and the jury granted her request. Society tends to be reluctant to charge women with capital murder and sentence them to death. What lead to her conviction was that the idea that a mother could murder her own children violated societyÊs gender norms. The Riggs case was an example of how society reacts and severely punishes women who they believe intentionally killed their own children. There were many mixed feelings about her execution, and many explained that her being put to death was assisted suicide because she wanted to die. Others believed that Christina Riggs was not a criminal but rather as a woman who made a mistake because she was incapable of dealing with the overwhelming frustrations of life. For instance, William F. Shultz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, stated that the state of Arkansas should show compassion toward Riggs (Yellin, 2000). On May 2, 2000, Christina Marie Riggs was put to death by lethal injection; the execution went smoothly and ended in about nine minutes. Even though some viewed Riggs as a self-centered and selfish killer, her last words were „now I can be with my babies, as I always intended‰ (Chen, 2000). Resources Chen, Julie. 2000. Woman executed in Arkansas. CBS News Transcript, May 3, Newscast. Christina Marie Riggs v. State of Arkansas. 1999. No. CR 98-1281, 1-19. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-supreme-court/1007799.html. CNN Special Report. 2007. „Last Words on Death Row.‰ CNN, December 10, 1-6. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-10/us/court.last.words_1_death-row-rickylee-sanderson-texas?_s=PM:US. Frye, Cathy. 2000. Special Report: ÂIÊm sorry, MommaÊ One week before her death by lethal injection, Christina Riggs sat for an interview. She said she wanted people to understand what she was thinking when she smothered her children. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, May 7, A1. Yellin, Emily. 2000. „Arkansas Executes a Woman Who Killed Both Her Children.‰ New York Times, May 3. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/03/us/arkansasexecutes-a-woman-who-killed-both-her-children.html.

Karunya Jayasena and Janet Jimenez

Ethel Rosenberg (1915–1953) In June 1953, Ethel Rosenberg was executed, along with her husband Julius Rosenberg, for supplying atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Arrested in 1950,

Ethel Rosenberg |

569

the controversial circumstances surrounding their trial, conviction, and execution provide a stunning reflection of the anticommunist hysteria of that time period. On September 28, 1915, Ethel Greenglass, the daughter of Jewish European immigrants, was born in a predominantly Jewish workingclass region of Manhattan. It was here that she would spend all of her youth and formidable years. EthelÊs father ran a sewing machine repair shop, and her mother worked as a housewife. She was the second oldest of four children and the only daughter. One of her younger brothers, David, would figure promiEthel Rosenberg holds the arm of her nently during the travails that surrounded Ethhusband Julius Rosenberg, who is in elÊs final years. handcuffs. (Library of Congress) Although Ethel was regarded as a recluse during her early adolescent years, she developed a love for acting and singing during high school. At the age of 16 she started working at National New York Packing and Shipping as a stenographer, and it was here where her political activism was spawned. As a direct witness and eventual victim of NationalÊs unfair labor practices, she became one of the first people to file and successfully win an appeal to the National Labor Relations Board. This activism was nurtured and grew due to the immediate influence of communist and other progressive groups actively present within the area she lived. Ethel would often sing at progressive gatherings and rallies, combining the two passions that meant the most to her. It was at one of these rallies where she met Julius Rosenberg, whom she married in 1939. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg continued their activism throughout the 1940s, and during this time they had two children. Julius found employment with the Signal Corps, only to lose it in 1945 when his political affiliations came under scrutiny. He then established his own business, partnering with two of EthelÊs brothers. This business floundered, creating tensions between EthelÊs family and Julius. During this period, the Rosenbergs experienced their worst financial times while Ethel focused primarily on raising her two children. In June 1950, EthelÊs younger brother, David Greenglass, was implicated in an elaborate espionage ring that provided the Soviets with atomic secrets during the World War II. David had been stationed at Los Alamos from 1944 to 1945, and with assurances from the FBI to not indict his wife (Ruth), he implicated Julius and later Ethel as part of the espionage ring. Julius was arrested on July 17, and Ethel was arrested on August 11.

570 |

Ethel Rosenberg

The RosenbergsÊ arrest came at a time when American society was highly suspicious of foreign and American communists alike. In 1949, the Soviet Union had detonated its first atomic bomb. Although many of the Los Alamos scientists and President Truman had stated that it would only a matter of years before the Soviet Union developed the technology to create an atomic bomb, an anticommunist hysteria that had seized America led to the belief that the Soviet Union had secured the technology primarily through domestic espionage by American communists. These fears were exacerbated when Alger Hiss, a prominent State Department official, was accused of espionage in 1948 and convicted of perjury in 1950. David Greenglass asserted that he provided Julius with names of Los Alamos scientists and a roughly drawn sketch for a high explosive lens mold which were passed on to Soviet agents. The sketch would later, after the executions, be called amateurish and useless by several of the Los Alamos scientists·a sentiment corroborated by decrypted documents from KGB agents (the Venona Files) that were declassified by the National Security Administration in 1995. Under further FBI questioning, David would go on to remember incidents that implicated Julius as being a greater participant. In addition, David and Ruth would go on to remember that in February 1951, a full eight months after they had been initially questioned and six months after EthelÊs arrest, that Ethel also participated in the ring by typing up notes secured by Julius. Later in his life, David recanted this latter statement. The allegations against Ethel are now regarded as having been an unfortunate consequence of the anticommunist zeal and hysteria present in America at the time. These allegations and the subsequent capital charges were used by the FBI to try and secure leverage against Ethel and Julius to name other American communists who were active in the espionage ring. Their refusal to name other communist members resulted in the increased likelihood that, once convicted, they would be sentenced to death; this was an oddity given the significantly lighter sentences handed down to other convicted spies who had much more prominent roles in the spy ring, yet were willing to implicate others. The trial for Ethel and Julius commenced on March 6, 1951. In addition to the overall political climate making it difficult for Ethel and Julius to receive a fair trial, the trial itself was littered with both poor advice by defense attorney Emmanuel Bloch and questionable conduct by the presiding judge, Irving Kaufman, and the U.S. attorney, Irving Saypol. Ethel and Julius were advised to take the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination whenever they were asked about their communist ties. This led to a sense among the jurors that they were hiding incriminating acts. Also, they were tried under the General Espionage Act of 1917 instead of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 which superseded it. This decision allowed the court to impose a death sentence if the alleged espionage had occurred during wartime, the assumption being that the espionage was done to benefit an enemy nation. However, in this case, the alleged espionage had occurred during the World War II, when the

Ethel Rosenberg |

Soviet Union was an American ally. Finally, after the conviction, Kaufman sought advice for the appropriate sentence from several individuals including Irving Saypol. On March 29, 1951, Julius and Ethel were found guilty. On April 5, 1951, they were sentenced to death. Despite numerous worldwide appeals to have their sentences commuted, President Eisenhower refused to grant clemency. In addition, the conviction was affirmed twice by the Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari at least six times, in the end vacating a stay by Justice Douglas on a 6ă3 vote. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed on July 19, 1953. The events surrounding the final three years of Ethel RosenbergÊs life provides a historical reflection of the McCarthy era and the real-life consequences that ensued from ideological hysteria. The telling image her story provides of this historical time ensures that she is a figure who will not be soon forgotten. Due to a confession in 2008 by Morton Sobell, a classmate of Julius Rosenberg, it now appears that Julius Rosenberg was in fact a spy, but Ethel Rosenberg, also executed, was most probably not (Roberts 2008). Further Reading Meeropol, Robert. 2004. An Execution in the Family: One SonÊs Journey [ Paperback]. New York: St. MartinÊs Griffin. Philipson, Ilene.1992. Ethel Rosenberg: Beyond the Myths. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Roberts, Sam. 2008. „Father Was a Spy, Sons Conclude with Regret.” New York Times. September 17. p. B1.

Matthew Grindal

571

This page intentionally left blank

S Margaret Sanger (1879–1966) Margaret Sanger was an advocate for birth control who developed awareness for the need of contraceptives in the United States during the early 1900s, a period during which such devices as well as information on birth control were considered obscene and indecent. In 1912, she began her life-long crusade for providing women with the ability to plan their pregnancies even before the phrase „birth control‰ had been established. Although Sanger supported the development of modern medical methods of birth control, her greatest achievement was promoting the idea that every woman had the right of control over her body and reproductive capabilities and that these were basic and universal concepts that applied to every woman. Many of her writings were considered illegal under the Comstock Law of 1873 because they contained information about sex education that was considered to be obscene. Sanger was considered a criminal for promoting birth control and was the target of raids and other harassment; she was placed on trial, and on some occasions even sent to jail. Sanger opened the first U.S. birth control clinic and founded the American Control League in 1921, now known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. While for some, Margaret Sanger was a sort of heroine, to others she was perceived as immoral, deserving to be labeled as an outcast from society for threatening its moral integrity. Margaret Sanger was born in Corning, New York, on September 14, 1879. She was the daughter of Anne Purcell Higgins, who out of 18 pregnancies had only 11 live births. Anne Higgins died of cervical cancer and tuberculosis in 1896. With the financial support of her sisters, Sanger attended Claverack College in Hudson. She then enrolled in a hospitalÊs nursing program in White Plains, New York, to become an obstetrical nurse. In 1902, she married architect William Sanger and had three children·two sons and a daughter. Sanger left the nursing profession in 1912 to educate women about birth control, a topic she believed would help improve their lives. In 1913, Margaret and William Sanger separated and later divorced. She was remarried in 1922 to James Noah Slee.

573

574

|

Margaret Sanger

In 1912, she began writing two columns for the daily newspaper the New York Call entitled, „What Every Mother Should Know‰ and „What Every Girl Should Know.‰ These columns included modest accounts and information regarding sex, puberty, and descriptions of the reproductive organs using medical terms. These articles indirectly challenged the Comstock Law of 1873, a law that was lobbied through Congress and the state legislature by antipornography advocates. Under this law, distributing contraceptive devices and birth control information through the U.S. postal service was prohibited. In 1914, Sanger caught the Margaret Sanger, U.S. birth control reattention of Anthony Comstock himself form leader. (Library of Congress) when she began writing The Woman Rebel, a monthly magazine that advocated for contraception. Comstock proceeded to impede upon attempts at circulating the magazine, making it undeliverable by mail. Margaret was summoned to court. Due to the risk of imprisonment, she fled to England, but only after writing and creating a plan of mass distribution of her pamphlet, Family Limitations, which explained all the details she knew about birth control and how to use it. Once in England, 10 million copies of the pamphlet were distributed in the United States. One copy was sent to the judge in charge of SangerÊs case. Family Limitations received huge publicity. In 1916, Sanger returned to the United States and faced her first trial, The People v. Margaret Sanger. After refusing the assistance of a lawyer, she appeared on her own behalf in front of the judge. A large crowd of sympathizers gathered at her trial to publicly express their support. Because of the commotion caused by people cheering for Sanger inside and outside the court, the government decided to dismiss the case because they did not want Sanger becoming a political „martyr‰ (Wardell, 1980: 740). Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in 1916 in Brownsville, a section of Brooklyn. The clinic was illegal, but it provided women with some contraceptive methods and gave simple instructions on how to use them. Ten days after being opened, the clinic was raided by the New York City police and Sanger was arrested. The next day, she was bailed out and immediately reopened the clinic. She was subsequently sent to jail a second time. Charges against Sanger included selling indecent pamphlets, running a public nuisance, and distributing birth control information. In 1917, Sanger faced her second trial. She refused to promise

Margaret Sanger | 575

to abide by the law in the future, and as punishment, was returned to jail for 30 days. In 1918, Judge Frederick Crane made it legal for women to obtain information about birth control and contraceptives from doctors if they claimed a reason involving personal health, a victory for Sanger and her cause. Margaret SangerÊs motivation for defying the Comstock Law was that, as a nurse, she encountered many women dying from constant childbirth or blood poisoning after having illegal abortions done. Other women committed suicide in order to prevent themselves from having more children. During this time period, the maternal mortality rate was over 50 times what it is today (Hoyert, 2007: 1ă2), and in light of such circumstances, Sanger saw a need for birth control. She perceived her actions as necessary to promote the enhancement of life for all women. SangerÊs impact on society was significant and left a lasting impression contributing to understanding and reform in womenÊs lives. She helped reduce maternal death rates by providing women with contraceptive devices and information on how to use them to prevent pregnancies. Her struggle made possible the first FDA approved oral contraceptive pill in 1960, and her petitions in court led the way for the private use of contraceptives to become a constitutional right in 1965. Above all, the purpose of Margaret SangerÊs birth control crusade was to allow women to take control of their fertility and thus gain a degree of autonomy they had previously been denied. Freeing women from the risk of unwanted or life-threatening pregnancies, they reached a position from which to better promote their advancement. Sanger died in 1966. Resources Coigney, Virginia. 1969. Margaret Sanger: Rebel with a Cause. New York: Doubleday & Company. Douglas, Emily T. 1975. Margaret Sanger: Pioneer of the Future. Garrett Park, MD: Garrett Park Press. Hoyert, D. L. 2007. Maternal Mortality and Related Concepts. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 3(33). Lader, Lawrence. 1955. The Margaret Sanger Story and the Fight for Birth Control. New York: Country Life Press. „Margaret Sanger (1879ă1966).‰ Harvard University Open Collections Program: Women Working, 1800ă1930. http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/sanger.html Sanger, Margaret. 1959. My Fight for Birth Control. New York: Division of Maxwell Scientific International. Wardell, Dorothy. 1980. Margaret Sanger: Birth ControlÊs Successful Revolutionary. American Journal of Public Health 70(7): 736ă742.

Prana Yenkosky and Jason Thompson

576

| Sophie Scholl

Sophie Scholl (1921–1943) Sophie Scholl was a player in one of the few instances of German organized resistance to Nazi dictatorship. Although condemned as a criminal by the government of Nazi Germany, she acted for freedom. She was born on May 9, 1921, to a middle-class family, the fourth of five children. Her father was a businessman who had a brief stint as mayor of Forchtenberg, Germany, when she was a baby. Her parents encouraged all their children to be open-minded and to question authority. Sophie and her siblings they were given a wide berth for making their own decisions about politics, and they were even allowed to participate in Hitler Youth organizations. A serious, studious child, her early years were unremarkable, although they included a stint in the Nazi youth organization Der Bund Deutscher Mädel (The League of German Girls). In late adolescence, she participated in a reading group consisting of her siblings and other members of her familyÊs social network. As she grew older, she became gradually disillusioned with the message and activities of National Socialism. SchollÊs rising skepticism was likely solidified by her fatherÊs brief detention for antigovernment remarks and her older brother HansÊs arrest for involvement in an unauthorized youth organization. Her attitudes and actions went against the grain of the stereotypical ideas about women that were a key aspect of Nazism. In an excerpt from a letter to her boyfriend, reproduced in a biography by Dumbach and Newborn (2006), she says, „IÊm sure youÊll find what IÊm writing very unfeminine. ItÊs ridiculous for a girl to involve herself in politics. She should let her feminine feelings dominate her thoughts. Especially compassion. But I believe that first comes thinking, and that feelings, especially about little things that affect you directly, maybe about your own body, deflect you so that you can hardly see the big things anymore‰ (45). In 1940, Scholl graduated secondary school and enrolled in vocational school, partially as a failed effort to avoid compulsory work in the National Labor service·a prerequisite for going on to university. In May 1942, after her work stint was completed, she took up the study of biology and philosophy at the University of Munich where Hans was enrolled as a medical student. While living with her brother, she became aware of his involvement with a group called the White Rose. Motivated by varying ideologies, this small group of friends, mostly medical students, had become disenchanted with HitlerÊs Germany and wished to exhort their fellow citizens to challenge the regime. Their method lay chiefly in distributing a series of leaflets mailed from Munich and other cities to selected individuals across Germany. First targeted toward intellectuals and then addressed to the population at large, they pushed Germans to resist the Nazi system, reject the ideology, and become aware of the larger atrocities that were occurring as part of the war effort and beyond.

Sophie Scholl |

Sophie joined the organization, becoming treasurer and helping to copy and distribute the leaflets. On February 18, 1943, she and her brother placed leaflets outside of classrooms at their university. At one point, they threw a bunch of them onto a wide plaza. Discovered by a school custodian, they were detained and questioned by the Gestapo. The police found a draft leaflet in HansÊs pocket·this linked the siblings to a third White Rose member, Christoph Probst, who was arrested shortly afterwards. In the late morning of Monday, February 22, 1943, Sophie, her brother, and Probst were put on trial, accused of treason and of helping the opponents of the Reich. They were tried before the PeopleÊs Court, the Nazi institution for countering political opponents. During the proceedings, at one point Sophie interjected: „Somebody had to make a start. What we said and wrote are what many people are thinking. They just donÊt dare say it out loud.‰ (Dumbach and Newborn, 2006, 157). Having confessed to their activities, all three were found guilty and sentenced to death by guillotine. The executions were rapidly carried out; by shortly after 5:00 PM that same day, all three were dead. Sophie Scholl was 21 years old. Soon afterwards, other core members of the group, along with associates and family members, were taken into custody. Three other White Rose members were executed later that year. Others, punished for assisting the group, were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. It is not clear how much the German public knew of Sophie or the group at the time of the executions, although a few months later one leaflet, obtained by the Allies, was airdropped over Germany. After the end of the war, a book by Inge Scholl relating her siblingsÊ story gave wider notice to the White Rose. Currently, the Scholls, along with other members of the group, are viewed as icons of resistance. Sophie in particular has attained supreme heroine status, especially among the young in Germany. Schools have been named after her, and several movies have been made of her life, including the Academy Awardănominated Sophie Scholl: The Final Five Days (http://www.sophiescholl-derfilm.de/). Resources Dumbach, Annette, and Jud Newborn. 2006. Sophie Scholl & The White Rose. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Henderson, Simon. 2005. The White Rose and the definition of resistance. History Review 53: 45ă47. Robertson, Jenna. 2004. Leaflets of The White Rose. The White Rose Website. http://www. jlrweb.com/whiterose/leaflets.html (Accessed March 6, 2007). Rothemund, Marc. 2005. Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. Zeitgeist Films DVD. Scholl, Inge, and Arthur R. Schultz, trans. 1970. Students against Tyranny; The Resistance of the White Rose, Munich, 1942ă1943. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

577

578

| Assata Shakur

Wittenstein, George J. 1997. Memories of the White Rose. The History Place: Points of View. http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/white-rose1.htm (Retrieved on March 6, 2007).

Angela Taylor

Assata Shakur (1947–) Assata ShakurÊs background as a female African American militant, who achieved a high ranking role in the Black Liberation Army (BLA), establishes her as a relevant figure in contemporary American history. Through her involvement in this organization, she struggled against the oppression encountered by African Americans to gain liberation in the United States. Many believe that ShakurÊs case draws attention to institutional flaws within the American judicial system while highlighting the conflict between government ideology and individual principle. Shakur was born Joanne Deborah Chesimard on July 16, 1947, in New York City, though most of her childhood was spent in Wilmington, North Carolina. She was a student at Borough of Manhattan Community College and City College of New York in the 1960s. After completing her degree, Shakur became an active member of the BLA, an auxiliary of the Black Panther Party (BPP). The BPP was an African American paramilitary organization active in the late 1960s founded to promote civil rights and selfdefense. Its radical approach to social reform made the group a target for law enforcement, contributing to the development of the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), a covert program orchestrated by the FBI. The BLA was an underground, black nationalist, Marxist organization comprised largely of former Black Panthers to rise above racial oppression and injustice by any means necessary. These organizations were subsequently A member of the Black Liberation under intense surveillance by the COINTEL- Army, Assata Shakur was convicted in 1973 of killing New Jersey State PRO which aimed to examine and subdue disTrooper Werner Foerster as he lay on sident political organizations whose outlined the ground. She escaped from prison design included politically radical elements, in 1979 and fled to Cuba. (AP/Wide including those that desired the overthrow of World Photos)

Assata Shakur | 579

the U.S government. Its purpose was to „expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize‰ the activities of these movements (http://www.albionmonitor. com/9905a/jbcointelpro.html). Because Shakur was a member of the BLA, her advocates argue this was the reason she became a target for government harassment. She had previously been arrested several times before for a variety of different offenses ranging from bank robberies to attempted murder. Subsequent trials for these crimes resulted in acquittals and dismissals. On May 2, 1973, on a highway in New Jersey, Assata Shakur and two companions, Zayd Malik Shakur (no relation) and Sundiata Acoli (legal name Clark Squire), were stopped by state troopers Werner Foerster and James Harper. There is considerable debate over what happened next, though there was a shoot-out that left two people dead: ShakurÊs close friend Zayd Shakur and officer Werner Foerster. Officer James Harper and Assata Shakur were both wounded as a result of the fray. There are two accounts for what happened on the New Jersey turnpike. According to police reports, state trooper Foerster pulled over a white Pontiac containing three suspects because of a broken taillight. Officer Harper became suspicious when the driver, Zayd Shakur, would not say who owned the vehicle. During the search that followed, Foerster uncovered a loaded ammunition clip. Soon after, the suspects opened fire with automatic pistols striking FoersterÊs chest and Harper in the left shoulder. Evidence presented in court suggests that Acoli shot Foerster with his own weapon two additional times in the head. During the trial that followed, Harper maintained that he received his wound from Assata, though he later retracted this accusation. Assata ShakurÊs representatives, however, claim that she and her colleagues were political targets and victims of racial profiling. After stopping the Shakur and her friends for „DWB‰ or „Driving While Black,‰ the state troopers physically and verbally assaulted Acoli and Zayd Shakur·a confrontation that led to the shoot-out. Afterwards Zayd Shakur lay dead, and though Acoli escaped, he was taken into custody two days later. Assata Shakur was arrested and alleges that she was physically abused and questioned by police while injured. Her autobiography includes accounts of an interrogation during which she was repeatedly punched by the interviewing officers. Despite evidence that indicated that Shakur was not the shooter, she was jailed without bail for four years pending trial as an accomplice to murder. She was found guilty on March 25, 1977. Forensic evidence to support ShakurÊs defense argument was used to prove that she was shot with her hands raised. A pathologist testified that there was „no conceivable way‰ the first bullet could have hit ShakurÊs clavicle if her arm was down. Additionally, forensic examination did not find gun residue on her hands which supports the claim that she did not kill officer Foerster. Following sentencing, Shakur was transferred to the Federal WomenÊs Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia; it was there she met Puerto Rican Nationalists

580 | Assata Shakur

Lolita Lebron and Mary Alice who introduced her to the concept of Liberation Theology (which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ to address political and social struggles). After the maximum security unit was closed in 1978, Shakur was transferred to the Clinton Correctional Facility for Women in New Jersey. On November 2, 1979, she escaped the Clinton Correctional Facility. Though very little is known about the events leading up to her escape, journalist Asha Bandele who interviewed Shakur, reported that on Black Solidarity Day, several armed people came into the prisonÊs visiting room, and after holding a few guards as hostages, Shakur was able to escape (http://www.assatashakur.org/ hands-off1.htm). In 1984, she resurfaced in Cuba, where she received political asylum from President Fidel Castro after asserting that she never received a fair trial. There have been many extradition attempts to return Shakur to the United States from Cuba. These attempts have included a letter to Pope John Paul II from New Jersey superintendent Carl Williams in 1997 asking the Pope to raise the issue of ShakurÊs extradition during his talks with Fidel Castro. Shakur countered this by writing her own letter to the Pope, in which she stated, „I am not writing to ask you to intercede on my behalf. I ask nothing for myself. I only ask you to examine the social reality of the United States and to speak out against the human rights violations that are taking place.‰ (http://www.assatashakur.org/pope.htm). In 2005, the FBI classified Shakur as a „domestic terrorist‰ and increased the reward for assistance in her capture to $1 million. Despite the label of terrorist, Shakur remains supported by a number of U.S. politicians including Maxine Waters and Charles Barron, as well as the „Hands off Assata‰ campaign, which depicts her as a contemporary freedom fighter. She has also formerly had a scholarship from Manhattan Community College named after her and a documentary about her life released in 1997 entitled Eyes of the Rainbow. ShakurÊs case continues to receive national attention and remains a heavily debated topic within the realms of academia. She is still considered an enemy of the state and currently resides in Cuba where she continues to maintain that she is innocent. Resources Assata Shakur website (current communication and general resource information) http:// www.AssataShakur.org Bandele, Asha. 2003. „The Life of an Outlaw‰ [interview]. Vibe. May, 2003. James, Joy. 2003. Imprisoned Intellectuals: AmericaÊs Political Prisoners Write on Life, Liberation and Rebellion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Scheffler, Judith A. 2002. Wall Tappings: An International Anthology of WomenÊs Prison Writings, 200 A.D. to the Present. New York: Feminist Press. Shakur, Assata. 1987. Assata: An Autobiography. Chicago: Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill Books.

Fusako Shigenobu | 581

Williams, Evelyn. 1993. Inadmissible Evidence: The Story of the African American Trail Lawyers who Defended the Black Liberations Army. New York: Lawrence Hill Books.

Jason Thompson and Michelle Hartzog

Fusako Shigenobu (1945–) As a cofounder and leader of the Japanese Red Army, a radical leftist group, Fusako Shigenobu organized numerous terrorist attacks worldwide in the 1970s and 1980s. While the groupÊs primary goal was to instigate a world revolution and to overthrow the Japanese government, its terrorist attacks often involved hijackings and hostage takings to negotiate the release of political prisoners held in various countries (Table 13). In particular, the Japanese Red Army gained international notoriety in 1972 for their machine gun and grenade attack at Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, in which they killed 26 people (10 of whom were Puerto Ricans on a pilgrimage) and wounded more than 70 (Japan Times, 1972). After having been on the International Criminal Police OrganizationÊs (InterpolÊs) wanted list for nearly 30 years, ShigenobuÊs arrest in Japan in 2000 came as a surprise because she had been believed to be living in Lebanon where she was regarded as a hero who had successfully orchestrated many terrorist attacks for the Palestinian cause. Although she pleaded not guilty, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison for attempted murder and kidnapping charges for taking part in an attack on the French embassy in the Hague, Netherlands, in 1974 (Japan Times, 2006a).

TABLE 13

Major Terrorist Attacks by the Japanese Red Army

Year

Incident

Place

1972

Lod Airport attack by machineguns and grenades

Tel Aviv, Israel

1973

Hijacking of a Japan Airlines airplane

The Netherlands

1974

Blowing up storage tanks at an oil refinery for the Vietnam War

Singapore

1974

Hostage taking at the Japanese embassy

Kuwait

1974

Hostage taking at the French embassy

The Hague, the Netherlands

1975

Hostage taking at the American and Swedish embassies

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

1977

Hijacking of a Japan Airlines airplane

Dhaka, Bangladesh

1986

Gun shooting at the Japanese, Canadian, and American embassies

Jakarta, Indonesia

1987

Firing rockets at the British and American embassies

Rome, Italy

1988

Bombing a U.S. military recreational facility

Naples, Italy

Sources: Shigenobu (2001); Japan Times (2000).

582

| Fusako Shigenobu

After the lower courtÊs ruling, Shigenobu filed an appeal against the 20-year prison sentence (Japan Times, 2006b). During her trial at the lower court, Shigenobu announced a disbanding of the Japanese Red Army (Japan Times, 2001). Fusako Shigenobu was born in 1945 in Tokyo; her father was a member of a preă World War II right-wing organization. After graduation from high school, Shigenobu got a clerical job at a major soy sauce manufacturer. Shigenobu was often frustrated, however, with the way her supervisors devalued female workersÊ abilities. Her suggestions during meetings were often ignored as they were not in accord with the companyÊs traditional managerial system. In order to pursue her dream of becoming a school teacher, Shigenobu entered the night division of a private university. On the very first day that she went to the university, however, there was a sit-in protest against a tuition increase. Such student protests were common across Japan in the 1960s. When one of the protesters explained the reason for the protest and asked her to join them, she spontaneously joined simply because „there was not any reason to say no‰ (Shigenobu, 2001: 37ă38). That was the beginning of ShigenobuÊs involvement in the new left movement. Typical to female members involved at the time, ShigenobuÊs initial responsibility in the movement was acting in support functions. During violent protests and clashes with police, Shigenobu along with her female peers would follow the male protesters, providing medical aid to the injured. But Shigenobu also proved her ability to manage meetings as well as to solicit money for the movement. As the Japanese police strengthened their pressure against the new left movement by arresting its members, Shigenobu, a strong advocate of world revolution, sought to develop ties with guerrilla groups overseas in order to establish an international military base for the movement. At the time, Lebanese militias were inviting foreigners to undertake guerrilla training in order to liberate Palestinians. As Shigenobu perceived this liberation fight was also a fight against imperialism, she moved to Lebanon with some other members in 1971 to prove her theory of world revolution; during this time, she cofounded the Japanese Red Army. While male members underwent physical and guerrilla training to become revolutionary fighters, Shigenobu produced a book and a film depicting the Japanese Red ArmyÊs role in fighting for the Palestinian cause. Despite such efforts for world revolution and armed action by members of the Japanese Red Army, the radical movement in Japan started to self-destruct and lose its power. In 1972, the United Army, another faction of the radical left from which the Japanese Red Army was descended, had a violent purge killing its own members, including ShigenobuÊs best friend Mieko Toyama (Steinhoff, 1996). Compelled to show for Japanese radicals „what the true fight is, what the true death is‰ (Shigenobu, 2001: 80), the Japanese Red Army undertook the terrorist attack at Lod Airport. This random shooting by three members in a baggage claim area was regarded as a major achievement towards the Palestinian cause. While

Fusako Shigenobu | 583

more than two dozen tourists were killed and many more were injured, the Japanese attackers (two died during the attack, while Kozo Okamoto was arrested) were hailed as heroes. As Shigenobu gained celebrity status, her responsibilities as the leader of the Japanese Red Army broadened. Subsequently, the group undertook numerous terrorist attacks involving hijackings and hostage takings throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Despite the heinous terrorist attacks that Shigenobu orchestrated, a close look at her life reveals her feminine character (Steinhoff, 1996). As male members went through violent clashes with the police, ShigenobuÊs role to follow the protesters to attend to the injured was a typical responsibility for female members. As she proved her abilities in organizing support functions, she also supervised other female peers. These background support activities by Shigenobu and other women were critical to keeping the new left movement going. Even after she cofounded the Japanese Red Army, her primary responsibilities were public relations, political analysis, recruitment of new members, and solicitation of funding, while male members primarily conducted terrorist attacks. Shigenobu also proved her intellectual abilities by publishing several books on topics including political analyses of Middle Eastern events and theoretical treatises of the Japanese Red ArmyÊs position in world revolution. Furthermore, ShigenobuÊs feminine character is evident in her decision to return to Japan after more than two decades away during which she was on InterpolÊs wanted list. As the membership of the Japanese Red Army decreased, she needed to find other people who could take care of Okamoto, whose health condition was deteriorating. Okamoto, arrested in the Lod Airport attack, had been subsequently released through hostage negotiations and was living in Lebanon. Moreover, although ShigenobuÊs role as a mother had been less known because of her secretive life for safety reasons, her recent biography exhibited her love for her daughter, Mei (Shigenobu, 2001). Undoubtedly, the Japanese Red Army was a predominantly male organization that implemented numerous terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, Shigenobu achieved her leadership position in the organization by performing distinctively feminine roles. Unlike key males in the new left movement who were often authoritative and assertive, Shigenobu was always cooperative and feminine in the male world of the radical left movement. Resources Japan Times. 1972. 3 Japanese kill 26 at Tel Aviv. June 1, p. 1. Japan Times. 2000. Chronology of the Japanese Red Army. November 9, p. 2. Japan Times. 2001. Shigenobu declares end of Japanese Red Army. April 16, p. 4. Japan Times. 2006a. Red Army founder gets 20 years. February 24, p. 1ă2.

584 |

Susan Smith

Japan Times. 2006b. Red Army founder appeals ruling. March 7, p. 2. Shigenobu, Fusako. 2001. Ringo no kinoshita de anatawo umouto kimeta [I decided to give birth to you under the apple tree]. Tokyo, Japan: Gentousha. Steinhoff, Patricia G. 1996. Three women who loved the Left: Radical woman leaders in the Japanese Red Army movement. In Re-imaging Japanese women, ed. Anne E. Imamura, 301ă324. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

George Kikuchi, Yoko Baba, and Yumiko Watanuki

Susan Smith (1971–) Susan Smith, a working-class secretary, lived a dysfunctional life wrought with physical and sexual abuse, psychological illness, and interpersonal relationship problems that culminated in the murder of her own children. Susan Smith (then Susan Vaughan) was born in Union, South Carolina, in 1971 to parents who married young and fought often. Her father created a violent environment at home in which he physically assaulted SusanÊs mother and threatened to kill her mother and himself. Both Susan and her half brother attempted suicide as children on separate and unrelated occasions. Susan and her brothers lived in fear at home until SusanÊs parents divorced and her father committed suicide. Weeks later, her mother remarried to a man named Bev Russell who fondled, molested, and sexually assaulted Susan for years. Susan became sexually active early in life with several male coworkers at the local grocery store where she worked. She became pregnant by one married coworker, aborted the baby, and subsequently attempted suicide by ingesting a large dosage of over-the-counter medications. Shortly after her recovery Susan began dating another coworker, David Smith, became pregnant again with his child, and immediately married David in 1991 at the early age of 19. SusanÊs life continued on a chaotic and traumatic path due to a second pregnancy and a rocky relationship, plagued with many infidelities, which ultimately ended with Susan filing for divorce. Because David and Susan worked together at the local grocery store, Susan decided to find other employment and secured a job as a secretary for Conso Products, the largest employer in Union, South Carolina. Susan began dating Tom Findlay, the son of the owner of Conso Products; however, he was unprepared to continue the relationship due to the relationship complications posed by her two young boys. Tom Findlay wrote Susan a letter on October 17, 1994, emphasizing that the presence of her children were preventing him from being able to continue a romantic relationship with her. Susan was distraught, depressed, and mentally and emotionally traumatized. A week after receiving the rejection letter, on October 25, Susan Smith put her two children, three-year-old Michael and one-year-old Alex, in the

Susan Smith | 585

backseat of her car and drove for miles trying to calm herself down. She ended at John D. Long Lake and contemplated suicide. Instead, she positioned the car on the boat docking ramp, exited the vehicle leaving her two sleeping boys in the backseat, closed the car door, and let the car slowly roll into the lake. Susan then ran a quarter mile to a nearby home and hysterically told the residents that a black man hijacked her car with her two children inside. Susan SmithÊs story was instantly exposed to the national media. For nine days police investigators were searching for the „missing‰ boys, and television media and newspaper agencies widely distributed the frenzied and sensationSusan Smith, center, is escorted out of the Union County Courthouse after alized story about a black man kidnapping two a jury delivered a guilty verdict in her white children. During this time, many young murder trial, 1995. (AP/Wide World black men were questioned and targeted by poPhotos) lice, and the racial aspect of the crime upset many of UnionÊs residents. David Smith, accompanied by Susan Smith, made a televised plea for the kidnapper to safely return their children. Police investigators immediately became suspicious of Susan SmithÊs alibi and repeatedly interviewed her about the facts of the case. Both David and Susan were asked to take polygraph tests. David consistently passed polygraph tests whereas the results of SusanÊs polygraphs were inconclusive. After nine days of investigating, the sheriff again confronted Susan Smith about her involvement in the death of her children, and she confessed to the murder of her children. Susan Smith signed a confession, was arrested, and charged with two counts of murder. She was held without bail at York County Jail. She was then held for eight months before trial at a womenÊs correctional facility in Columbia. During this time, the public expressed outrage over the fabricated racial element and subsequent police targeting of young black males. SusanÊs brother made a public apology to the black community as well as the larger society for SusanÊs actions and assured the public that she never intended for her alibi to negatively impact the black community. The black community of Union quickly joined forces toward healing and repairing the social damage and held a town meeting designed to eliminate feelings of pain and racial discrimination and promote reconciliation within all communities. While awaiting trial, Susan Smith was diagnosed with having dependent personality disorder but was deemed mentally competent to stand trial. On July 10, 1995, her trial began in Union, South Carolina. A jury of seven whites and five blacks were selected, of which nine were male and three were female. Many argued that the

586 |

Ruth Snyder

trial should have received a change in venue due to the close-knit nature of the city and residents of Union. In fact, many of the jurors knew some of the witnesses who testified in court. Furthermore, others argued that a jury comprised of mostly men would not produce a fair and objective jury given that Susan Smith was a mother who was diagnosed with a mental disorder and who had been sexually victimized during her youth. After the trial, the jury found Susan Smith guilty of murdering her two young sons. Although the prosecution sought the death penalty, the jury declared she would spend her life incarcerated and sentenced her to 30 years to life in prison. Prior to sentencing, SusanÊs stepfather, Bev Russell, wrote her a letter of apology for sexually abusing her during her childhood. He expressed feelings of guilt for victimizing her and said that he, too, was partly to blame for her actions due to years of abuse. Susan SmithÊs chaotic life was riddled with instability, abuse, and terror beginning in early childhood and extending throughout her life. Susan developed a dependent personality disorder and was repeatedly victimized by the men in her life beginning with her father, continuing with her stepfather, and ending with her unhealthy romantic relationships with men outside her family. Resources Eftimiades, Maria. (1995). Sins of the Mother. New York: St. MartinÊs Paperbacks. Rekers, George. (1996). Susan Smith: Victim or Murderer. Lakewood, CO: Glenbridge Publishing. Smith, David, with Carol Calef. (1995). Beyond All Reason: My Life with Susan Smith. New York: Kensington Books.

Kathleen A. Fox

Ruth Snyder (1895–1928) Ruth Snyder murdered her husband in 1927. Her case was publicized widely and she was heavily stigmatized. No one could believe that a woman could commit such a heinous act. Her case was affected by the predominant gender norms on the time and used to justify and reinforce them. SnyderÊs image was used as an example of what a woman should not be. By vilifying her actions, womanhood was reinstated as something soft, delicate, and never violent. Growing up, Ruth Snyder had always been an ambitious child. She began working as a telephone operator as the age of 13. She took various classes on business and bookkeeping. She met her husband, Albert Snyder, when she was hired to work for him. Ruth was 20 years old when she married Albert Snyder. Ruth and Albert Snyder lived a suburban life in Queens Village, New York. In 1925 the Long Island

Ruth Snyder |

587

housewife met a corset salesman named Judd Gray. Snyder, who was 32 years old at the time, was a tall, attractive blonde. The two soon realized their sexual attraction and began an affair. SnyderÊs husband, Albert, worked as the art editor of the magazine Motorboat and usually was not home during the day. They had a 9-year-old daughter, Lorraine. Because Lorraine attended school during the day and Albert was not home, Snyder and Gray could meet often. Lorraine was sometimes left at a hotel lobby while they went to a room. Snyder became bored with her husband, who was 14 years older than she. She suggested that she had been a victim of neglect. Furthermore, The front page of the New York Daily News, 1928, headline read “Dead!” Snyder attempted to convince Gray that her huswith pictures of Ruth Brown Snyder band abused her and must therefore be killed. and Henry Judd Gray, who were ex- Gray refused her initial demands. However, in ecuted via the electric chair at Sing March 1927, Gray accepted SnyderÊs proposiSing Prison for the murder of Albert tion. They worked out a plan to commit the murSnyder. (Library of Congress) der. Gray traveled from Syracuse to New York by train, then took a bus to Long Island. When he got to the Snyder home, he walked around for about an hour drinking from his flask. Finally he entered through the back door as planned. The Snyder family was away at a party and would be gone for a while. Gray hid in a spare room in which Snyder had left a dumbbell, chloroform, and rubber gloves for the murder. The Snyder family returned from the party at 2:00 AM on March 20, 1927, and Albert Snyder immediately fell asleep. Ruth Snyder, however, found Gray, and the two had sex that night. Afterwards, Gray got the dumbbell weight and went with Snyder to where her husband was sleeping with the blankets over his head. Gray brought down the weight onto Albert SnyderÊs head. The blow, however, was not strong enough to kill him. He woke up and screamed. Snyder then took the weight and killed her husband herself. The couple also strangled him with picture wire and put a chloroform-soaked cloth in his nose. They then knocked over some things around the house to make it seem as though a robbery had occurred. SnyderÊs hands and feet were also loosely tied to make it seem as though she was also an innocent victim. Minutes after Gray left, Snyder began banging on nine-year-old LorraineÊs door. Lorraine removed the gag from her motherÊs mouth and was told to go get help: she ran to her neighborÊs house and the police were called. Police began to question Snyder, and she confessed almost at once. However, she claimed that the murder was all GrayÊs fault. Judd Gray was found hiding in his hotel

588 |

Ruth Snyder

room and immediately said he had not been to New York. However, his train ticket was found in his trashcan, and he was left with no choice but to confess. Like Snyder, he said it was not his fault and blamed the whole thing on her. The two lovers turned on each other after that, each blaming the other for the murder. The trial attracted media frenzy. Ruth Snyder and Judd Gray became the center of media attention, as their case monopolized the headlines. Both defendants had different defense attorneys arguing their innocence. SnyderÊs attorneys, Edgar Hazelton and Dana Wallace, stated that Albert Snyder was not loving or affectionate enough to keep a marriage functioning. They also argued that Judd manipulated Ruth into the crime by setting up a $50,000 double indemnity insurance on Albert Snyder. Hazelton and Wallace attempted to present the image of Snyder as a loving wife and mother. When she took the stand, Snyder presented her own account: she claimed to be a suffering wife. She said that her husband usually ignored her and that it was she who read to Lorraine from the Bible and took her to Sunday School. She stated that it was Gray who tricked her into setting up an insurance policy for her husband. GrayÊs lawyers, William Millard and Samuel Miller, on the other hand, presented him as a law-abiding citizen who was manipulated by the so-called domineering Snyder. These lawyers suggested that GrayÊs mind was impaired by passion and lust. Gray, like Snyder, presented an account of himself as an innocent victim. He claimed that Snyder had already attempted to kill Albert Snyder several times before and that it was she who took the insurance policy out. Additionally, he said she had been the one to give the death blow. The jury was out for an hour and forty minutes and returned with a verdict of „guilty‰ for both Ruth Snyder and Judd Gray and recommended a punishment of death on May 19, 1927. Ruth Snyder was led to the electric chair at about 11:00 PM on January 12, 1928. She was the first woman since 1899 to die at the Sing Sing PrisonÊs electric chair in New York. At the moment in which the electric current was running through SnyderÊs body, a photographer named Thomas Howard with a camera strapped to his leg snapped a picture of her death. The image ran in a New York tabloid, Daily News, the very next day. Ruth SnyderÊs case had a lot to do with gender in the 1920s. There were two images that emerged for Ruth during the trial. One was that of „the Bloody Blonde‰ who must be put to death because of her crime; the other image was that of the „Marble Woman‰ who lacked proper feminine emotions and had transgressed gender boundaries (Ramey 2004: 627). Snyder was presented as a cold and unemotional killer. She did not portray culturally defined characteristics of a lady, wife, and mother. Therefore, she was often referred to as a „non-woman‰ (Ramey 2004: 642). Many reporters used the Snyder case as an example of women threatening the patriarchal order and power in the family as well as the state. A popular novel Double Indemnity (1935), written by James M. Cain (which in 1994 was made into a popular and critically acclaimed movie of the same name, starring

Kathleen Soliah | 589

Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray), was based on the story of Ruth Snyder and Judd Gray. Resources Noe, Denise. 2011. „The Murder of Albert Snyder.‰ TruTV Crime Library: Notorious Murders; Death in the Family. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/al bert_snyder/8.html Ramey, Jessie. 2004. „The Bloody Blonde and the Marble Woman: Gender and Power in the Case of Ruth Snyder.‰ Journal of Social History 37(3): 625ă650. Taylor, Troy. 2004. „The Dumb-bell Murder: The Crime of Ruth Snyder & Judd Gray‰ http://www.prairieghosts.com/ruth_judd.html

Daniella Reynoso

Kathleen Soliah (1947–) Kathleen (Ann) Soliah, alias Sara Jane Olson, was finally captured in June 1999 by the FBI for a crime she had committed 23 years earlier. In August 1975, Kathleen Soliah, a member of Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), had allegedly planted pipe bombs beneath two Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) marked vehicles. Her arrest made headline news, and „soccer mom‰ became the mediaÊs shorthand for Kathleen Soliah. Those who knew her well were outraged for they believed Soliah was much more complicated than being described as a soccer mom. They said that although Olson shed her real name and background, she never had abandoned her radical ideology. Soliah was born in 1947 in Fargo, North Dakota. In her middle-class family, she was the eldest child of Marin and Elsie Soliah. Marin was a high school English teacher and Elsie was a homemaker. In the early 1950s SoliahÊs family moved to Palmdale, California. Growing up, Soliah wanted to be an inspiring actress, so she began to make her childhood dream a reality by taking acting classes at Antelope Valley College. She became interested in political literature and started to develop her views on politics. She then enrolled as a theater major in the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). During this time the vastly published news related to Vietnam War was an important factor in strengthening SoliahÊs political views. SoliahÊs image about law officials changed when a series of demonstrators who were against the war were confronted by law enforcement. When she graduated, Soliah and her boyfriend, Jim Kilgore, who had studied economics at UCSB, moved to Monterey, California, where Soliah was an actress and a part-time waitress. Soliah and Kilgore were introduced into the SLA which was known for its extremist

590 |

Kathleen Soliah

urban guerillas in the 1970s. Soon after becoming a member of SLA, SoliahÊs sister and brother joined the organization. In August 1975, Soliah sneaked into the LAPDÊs parking lot and planted pipe bombs beneath two of the marked police vehicles. However, the pipe bombs that Soliah had planted did not explode. They were discovered after one of the bombs had fallen down, leading to the examination of all the vehicles parked in the department. For Soliah, planting the pipe bombs was a retaliation in response to the Compton shooting, in which six of the SLA members were killed by the LAPD. Two weeks prior to Soliah planting bombs, in a rally held in the Ho Chi Minh Park, Soliah had given a speech in front of a crowd of Berkeley radicals, undercover police, and people who were simply there looking for a familiar face from antiăVietnam War days. Soliah in her fiery speech said, „I am a soldier of SLA.‰ Soon after Soliah had planted the pipe bombs under the police cars, she disappeared from California and left to Minnesota, where she legally changed her name to Sarah Jane Olson. Soon, she married her husband Dr. Fred Peterson. The couple lived in Zimbabwe for two years. In Zimbabwe, she worked as an English teacher while her husband practiced medicine. Later, they returned to Minnesota where Olson gave birth to their three daughters. Olson was a stay-at-home mom who was highly engaged in her community. Olson was politically conscious and active; she protested apartheid; rallied against American policy in Central America; helped organized a progressive bookstore; and campaigned for womenÊs rights. According to OlsonÊs parents, their daughter Kathleen never was hiding from the officials. She even visited them in Palmdale and indirectly requested a negotiation with the FBI, but it was denied. However, in May 1999, a viewer recognized Mary Jane OlsonÊs pictures in the AmericaÊs Most Wanted TV show and immediately called the showÊs hotline from which the federal officials were given tips about SoliahÊs whereabouts. On June 16, 1999, SoliahÊs white minivan was surrounded by law enforcement officials and federal agents who were there to capture and book Olson for atDuring her bail hearing in downtown tempted murder. Initially, Olson denied the charge. Within Los Angeles, 1999, former Symbionese Liberation Army fugitive Kathleen days after OlsonÊs arrest, her upper-class neighSoliah, accused of planting bombs bors raised a million dollars and bailed Olson under police cars 24 years earlier, out. However, eventually, she acknowledged looks up at her attorney in Federal her crime. The prosecution team was interested Court. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Bathsheba Spooner | 591

in charging Olson with other SLA crimes. Olson retained Stuart Hanlon to defend her. Hanlon had been the defense attorney for Bill and Emily Harris, two of the SLA members who were charged with kidnapping. There were many difficulties and delays during the Olson trial. A number of key witnesses were either dead or close to dying. OlsonÊs case (which in 1975 had 28 witnesses) suddenly became shaky and circumstantial. OlsonÊs defense attorney Hanlon resigned to meet family obligations. At this point, Olson, out of funds, was provided with a public defender, Henry Hall. During her testimony, Olson expressed remorse for the bombing attempt. „IÊm incredibly sorry,‰ Olson said at the hearing. She added „I canÊt take it back, so I have to take responsibility, and thatÊs what IÊm doing now.‰ But she maintained that she was never a member of the leftist 1970s revolutionary group. In February 2003, Olson was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 10 years in prison. Olson served her time at the Central California WomenÊs Correctional Facility in Chowchilla. Her story has continued to receive media attention. She was released from prison on March 17, 2009, and allowed to serve her parole in Minnesota. Resources Mackey, Robert. „Former Symbionese Liberation Army Member Released From Prison.‰ New York Times. March 17, 2009. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/formersymbionese-liberation-army-member-to-released/?scp=2&sq=kathleen%20soliah&st=cse Taylor, Michael. „Ex-Fugitive Soliah Is Released After Posting $1 Million Bail.‰ San Francisco Chronicle. July 21, 1999. http://articles.sfgate.com/1999ă07ă21/ news/17693982_1_los-angeles-county-bank-robbery-kathleen-soliah

Ladan Dejam

Bathsheba Spooner (1746–1778) Bathsheba Spooner was hanged in Worcester, Massachusetts, on July 2, 1778, for murdering her husband. SpoonerÊs execution was remarkable for a few reasons. First, she was the first woman to be executed in the American colonies by colonial citizens rather than the British. Second, she was five months pregnant upon her execution. Bathsheba Spooner (born Bathsheba Ruggles) was the daughter of two prominent citizens: her father was a descendent of royalty and a general in the army, and her mother was a wealthy land and store owner. She was the favored child out of six, and she grew up in an affluent environment that provided her great wealth and privilege. She married Joseph Spooner at a young age and gave birth to four children, one of which passed away.

592

|

Bathsheba Spooner

Bathsheba reportedly had a great dislike for her husband, found him unmanly, and was utterly repulsed by him. It has also been suggested that he had a severe drinking problem and an affair with their servant. She eventually began an affair with a young revolutionary soldier named Ezra Ross whom she had nursed back to health after a war injury. Bathsheba became pregnant with his child and began to hatch plans to murder her husband. After unsuccessfully trying to convince Ross to kill her husband numerous times, she enlisted the help of two other soldiers to carry out her plans. All three soldiers waited for Joshua Spooner to come home from an evening out, and then they beat him to death. Under BathshebaÊs instruction, they later placed him in the family well. The three men maintain that Bathsheba was the mastermind of the murder plot. She was reportedly sitting behind the curtains of the front door and heard her husband yell out for help but did not help him. After their job was done, the three soldiers reported to Bathsheba that her plan had been executed. Each reported that Bathsheba appeared to be in a high state of confusion. She paid each of them money from a money box that her husband kept upstairs and gave them his clothing. She then asked them to go to the well and fetch some water, seemingly not comprehending why they could not get water from the well. When they explained to her again that her husband was dead and placed in the well, she reiterated that it could not be true. The three men were arrested the next day wearing her dead husbandÊs clothing and shoes and riding her husbandÊs horse. Bathsheba was then arrested and placed in jail for murder. The three men were indicted on charges ranging from abetting to murder, and Bathsheba was charged with inciting, moving, abetting, counseling, and procuring the murder of her husband. All pled not guilty even though the three men had signed a written confession. They came before the Massachusetts Superior Court, 5 judges, and 12 jurors, and after a one day trial, they were sentenced to hang within two months. Bathsheba requested numerous stays of execution nearly a month later, in the hopes that the court would allow her deliver her child (she was four months pregnant at the time). Her stay of execution was denied, and one month later she was executed. Upon her death an autopsy showed that she was carrying an otherwise healthy baby boy. Reporting of the autopsy was not widely made public until nearly 60 years after her execution. The Bathsheba Spooner trial has been romanticized and presented in numerous ways over the last 200 years. Her trial took place prior to the constitutional right against self-incrimination, the fundamental right to due process, the right to counsel, the right to appeal, and the ability for a woman to divorce her husband. Each of the individuals had a different role in SpoonerÊs murder, yet they were given the same punishment. Although the confessions of the three men were supposed to be omitted from trial, notes were made by the prosecutor and the judge that referred to their confessions.

Gloria Steinem | 593

As a wealthy, upper-class woman of society who was the daughter of an army general, Bathsheba was expected to live by the gender and class norms of her time period. She was to serve her husband, not be allowed to think independently, and stay in a marriage that was unfulfilling to her. Throughout the trial and execution, Bathsheba refused to admit her guilt and make a public confession. This only added to the impression that she had a „rebellious‰ nature, for which she had already been known. The midwives and women who examined her for pregnancy had such aversion to her norm violations that they all maliciously agreed that she was not pregnant in order for the execution to take place. Her pregnancy was debated by the judge, viewed by others as an excuse for amoral behavior, became irrelevant for her pleas to extend her life, and was ultimately denied by those within the legal system. Bathsheba was viewed as, tried as, and hanged as a man. It has been suggested she felt trapped, in despair, and angry at her inability to leave a marriage to a husband she did not love. Bathsheba was the first American woman to be executed by someone other than the British, and she was the first women on record to be executed while pregnant. In the ministerÊs final address to Bathsheba, he commented that it was grievous that society found her in that position as a woman. He then bid her a solemn and final farewell. Her execution became entertainment, was a historical moment, and continues to be debated to this day. Resources Bullock, Chandler. (1939). The Bathsheba Spooner Murder Case. Worcester, MA. American Antiquarian Society. Navas, Deborah. (1999). Murdered By His Wife. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Peleg, Chandler. (1844). „The Trial of Mrs. Spooner and Others.‰ American Criminal Trials, 2.

Alana Van Gundy-Yoder

Gloria Steinem (1934–) Gloria Steinem is one of the most widely recognized and influential women of the feminist movement. She is a political activist, an outspoken journalist, and an advocate for the rights of women all over the world. Steinem has spent her life trying to break down gender barriers, and she views crime as being directly impacted by inequality. Steinem was born in Toledo, Ohio, on March 25, 1934. Born to Ruth Nuneviller and Leo Steinem, she had a tumultuous upbringing that she managed to handle

594 |

Gloria Steinem

with grace. Her mother suffered from depression and anxiety, and her father traveled as an antique salesman. Leo Steinem eventually divorced Ruth, leaving Gloria to take care of her mother, run and organize the house, pay the bills, and work numerous jobs to provide for her family. Despite these difficulties, Steinem was elected vice president of her senior class, placed second in a beauty pageant, was an accomplished tap dancer, was chosen as a princess-in-waiting at her high school ball, and was accepted into Smith College, a prestigious womenÊs only college. Her acceptance and graduation from Smith College would prove a pivotal time in her life. Unlike other women of her time, Steinem did Gloria Steinem is an American not go to college to be married; she was an ac- feminist, journalist, and a spokescomplished and independent woman who was in- woman for women’s rights. She terested in gaining her education. She majored in founded Ms. magazine in 1972, government, became active in a democratic politi- the same year this photo was cal campaign, and spent a year touring Europe. In taken. (Library of Congress) her senior year of college, she was inducted into an International National Honor Society and was elected class historian. When Steinem graduated she won a scholarship to study in India and went to study abroad. On her way to India, she stayed with one of her friends who lived in England. During her stay in England, Steinem found out that she was pregnant. After choosing to end her pregnancy, she became empathetic to womenÊs circumstances all throughout the world. It was here that her political crusade began. Steinem was a leader in the womenÊs movement in many ways. Her most recognized advancement was that of allowing women to control their own bodies. She fought for the poor, the oppressed, and the struggling. In India, she protested government policy regarding the unequal distribution of land and wrote a guidebook for the Indian government. In the United States, she worked for the Independent Service for Information, a group that encouraged youth to discuss democratic ideals. She began publishing articles regarding the treatment of women in the workforce, the way that a woman must choose between a career and a marriage, and the political process. SteinemÊs broad impact, writing talent, and her utter devotion to her beliefs helped to shatter the world of American women as it was then known. Steinem cofounded the National WomenÊs Political Caucus, the WomenÊs Action Alliance, and the Coalition of Labor Union Women. She started the magazine

Gloria Steinem | 595

Ms., founded Choice USA and the Ms. Foundation for Women, and actively supported the Equal Rights Amendment. She served on the Democratic National Committee and demonstrated against the impact pornography has on women. Steinem has been an invited guest on many national television shows and has been included in many film documentaries that focus on feminist issues. She has published numerous books and countless articles with a focus ranging from Marilyn Monroe to rebellion and revolution. In 1972 she was named the Woman of the Year by McCallÊs magazine, and in 1993, she was inducted into the National WomenÊs Hall of Fame. SteinemÊs advocacy for democracy and equality spilled over to the family and to the educational system. She was a champion for womenÊs and childrenÊs rights. Her own abortion allowed her to share the „shame‰ of women all over the world. She was a leader for the right for women to choose to govern and make decisions for their own body, and as a result of her and many other womenÊs efforts, abortion was decriminalized in the United States. She participated and organized rallies supporting the womenÊs movement. She toured the world lecturing women on their rights (one of those being reproductive freedom), gaining information on their needs, calling for the equal representation of women in all aspects of life, and comforting the oppressed. SteinemÊs work for those who had suffered from childhood sexual abuse and domestic violence stemmed from her views on inequality. Steinem viewed crime against women as a way for men to dominate women. She believed that the core of violence against women is when one individual is deemed inferior to another, and the only way for the superior individual to maintain power is through violence. In Western society, males are often encouraged to be violent and their violence may be condoned. SteinemÊs work within the family structure, political sphere, and educational system has called for society to stop socializing males to think they need to prove masculinity through violence, control, and a lack of emotion. She has called for new laws and legislation that would recognize the seriousness of crimes against women. She has been an advocate against pornography and its exploitation of women. SteinemÊs epic battle for womenÊs rights has contributed to the decriminalization of abortion, a new viewpoint on the relationship between gender and crime, and work toward a full realization of the Equal Rights Amendment. SteinemÊs political activism, while most notably in the area of womenÊs rights, has also included activities protesting other forms of inequality and supporting civil rights. SteinemÊs only documented arrest came in December, 1984, when she was arrested with 100 other people, including 19 members of Congress, for protesting the United StatesÊ export of munitions to the government of South Africa. To this day, Steinem continues to speak out and write about womenÊs and other civil rights issues.

596 |

Martha Stewart

Resources „Arrested at Embassy.‰ Gadsden Times, p. A10. December 20, 1984. Gilbert, L., and G. Moore. (1981). Particular Passions. New York: Clarkson N. Potter. Heilbrun, Carolyn. (1995). The Education of A Woman. New York: Dial Press. Ladensohn Stern, Sydney. (1997). Gloria Steinem: Her Passions, Politics, and Mystique. Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane Press. Marcello, P. C. (2004). Gloria Steinem: A Biography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. The official Web site of Gloria Steinem. (2010). www.gloriasteinem.com.

Alana Van Gundy-Yoder

Martha Stewart (1941–) Martha Stewart is a prominent business mogul who rapidly achieved success, fame, and wealth as a result of her efforts as an author, model, stock broker, magazine editor, and television icon. Born to a middle-class family, Martha Stewart (Martha née Kostyra) was taught and perfected homemaking skills including gardening, cooking, sewing, and housecleaning, among a variety of other household abilities. Martha Stewart is best known as the president, chief executive officer, and host of her own television show Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia as well as the editor in chief of her magazine Martha Stewart Living. In short, Martha Stewart is a common household name within the United States. StewartÊs reputation became even more pronounced after the national media exposed allegations of her involvement with insider trading. Insider trading refers to using material, nonpublic information about a security in order to get an advantage in buying or selling a security when that would be a breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationMartha Stewart and her lawyer John Tigue enter ship of trust and confidence. Insider U.S. District Court in New York, 2003. Stewart trading violations can also include faced trial on charges that she obstructed justice providing tips about securities and and lied to investigators after the sale of ImClone using such misappropriated tips to Systems stock in 2001. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Martha Stewart |

buy or sell securities. The criminalization of Martha Stewart is a celebrated case of white collar crime that has clear implications for discussing gender and crime. As a former stock broker, Martha Stewart remained avidly engaged as an investor in the stock market. The SEC believed that on December 27, 2001, Martha Stewart engaged in insider trading by allegedly obtaining confidential information from her stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, regarding the biopharmaceutical company ImClone, in which she held stock. According to the SEC, Bacanovic informed Stewart that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had decided to deny ImCloneÊs request to market a new drug called Erbitux. Although this confidential information had not yet been made public, Bacanovic allegedly informed Stewart of this undisclosed fact and Stewart, in turn, instructed Bacanovic to sell all 3,928 of her ImClone shares. Martha Stewart avoided a loss of $45,673 by selling all 3,928 shares of ImClone stock (SEC 2003). Interestingly, the federal government did not indict or charge Martha Stewart with insider trading. Instead, the SEC filed securities and fraud charges against Martha Stewart on June 4, 2003. According to the SEC, Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic fabricated false information (i.e., committed fraud), which was provided to the federal government in an attempt to conceal their engagement in insider trading. Whereas the SEC considered StewartÊs and BacanovicÊs statements as fraudulent, the two insisted that their original agreement was for Bacanovic to sell all of StewartÊs ImClone stocks if the price per stock dropped below $60 per share. On December 28, 2001, ImClone announced the FDAÊs denial to market the new pharmaceutical drug, and their stock subsequently dropped to $46 per share. Martha Stewart was obligated to stand trial along with Peter Bacanovic in a federal court for three securities and fraud charges: making false statements, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. It has been argued that joint trials place defendants at significant disadvantages before and during the trial (Moohr 2006). For example, rules regarding the exclusion of hearsay do not apply in cases where coconspirators are on trial together. Furthermore, juries often have difficulty separating the evidence, testimony, and demeanor of one defendant from the other, which becomes problematic when one defendant has behaved criminally and the other has not. This legal disadvantage significantly affected Martha Stewart as she was found guilty of the perjury Peter Bacanovic committed. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic were found guilty in federal court, and Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in federal prison followed by 5 months of house arrest and 2 years of probation. Peter Bacanovic received the same incarceration sentence of 10 months (split between prison and house arrest) in addition to a civil penalty of $75,000. As part of a civil settlement, Martha Stewart was also obligated to repay the $45,673 she saved by selling her ImClone stocks along with $12,389 for interest, totaling $58,062. A maximum civil financial penalty of $137,019 was also charged to Stewart which represented three times the amount Stewart initially

597

598 |

Martha Stewart

avoided by selling the stocks. Furthermore, Stewart lost the right to act as director of a public company for 5 years, and limitations on serving or being employed by a public company were imposed on her (SEC 2006). The financial cost endured by Martha Stewart and her company for legal fees, time spent incarcerated, and negative publicity is unknown, although estimates place the number as exponentially higher than the financial gain would have been for selling the ImClone stock shares (valued at $45,673). In light of the fact that 95 percent of all persons charged with crimes plead guilty to (mostly lesser) charges in exchange for lighter punishments, it is remarkable to note that Martha Stewart was one of the few who did not plead, but rather decided to go to trial. The fact that Stewart was not charged for the original crime in which the government believed her to have engaged in (insider trading) is equally peculiar. Explanations for this oddity are unknown, yet speculations have been made regarding insufficient evidence and·even more perplexing·that Stewart did not commit insider trading. For example, Stewart allegedly acted on the nonpublic information that others (namely, Bacanovic) illegally provided. In this respect, Martha Stewart was privy to information that was beyond her own control, whereas her associates proactively broke the law by knowingly informing Stewart of illegal information. Some could argue, then, that other actors are guilty of insider trading and should have received the brunt of the scrutiny and punishment. In spite of this, Martha Stewart received the greater sentence (which tacked on two years of probation) and a fine significantly greater than BacanovicÊs fine. Martha StewartÊs gender likely had a substantial influence in this case·from the investigation and the prosecution to the sentencing. It is important to note that engagement in insider trading is certainly not uncommon in business; however, the federal government chose Martha Stewart·a woman·to prosecute. Given that men still outnumber women in business careers, it can be argued that men are more likely to engage in insider trading than women (perhaps due, in part, to opportunity). Prior to the criminal investigation, Martha Stewart was well-known for conducting her business in an authoritative and aggressive fashion which reminded many of the way in which one might see that a man would conduct a business. It is certainly possible, many believe, that StewartÊs style and behavior was considered threatening to both men and women who may have been uncomfortable with her stereotypically „unfeminine‰ or less feminine demeanor. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that StewartÊs gender strongly affected decisions made by investigators and other criminal justice actors. Other scholars have observed that the three charges against Stewart (making false statements, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy) were duplicative in nature, overly aggressive, and excessive (Moohr 2006). It is possible the government (through the SEC) believed her to be an attractive target·a famous female billionaire· whose demise might generally deter potential insider traders. Unfortunately, it is

Lucy Stone | 599

virtually impossible to determine the number of deterred insider traders due to the media exposure of the high-profile Martha Stewart case. Martha StewartÊs true criminality is also unknown in terms of her involvement with insider trading as well as fraud. It is, however, obvious that StewartÊs ordeal has not deterred her from continuing to pursue her career as magazine editor, television icon, and entrepreneur. After the years of negative media publicity, the charges, the trial, and the five months in federal prison, Stewart continues today to embody a successful professional who is relatively unscathed by the chain of events known to some as the „criminalization of Martha Stewart.‰ Resources Moohr, Geraldine Szott. (2006). What the Martha Stewart Case Tells Us About White Collar Crime. Houston Law Review 43(3): 591ă619. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2003, June 4). SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading. http://www.sec.gov/news/ press/2003ă69.htm U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2006, August 7). Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic Settle SECÊs Insider Trading Charges. http://www.sec.gov/news/ press/2006/2006ă134.htm

Kathleen A. Fox

Lucy Stone (1818–1893) Lucy Stone was a well-known suffragist during the 19th century. Although she was known for her work on womenÊs rights, she is perhaps most notorious for being the first woman in the United States to retain her maiden name after marriage. Her very controversial and public stances on slavery and womenÊs rights (particularly in marriage) made her vulnerable to criticism, ostracism, and public scrutiny which led her into conflict with the law. Lucy Stone was born in the farming community of West Brookfield, Massachusetts, in 1818. Lucy was the eighth of nine children born in the Stone household; however, two siblings had died prior to her birth. Of the Stone siblings, she was closest in age to her older brother by two years, Luther. It was with him who she would begin a rivalry until she left home. Literary accounts maintain that Lucy was smarter and more outgoing than her older brother; however, it seemed that no matter how hard she tried, her brother was always favored by her parents and praised for his scholarly achievements. Lucy had not realized that it was expected for boys to receive an education, but girls were to remain at home and tend to domestic matters until it was time to marry. This was definitely not the life that Lucy had dreamed.

600 |

Lucy Stone

From an early age, she had witnessed the power that men held over their wives and resolved never to marry. An education was deemed unnecessary in a girlÊs life, and they often quit school at an early age. At age 12, Lucy had to persuade her father to allow her to continue her education. Since there was no money for her education, and her father refused any support in her education, Lucy began teaching in the district schools to save money for her education. She was able to attend school by alternating working and attending seminary. Lucy Stone entered Mount Holyoke Female Seminary in 1839. At Mount HolyLucy Stone in a photo taken sometime oke, she realized that she wanted a formal between 1840 and 1860. (Library of education rather than one that encouraged Congress) women to stay in their place as an unequal partner to man. It took her several years to save enough money to pay for her first year at Oberlin College, the first college to admit both women and blacks. Oberlin was more conservative than StoneÊs liberal ideology. Stone was an ardent reader of the works of Garrison and the Grimkés; however, the college did not support confronting slavery and womenÊs rights head on, ideas that were considered outlandish at the time. It was at Oberlin that Stone decided she would become a womenÊs rights reformer and began speaking on the subject. On August 25, 1847, Lucy Stone received her diploma from Oberlin College and became the first woman from Massachusetts to receive a college degree. She had to boycott the writing of her graduation essay since women were not allowed to read in public at a „gentlemenÊs meeting.‰ It is ironic that 36 years later she would return to Oberlin as a guest speaker. Upon her graduation, Stone returned home and began teaching. However, she did not take long to return to public speaking. StoneÊs first public speaking engagement on womenÊs rights paradoxically occurred in her brother BowmanÊs Evangelical Congregational Church. Her speeches would lead to great controversy in the small Massachusetts towns. Although the womenÊs rights movement was StoneÊs passion, she began working as a lecturer for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. Stone was able to argue that antislavery and womenÊs rights were twin causes. However, when this approach created controversy with the Anti-Slavery Society, she began speaking about each issue separately until she eventually dedicated all her time to lecturing on womenÊs rights. Stone became a very popular orator, and her name was used to draw audiences across the country to womenÊs rights conferences. She soon became the face of the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA).

Lucy Stone | 601

In 1851, Stone spoke before the Massachusetts legislature in an attempt to convince the state body to pass a constitutional amendment to grant women full civil rights. She failed in her objective for a state constitutional amendment. However, it was here that she met Henry Blackwell. Although she had vehemently objected to the institution of marriage, Henry Blackwell convinced Lucy Stone to marry him after a two-year courtship. On their wedding day, they read a protest recognizing that women remained an independent being rather than a possession upon marriage. Lucy Stone became the first woman in the United States to not take her husbandÊs name. This caused a great amount of controversy in the media; however, the greatest controversy over the marriage was within StoneÊs own circle. Many in the NWSA felt she had betrayed their cause by getting married and feared she would abandon the plight of women altogether. Although Stone remained committed to obtaining equality and continued to lecture, she continued to be questioned about her commitment especially with the birth of her first and only child, Alice Stone Blackwell. With the birth along with illnesses that plagued the family, Stone had to cut back on her lectures. This created such turmoil that she finally turned over the NWSA helm to Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The cutback in the frequency of StoneÊs public speaking did not keep her from engaging in protest against a system that favored men. After the birth of their child, StoneÊs husband left frequently on business, leaving her to largely raise the child alone. During this time in 1858, Stone protested a property tax assessment claiming that it represented taxation without representation as women were not allowed to vote. Law enforcement was sent to her home, and some of her furniture was confiscated for auction. The revenue from this auction met the tax bill, and Stone was not pursued any further by tax officials. The publicity from her refusal to pay tax provided a visible focus for the cause of womenÊs rights and became the material of continued legend. StoneÊs antislavery opinions were well known publicly. In 1856, she was accused in court of supplying a knife to a former slave, Margaret Garner, who had killed her own child to prevent its being enslaved. While Stone escaped formal charges, she stated that she agreed with the passion of this woman to free her child through death when there would be no freedom in a life in slavery. Stone engaged in a great deal of public speaking and, by the Civil War, devoted all her time to the antislavery movement. When the war ended, she campaigned for an amendment to grant all people equality; however, to her dismay, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by Congress, it introduced the word „male‰ into the Constitution. Deeply hurt by this setback, Stone still supported the ratification of both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. It was this act that created a bitter division between her and her allies, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This division led to the creation of the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). It approached the womenÊs rights movement more conservatively than the NWSA which was led by Anthony and Stanton. In 1870, she, along with her husband, founded the WomanÊs

602 |

Mary Surratt

Journal, considered by many to be the voice of the womenÊs movement. It took over 20 years for the AWSA and NWSA to reconcile their differences and begin, once again, to fight for the same goal: womenÊs rights. Lucy Stone died three years later in 1893 never seeing her dream come to fruition; it would take almost three decades after her death for women to receive the right to vote. This great feat would have never been achieved without the work and dedication of Lucy Stone, and thus, she will always be remembered for her commitment to the womenÊs rights movement. Resources Blackwell, Alice Stone. 1971. Lucy Stone, pioneer of womanÊs rights. New York: Kraus Reprint. Hays, Elinor Rice. 1961. Morning Star: A Biography of Lucy Stone 1818ă1893. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Kerr, Andrea Moore. 1992. Lucy Stone: Speaking out for equality. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Million, Joelle. 2003. WomanÊs voice, womanÊs place: Lucy Stone and the birth of the womanÊs rights movement. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Tammy S. Garland

Mary Surratt (1823–1865) Mary Elizabeth Jenkins Surratt was the first woman ever to be executed in the United States. She was charged and convicted as a conspirator in the plot to assassinate President Lincoln and was hanged on July 7, 1865. Her relationship with John Wilkes Booth and her familiarity with the other conspirators established her guilt. A public that was war weary and outraged by LincolnÊs assassination observed the newspaper accounts of her closely. These daily reports portrayed her with the features of a criminal and exaggerated her physical stature to create an image that fit what, at the time, was the face of a murderer (Larson 2008). These distortions reflect the social perceptions of Mary SurrattÊs crime: a woman who was involved in politics and conspiracy was monstrous. Mary Surratt was born in 1823 in Waterloo, Maryland. Her mother, widowed when Mary was two, remained independent, raising her children and managing a plantation and slaves on her own. She provided her daughter with an example of a woman who succeeded on her own. Mary was educated in a Catholic girlsÊ school and became a devout Catholic, a fact that might have contributed to prejudices against her by the Protestant tribunal. She married John Surratt in 1840. It was Mary who managed their affairs, and perhaps, his death was a relief to her as his alcoholism led to financial sacrifices and

Mary Surratt |

603

to abuse (Larson 2008). By this time, most of the land John Surratt had acquired was leased or in second mortgages, and the tavern they owned was operated by John Lloyd, who became a key witness against Mary. To maintain financial stability was a struggle, and Mary Surratt opened a boarding house in Washington DC. One of her frequent visitors was her son JohnÊs friend, John Wilkes Booth. This relationship with Booth determined her guilt. Mary Surratt, as President Andrew Johnson stated, „kept the nest that hatched the egg‰ (cited in Larson 2008). Mrs. Surratt was seen as guilty long before her trial. She disregarded the boundaries of her womanÊs role of dependence upon the protection and support of a man. Mary SurrattÊs life choices contradicted the basic myths of the Southern woman as docile, delicate, and confined to the home. Contemporary historians of Southern womenÊs history, as well as current research into the Civil War era, have documented that the notions of separate spheres and womenÊs domesticity were powerful ideologies of the time, though they were often undermined by womenÊs participation in the war as blockade runners and spies (Rable 1989). The belief that women were vulnerable and that their interests were confined to the home gave these Confederate agents and spies protection from suspicion. Mary Surratt, dedicated to the Southern cause, was in the position to aid and abet those agents and spies, including her son and his friend John Wilkes Booth. MaryÊs son John took over the responsibilities his father had been given as a postmaster in the town named for him, Surrattsville. This appointment gave John the opportunity to serve the Confederacy as a courier. His activities for the Confederacy led to his meeting with Booth and confirmed suspicions of MaryÊs contributions to the conspiracy. Mary Surratt was frequently visited by Booth in the absence of her son. It was well-known that John assisted Booth with the original plan to kidnap Lincoln. That Booth met with Mary during this time was considered proof that she knew of the proposed attack against Lincoln. On the day of the assassination, April 14, 1865, Booth handed her a wrapped package that she was to give to John Lloyd who had possession of the weapons that would be used. This package contained field glasses, but MaryÊs errand included informing Lloyd to have the guns ready. This was given as evidence that Mary conspired in the assassination. It has been this fact that continues to be contested. Mary SurrattÊs visibility as a woman who violated the codes of domesticity may have contributed to her conviction. WomenÊs historians, however, have argued for Mary SurrattÊs guilt without much discussion of her vulnerability as a woman who disregarded her place. Among these historians, Kate Larson, in The AssassinÊs Accomplice (2008), has noted that Mary Surratt was motivated as a conspirator by her allegiance to the Confederacy. However, the evidence of the case against Mary Surratt depended upon the testimonies of several men without any letters, papers, or physical and material evidence to prove her guilt. It was only years later, during

604

|

Mary Surratt

the trial of John Surratt Junior, that evidence seemed to determine MaryÊs guilt (Larson 2008). Yet, in 1865, gender was a factor in Mary SurrattÊs conviction. David DeWitt, who recorded the proceedings in The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt (1895), referred again and again to Mary SurrattÊs unimpeachable faith, a faith characteristic of true femininity. According to DeWitt, it was incontrovertible evidence that a woman, who in her final confession to her priest declared her innocence, must be innocent. SurrattÊs lawyers based their defense on her femininity. A devout woman, they claimed, was incapable of a crime leading to murder. The attorneys called character witnesses and priests to prevail upon the judges. In the highly controversial request for pardon issued to President Andrew Johnson, it has been demonstrated that whether or not he reviewed the proposal in time, there was the fear that a pardon based upon her womanhood would set a precedent for exonerating all women in cases of serious crime (Busch 1957). The claim of her attorney Reverdy Johnson at the opening of the trial still had the potential, however, to exonerate her. A military tribunal was, according to Reverdy Johnson, inappropriate. A panel of military men, still reeling from the slaughter of war and the public horror at the assassination of Lincoln, was biased. If indeed, LincolnÊs death was a war crime, the provisions of such a tribunal were responsible for MaryÊs conviction. According to Francis X. Busch in Enemies of the State (1957), both John Lloyd and Louis Weichmann, the key witnesses whose testimonies condemned Mary, were excluded from criminal charges by testifying in the trial. These men knew Booth and John Surratt, as well as George Azerodt and Lewis Powell, two other conspirators. Lloyd in fact waited for Booth to pick up the package from Mary. He had hidden the „shooting irons‰ Booth used (DeWitt 1895). Weichmann, living in the house and friends with John, may have known more than he admitted. In DeWittÊs primary account and according to other historians, LloydÊs credibility was undermined by his drunkenness. The record has demonstrated inconsistency about whether Lloyd was too drunk to understand MaryÊs instructions concerning the guns. During the trial, however, Weichmann was characterized as a serious student of theology and allied with the UnionÊs cause; Lloyd was sober enough to repair MaryÊs wagon and right minded enough to identify her role in the conspiracy. Whether or not Mary Surratt actively participated in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln now seems more uncertain. But outrage and fear about her crime were inseparable from the outrage, fear, and instability that reigned at the conclusion of the Civil War, which assured her conviction. As a woman and with the reputation of a political activist who acted with criminal intent, the trial of Mary Surratt further destabilized a society that depended on women staying in their place. The sentiment after her execution, therefore, was one of horror and remorse: a woman should not have suffered the same indignity as a man, and a woman should not be guilty of murder.

Aung San Suu Kyi |

605

Resources Busch, Francis X. (1957). Enemies of the State. London and Melbourne: Arco Publications. DeWitt, David Miller. (1895). The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt. Baltimore: John Murphy. Larson, Kate. (2008). The AssassinÊs Accomplice. New York: Basic Books. Moore, Guy W. (1954). The Case of Mrs. Surratt. Norman: Oklahoma University Press. Rable, George C. (1989). Civil Wars: Women and the Crisis of Southern Nationalism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. „Surratt House Museum.‰ www.surratt.org Mrs. SurrattÊs Story. http://www.surratt.org/su_hist.html

Susan Bohrer

Aung San Suu Kyi (1945–) Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi is an internationally renowned opposition leader in Burma and, until late 2010, an imprisoned Nobel laureate. Her formal name combines those of her father Aung San, founder of the Burmese army; her mother Khin Kyi, an early voice for Burmese democracy; and her grandmother Suu, mother to three anticolonial activists. Her countryÊs name entails contention, having been changed to the Union of Myanmar in 1989 through a military-run process of expunging labels given during its colonial history. But she is listed in several places·including a list of proposed United Nations secretaries-general, compiled by human rights group Equality Now·as Prime Minister-Elect of Burma Daw Suu Kyi. Though elected by a landslide popular vote in 1990, she has been unable to serve and is usually under house arrest. In that she violated Myanmar law, she is technically a criminal, but she is also a victim of Myanmar sanctions, which are illegal. The leader of the National League Suu KyiÊs father was born into a resistance for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi movement and widely involved in efforts against was placed under house arrest by British rule throughout the 1930s. He led an the military government of Myan„independence‰ army from Japanese-occupied mar in 1989; she was released from house arrest in May 2002 and then Thailand in March 1942 to end British rule, only rearrested in May 2003. (AFP/Getty to see Japanese rule begin. Though Japan deImages) clared Burma nominally independent in August

606 |

Aung San Suu Kyi

1943, he led a new revolt two years later that made that separation final·only to see British rule return again. While recovering from leading the march into Burma in 1942, Aung San met senior nurse Ma Khin Kyi at the Rangoon General Hospital. They married within months and had four children in rapid succession. On June 19, 1945, British Commonwealth forces invaded Thailand from Burma. That same day, Aung SanÊs third child and only daughter was born. Of the two brothers, Lin drowned at age eight and Oo moved to San Diego, California. Aung San was assassinated July 19, 1947, only months before BurmaÊs independence was complete, leaving two-year-old Suu Kyi as the political heir to a decades-long struggle for Burmese self-determination. Following the assassination, Khin Kyi became involved in social planning and policy before being appointed ambassador to India. Suu Kyi accompanied her there and attended high school and college in New Delhi before going to Oxford University. She received a degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from St. HughÊs College. There, she met Michael Aris who was studying Tibetan civilization, and they married in 1972. (In the interim, she had gone to New York for graduate study. However, she was living with Ma Than E, a family friend and staff member at the United Nations, whose secretary-general at the time was U Thant of Burma. Suu Kyi had quickly become involved in UN activities, both formally and as a volunteer.) She spent most of the next 18 years in England where Aris took a position at Oxford University. She bore two sons, Michael in 1974 and Kim in 1977. Suu Kyi then completed her PhD from the University of London and began writing, first three travel books aimed at juveniles and then a journal article on „Socio-Political Currents in Burmese Literature.‰ She has since authored or coauthored a dozen books, all regarding the life she has led since her family years in London. Both Suu Kyi and Burma changed course in 1988: She returned home to Rangoon in March when her mother had a stroke, only months before the resignation of General U NeWin, who had been the military dictator since 1962. Public demonstrations grew throughout the summer and came to a head in a violent revolt on August 8 (the so-called 8888 Uprising), which was met with military opposition that killed an estimated thousands of protesters. Suu Kyi entered the political arena within a week; in an August 15 open letter to the government, she called for multiparty elections. On August 26, she gave a speech to hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, calling for a democratic government. On September 18, the military performed a bloody coup, rebranded the Burmese Socialist Programme Party as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), and imposed martial law, including arresting and sentencing without trial as well as prohibiting political assemblies of more than four people. Within one week, and in direct defiance, Suu Kyi formed the National League for Democracy (NLD), named herself general-secretary, and began a national speaking tour.

Aung San Suu Kyi |

607

The next year began with her motherÊs funeral. Throughout spring and summer, Suu Kyi continued to endure harassment and violence from state troops, and on July 20, 1989, she was given her first house arrest. She had grown bold during 10 months of appearances, including once walking directly toward guns pointed at her, and her violation of new martial restrictions finally attracted sanctions. However, though martial law permitted three years of detention without a charge or trial, she would be held for six, monitored for five, then re-detained on September 23, 2000. As the result of covert UN negotiations, she was released May 20, 2002. She attracted supportive crowds wherever she appeared. She was re-arrested May 30, 2003, following a military attack in which many of her supporters were wounded or killed. Her most recent detention has been extended three times: first, despite direct opposition from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan; second, in violation of both Burmese and international law; and third, for permitting an American man who had sneaked into her house to remain for several days. (The latter extension came only weeks before her most recent statutory detention would have ended, raising suspicion about its motives. Originally, a three-year sentence to hard labor, it was commuted by the junta under international pressure. The intruder received a sevenyear prison sentence, which was not commuted.) She was thus under house arrest until her release on November 13, 2010, by the generals who held her captive. Since 1989, she had been confined for all but six-and-a-half years. Despite her initial detention, the NLD won 59 percent of the vote and over 80 percent of the parliamentary seats (394 out of 492) in a May 27, 1990, election, compared to only 10 seats (less than 3%) for the militaryÊs National Unity Party. However, SLORC refused to acknowledge those results and prohibited the NLD from forming a new government, helping attract a steady stream of formal international opposition. Suu Kyi has received several dozen commendations for her persistence, including the Sakharov Prize (1990), the Nobel Peace Prize (1991), the Simon Bolivar International Prize (1992), the Honorary Companion of the Order of Australia (1996), the Presidential Medal of Freedom (2000), the UNESCO Madanjeet Singh Prize for the Promotion of Tolerance & Non-Violence (2002), the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights (2004), the Congressional Gold Medal (2008), and the Mahatma Gandhi International Award for Peace and Reconciliation (2009). Throughout this period, she has continued writing and pushing for democracy. In awarding its prize in 1991, the Nobel Committee referred to Suu KyiÊs struggle as „one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent decades‰ (Norwegian Nobel Committee, 1991). (She used the prize money to create a health and education trust in Burma.) A delegation of Nobel laureates, denied entry into Burma in 1993, began a long series of high-profile pleas for her release, including UN delegations in 2004, 2006, and 2008. (A 2009 visit was cancelled by the junta.) She has received international support from dozens of nations and organizations, including Freedom Forum, the Human Rights Action Center, International

608 |

Aung San Suu Kyi

IDEA, and Amnesty International, which has deemed her case a priority. Her forced seclusion has been represented by an empty chair at meetings of the Elders, created and led by Nelson Mandela, and by an empty car in a Chrysler advertisement featuring Nobel laureates. She has even been celebrated in popular media, including the 1995 movie Beyond Rangoon about the 8888 Uprising, as well as popular songs by U2, Damian Rice, and State Radio. However, international reactions have not been universally critical of the Myanmar government. Leaders in both Thailand and Vietnam have opposed both support for Suu Kyi and a focus on her in relations with Burma. Several UN resolutions have been opposed by China, which continues a close political and economic relationship with the military junta. The junta itself fears support for her and has said she is a danger to the stability and community peace in Burma. It has, however, paid costs for her continued isolation. For example, in the fall of 2007, it brutally ended protests by Buddhist monks when one group reached her gate, leading to international critique. The junta has also tried leveraging access to her for its own benefit. Suu Kyi has encouraged international sanctions against Burma and discourages tourism to and investment in the country. A one-hour meeting with foreign diplomats on October 9, 2009, was thus permitted by government leaders, who themselves are restricted by current financial and travel restrictions. However, the only political aftermath was a resolution by ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) against Suu KyiÊs imprisonment. Multiparty elections were held November 7, 2010·the first since those Suu Kyi won 20 years earlier; however, the elections attracted both domestic and international criticism. Suu KyiÊs own party, the NLD, had been formally disbanded when it chose to boycott the elections, refused to register by the May 6 deadline, and was disqualified. NLD members who opposed the boycott created and registered the national Democratic Force on July 11, using NLDÊs bamboo hat icon. (Suu Kyi had opposed splintering the opposition any further, in a field that already has 40 parties, 6 government related.) Ultimately, the election was cancelled in many areas; turnout was under 20 percent in remaining areas; and charges of fraud, bribery, and intimidation were rampant. Suu KyiÊs most recent detention, six days later, occurred after seven years of confinement to a dilapidated lake house that lost its roof and electricity during a spring 2008 storm and had since gone unrepaired. While detained, she released some video statements and wrote for her own website, but she was permitted only limited contact with others and was subject to ongoing condemnation through state-run media. At a rally less than a week after her release, she called for unity·welcomed by the NLD, which has referred to her not only as their leader but as an inspiration for democracy. She remains without her children, who live in London, and her husband, who died of prostate cancer in 1999 after being permitted only five visits with her in 10 years.

Aung San Suu Kyi |

609

Resources Ling, Bettina. 1998. Aung San Suu Kyi: Standing Up for Democracy in Burma (Women Changing the World Series). New York: Feminist Press of CUNY. Norwegian Nobel Committee. 1991. „The Nobel Peace Prize.‰ www.nobelprize.org/nobel_ prizes/peace/laureates/1991/press.html. Suu Kyi, Aung San. 1998. Letters from Burma. New York and London: Penguin. Victor, Barbara. 2002. The Lady: Aung San Suu Kyi: Nobel Laureate and BurmaÊs Prisoner., Boston and London: Faber & Faber. Wintle, Justin. 2007. The Perfect Hostage: A Life of Aung San Suu Kyi. London: Hitchinson.

Ellis Godard

This page intentionally left blank

T Gwen Taketa (1947–) Gwen (Fumiko) Taketa was found guilty of five felony counts relating to illicit drugs by a Hawaii jury in March 1986. Her conviction made her a rare inmate in the stateÊs female prison because she was unlike the other inmates in that she was a successful college-educated Japanese businesswoman with no prior criminal history (des Marets, 2006). Prosecutors, however, painted her as a drug kingpin (nicknamed the Ice Queen), who had to be dealt with harshly despite her gender, race, and noncriminal background to stem drug trafficking in the state. Born in 1947, Taketa was the first of six children. Her father was a Maui plantation supervisor in their single paycheck family. Parent-child ties were close; even her lesbianism was quietly accepted. Scholastically she excelled, having had since grade school, college as a goal. Her parents had only high school education. TaketaÊs peers were from similar middle-class backgrounds whose delinquencies involved underage cigarette smoking, beer drinking, and drag racing·all just for fun for which the police gave only warnings. They never identified themselves as a female gang defying the system. Taketa thus lived a normal life, upholding cultural expectations of a Japanese family with its stress on filial piety, achievement, and community. Her strong involvement with family, school, and relatively law-abiding peers and her positive self-concept and realistic educational goals insulated her from any serious delinquency during this period. Leaving college life after earning a bachelorÊs in communication, however, exposed her to a more deviant world·the local drug scene in WaikikiÊs gay bars. Partying with drugs became an almost weekly fun activity, but eventually it grew costly. Taketa decided to develop her own contacts to buy wholesale rather than pay $5 per pill, $20 per bag of marijuana, and $50 per half gram of cocaine. Eventually, she set up buys for her friends, taking a cut for this freelancing service. Taketa doesnÊt recall who most influenced her transformation as a drug dealer. No other family member used drugs or was a criminal. She admits being the only black sheep. 611

612

|

Gwen Taketa

Recalling the events leading up to her arrest, Taketa claimed she was entrapped by an acquaintance that had promised to deliver a kilo of cocaine. The shipment, however, was intercepted by the DEA, and her acquaintance was co-opted to set up a sting, but Taketa didnÊt buy the poor quality cocaine. The next day she was nevertheless arrested, with the DEA confiscating about 200 Quaalude pills, some marijuana bags, and a couple of grams of cocaine. Out on $10,000 bail, Taketa was indicted a year later on two Class A felonies relating to the promotion of controlled substances (20 years imprisonment for each count); one Class B felony relating to conspiracy to promote drugs (10 years); and two Class C felonies relating to the possession of drug paraphernalia (5 years each). Between her arrest and trial, her life was in limbo; she wasnÊt working as a sales rep for tourist items any longer, and partying definitely wasnÊt enjoyable anymore. Under possible surveillance, she had to stay out of further trouble. Nevertheless, in March 1986, she was convicted and received the unexpected consecutive sentence of 60 years, not the usual 20 years or even probation that such offenses usually elicited for first-timers. Taketa felt that she was dealt a harsher sentence because she was not the stereotypical Asian female and especially because a lesson had to be taught about drug trafficking in the state. Her assessment of her prison experience, however, was that it was a good adventure, made more memorable by lesbian friendships, though banned, and easier by inmates showing her how to survive inside the walls. In exchange, given her higher education, Taketa became their legal advocate, filing so many inmate complaints and requests that the system was overwhelmed. Understanding the inmate subculture with its expectations of sisterhood and family, Taketa risked negative stigmatization as a troublemaker and harassment by the guards. By manipulating the systemÊs need for order, she was able to set up dances and fundraisers for playground and library needs, and she even sold contraband to inmates becoming known, as a result, as their godmother. To further avoid the boredom of prison routines, Taketa continued her formal education, earning a Phi Beta Kappa key and an associateÊs degree in the process. By doing so, she effectively bridged her pre-arrest and post-arrest life by maintaining some role continuity through her educational and entrepreneur endeavors and by participating in the close-knit inmate community with its system of exchanges and lesbian relationships. Prison deprivations were consequently minimized by her new lesbian friendships, power and status enhancement as an inmate, and by downplaying her loss of freedom and her stigmatic status as a convicted felon. Serving only 5 years, Taketa received an early parole (Lee, 2006); while on parole, she earned a masterÊs in social work and became an employment specialist for a private social service agency. After 13 years there, she left to become a counselor with the state despite her criminal past. She realizes today that such stigmatization will remain an indelible part of her life. She was finally discharged from her parole in February 1995 (Lee, 2006).

Marybeth Tinning | 613

Resources Becker, Gay. 1997. Disrupted Lives. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Des Marets, Jo. 2006. Face-to-face Interview. Hawaii Paroling Authority. Honolulu, Hawaii. Lee, Donna. 2006. Telephone Interview. Hawaii Paroling Authority. Honolulu, Hawaii. Taketa, Gwen. 1990. „How I Spent My Summer Vacation, Or Da Secret Sex Lives of Da Little Green Things.‰ Unpublished essay. Taketa, Gwen. 2006. Interviews, emails, phone calls between July 2006 and January 2007. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Deanna Chang

Marybeth Tinning (1942–) Marybeth Tinning, a female serial murderer, killed eight of her children, from 1972 to 1985, all by suffocation. Tinning exhibited many of the characteristic traits of Munchhausen syndrome by proxy, as she, the killer, not only received attention from being pregnant but also from the eventual sudden deaths of her children. Her case is significant as all murder victims were either diagnosed with SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) or ReyeÊs syndrome. In essence, any investigation into murder was curtailed once the diagnoses was offered, thus allowing Marybeth to continue to bear and adopt children whom she would eventually kill. Not much is known about TinningÊs childhood. Marybeth Tinning lived in the small town of Schenectady, New York, in a modest apartment with her husband and two children. Tragedy befell Tinning when her father died suddenly of a heart attack, in November 1971, when she was seven months pregnant with her third child. This child, Jennifer, was born December 26, 1971, but survived only one week succumbing to hemorrhagic meningitis on January 3, 1972. It has been suggested that the attention she received at this time as the result of these two very sudden and unexpected deaths gave Tinning attention she craved. Although there is no real evidence of Munchhausen syndrome in Tinning prior to this time, it was very shortly after the death of this infant that the outward behaviors of Munchhausen syndrome by proxy began to emerge. Seventeen days after the death of Jennifer, her youngest boy, Joey, suddenly died. Tinning reported that he went into convulsions and then suddenly stopped breathing. He had been brought in days earlier with similar symptoms. The hospital staff diagnosed JoeyÊs death as ReyeÊs syndrome, a relatively newly discovered disease in 1972. Six weeks later, Barbara Tinning was brought into the hospital and died under identical circumstances as Joey, with an identical diagnosis. Four months later, in July 1972, the Tinnings were approved to foster a 10-yearold girl. Tinning started to exhibit bizarre behavior. In the restaurant where she

614 |

Marybeth Tinning

worked, fellow waitresses reported that she was constantly looking for approval and lied about being pregnant. She came to work with her hair dyed drastically different colors, with no or partial eyebrows, often penciled in with great, big, black lines. The foster child was sent back after Timothy was born in December 1973. Timothy was found lifeless in his crib three weeks later. Timothy was labeled a victim of SIDS, another disease newly discovered in the early 1970s. Suspicion around these deaths began to grow between medical staff in both local hospitals. Shortly after TimothyÊs funeral, Marybeth TinningÊs husband was taken to hospital from an overdose of phenobarbital, which his wife had also had access to. Hospital staff assumed it was an attempted suicide. Earlier that night he had mentioned to his brother that his food had tasted bitter. Nathan was born healthy on March 30, 1975. Doctors tested Nathan for genetic defects, but test results were negative. Tinning declined an offer for an apnea monitor, which could warn Tinning when the child had stopped breathing. Nathan stopped breathing five months later while Tinning was driving. In early spring of 1978, Joe and Marybeth Tinning were approved for the adoption of a child, Michael. However, while waiting for the adoption to go through, she became pregnant. Michael came to the house during TinningÊs pregnancy. Mary Francis was born October 29, 1978, and died January 20, 1979. Again, the doctors suggested the apnea monitor, but she refused. After supposedly being surgically sterilized, she became pregnant again. Jonathan was born November 19, 1979. He was brought into the emergency twice within 11 weeks for similar symptoms. Doctors looking over this case did not feel that SIDS was a reasonable diagnosis for several reasons and began to suspect foul play. This was followed by the sudden death of adopted Michael in February 1981. An autopsy revealed pneumonia, thus hampering any further investigation around this death. Marybeth TinningÊs last child, Tami Lynne, was born August 22, 1985. She too died like the others. However, enough evidence was collected to charge Tinning. She was found guilty of depraved indifference to human life and was sentenced to 20 years to life Marybeth Tinning is led from in prison. Over the course of the trial, she admitted to Schenectady County Court the smothering of Tami Lynne, Timothy, and Nathan by Sheriff Bernard Waldron, only. She was never tried for the other deaths. In 2009, 1986. Although nine of Tinning’s young children died she was denied parole, with the parole board noting over the course of 14 years, that she continued to be a danger to society („Marybeth she was formally charged Tinning Loses Parole Bid,‰ 2009). She was once again with only one death. (AP/ Wide World Photos) denied in 2011.

Harriet Tubman | 615

This case is significant in that the notoriety of the case sparked investigation and research into SIDS and ReyeÊs syndrome. These diagnoses had hampered investigation in what eventually became obvious: Marybeth was killing her children. She was also exhibiting classic symptoms of Munchhausen syndrome by proxy, whereby an individual craves attention, usually medical, but acquires it through the harm of others. Child death cases in which diagnoses of SIDS or ReyeÊs syndrome were made were re-examined, as a result of this case and others like it, for potential homicidal behavior in many Western nations. Policies around the treatment of children in hospitals, presenting with similar symptoms as all eight of MarybethÊs victims, were also re-examined in many hospitals. This case also highlights the power of gender roles, and specifically the role of motherhood, in the case of homicides such as these. In retrospect, it was obvious that Marybeth was killing her children. Hospital personnel in this case became blinded by the fact that the woman who was bringing in these lifeless little bodies was the mother of these children. Under any other circumstances, foul play would have been suspected. The possibility that she may be harming her own children was not even considered until it was proven that seven of her children, including her adopted child, were murdered instead of dying from diseases thought to be genetically linked. Resources Egginton, J. (1989). From the Cradle to the Grave: The Short Lives and Strange Deaths of Marybeth TinningÊs Nine Children. New York: Jove Books. Marybeth Tinning Loses Parole Bid. 2009. North Country Gazette. http://www.northcoun trygazette.org/2009/04/04/tinning_loses/.

Hannah Scott

Tokyo Rose. See dÊAquino, Iva Harriet Tubman (1820–1913) Harriet Tubman is known by the legend that surrounds her and by the name Moses, given to her to reflect her defiance of the laws of slavery and her fight for freeing African American slaves. In TubmanÊs biography by the white abolitionist Sarah Bradford and in other accounts during her lifetime, as well as in current juvenile biographies, it is noted that Harriet Tubman earned that title through her efforts as a rescuer, spy, and nurse. In 1820 Harriet Tubman was born in Cambridge, Maryland, to the slaves Harriet Greene and Ben Ross. The baby girl was named Araminta, a reminder of her

616

|

Harriet Tubman

African ancestry. As a teenager, she took the name of Harriet as a sign of her adulthood. By the age of six, she was hired out by her familyÊs master, Brodess (Brodas in some versions), as an assistant to a weaver. However, she returned to the plantation of her master, very ill with the measles and with bronchitis caused by the dust and fibers. Tubman demonstrated her lack of interest and skill in domestic tasks when she was returned home once again from a position as a house servant. She was still a little girl, a factor that as a matter of course was ignored by her mistress. She was beaten until she was scarred, and she was bedridden for weeks. TubmanÊs inability to perform the expected duties Portrait of Harriet Tubman, leader of within the realm of womenÊs work foreshadows the Underground Railroad. (Library of her continued resistance to the role assigned to Congress) her by her gender and her race. For in 19th-century America, the idea of separate spheres, women in the home and men at work in the world, was almost as powerful a belief as the belief that African Americans were of an inferior race. TubmanÊs failure at womenÊs work was fortunate. Instead of being confined to the kitchen or the nursery, she toiled in the fields along with the male slaves, including her father. The exceptional physical strength attributed to Harriet Tubman was less her mythical power than a consequence of years of hard physical labor. In addition, side by side with her father, she learned about healing plants and the lore of survival in the woods. These skills were essential to her success as a guide for runaway slaves and to her military career. Harriet Tubman was 11 when the stories of Nat TurnerÊs rebellion circulated. While news of his uprising was circulated, so were the tales of the Underground Railroad and slaves who escaped into the North, where freedom awaited them. These stories had a significant influence throughout the South. The Southern economy suffered from the loss of valuable labor and property with each slave that left. Moreover, slaves, like Harriet Tubman, learned that there were abolitionists and free African Americans ready and able to assist in the journey to freedom. Harriet TubmanÊs recognition of the power each slave represented by his/her disobedience, and by running away, was demonstrated when she was in her early teens when she either barred the way of an overseer pursuing a runaway slave, or she refused to tie the runaway slave when he was captured so that the escapee could be whipped. In his anger, the captor threw a two-pound lead weight. It was intended

Harriet Tubman | 617

for the slave who defied him but hit Tubman instead. As a result of this blow to her head, Tubman experienced episodes in which she lost consciousness, which were most likely a form of epilepsy, for the rest of her life. It is, however, TubmanÊs interference that was important. She resisted bondage through her act, and in retrospect, it was this resistance that culminated in her leadership as she dared to fight for her own freedom and the freedom of other slaves. TubmanÊs own Underground Railroad escape occurred in 1849. Already married to John Tubman for six years, Tubman hoped he would go with her. However, as a free man, he had more to risk and little to gain. This 1849 excursion was the first of many trips North. Each trip she took was in defiance of the law. By 1850, her illegal activity was underscored by the Fugitive Slave Law. This law obligated the North to return slaves to their owners. The rewards in place as a result of the law encouraged the return of slaves; emphasized that slaves were the valuable property of their masters; and increased the risks that runaways took by defying the laws of slavery. Harriet Tubman ran enormous risks to lead approximately 300 African Americans out of slavery. The price for her return continued to rise. From $12,000, the reward grew to between $40,000 and $60,000; the demand for her capture was a measure of the impact of her rebellion against the legal and political system that perpetuated the holding of humans as property. Harriet TubmanÊs resistance is often described as that of a rescuer. This characterization reinforces how her first biographer, Sarah Bradford, characterized her·a „simple‰ woman of great courage·and how contemporary childrenÊs books depict her·a beloved hero (Bradford, 1901; Petry, 1983). In these versions of her story, Harriet Tubman depends upon the good will of others. This version has been emphasized by her relationship with prominent abolitionists: William Still, Thomas Garrett, William Garrison, and William Seward. As Tubman faced danger, she outwitted her enemies as a trickster. The scheme of baffling her former master by disguising herself as an old woman flustered by her chickens, for example, portrayed Tubman as clever and wily (Bradford, 1901). Harriet TubmanÊs militant, revolutionary, and political power was diminished within the prevailing idealization of a woman who gained by guise and who was dependent on men. Tubman broke the law, and she conspired with the radical John Brown who was hanged for his own abolitionist plot. In addition, in 1863, Tubman led Colonel MontgomeryÊs troops in battle. This effort resulted in the release and relocation of 800 slaves to Sea Island, South Carolina. As a military leader, she fought for the equal pay and recognition of African American troops who served in the Civil War. Even her work as a war nurse required physical and mental strength beyond what was considered womanly. At the end of the war, she fought for the right to a military pension and was denied this right until her second husband, who had served in the Navy died (Humez, 2003). This too was a political battle waged against discrimination.

618

| Karla Faye Tucker

Harriet TubmanÊs postwar efforts indicate that, even after the war, she persisted in a struggle against oppression. She was an active advocate for suffrage, and her voice was joined with that of Susan B. Anthony. Tubman addressed the National Association of Colored Women and frequently spoke on womenÊs right to vote (Humez, 2003). Harriet TubmanÊs later years were dedicated to providing for the poor and infirm, as well as to public speaking. She proposed a shelter for elderly and ill African Americans that would be named the John Brown Home and located in Auburn, New York, where she resided. Her career as a public speaker was to finance this project and was an opportunity to assert her place in history by repeating her own stories. Her goal for the John Brown Home was never fulfilled, though, she maintained a home for the elderly and the ill. The stories of her life, however, have a critical place in history. Resources Bradford, Sarah H. (1901). Harriet Tubman: The Moses of Her People (Rev. ed.) New York: J. J. Little. Humez, Jean. (2003). Harriet Tubman: The Life and the Life Stories. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Lee, Butch. (2000). Jailbreak Out of History. New York: Stoopsale Books. Petry, Ann. (1983). Harriet Tubman (Rev. ed). New York: Amistad and Collins.

Susan Bohrer

Karla Faye Tucker (1959–1998) Karla Faye Tucker was executed on February 3, 1998, having served 14 years on death row and been denied a reprieve of execution by then-governor of Texas, George W. Bush, for her role in the deaths of Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton. She became the first woman to be executed in Texas since 1863 and the second woman to be executed in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Tucker attracted global attention as her execution neared, largely due to her gender and her religious conversion during incarceration. Tucker was born November 18, 1959, to Carolyn Moore and Lawrence Tucker. She grew up in Houston, Texas, the youngest of three girls. TuckerÊs parents separated when she was 10 years old, and the girls resided with their father for three years before being sent to live with their mother in the hopes that she would be better able to manage their increasingly troublesome behavior. Tucker attended school until the seventh grade after which she traveled with the Allman Brothers Band. Still a teenager, she married Steven Griffith, and the couple cared for the child of a

Karla Faye Tucker | 619

friend for approximately five years until their relationship dissolved. Following her separation from Griffith, Tucker continued to use drugs, which had been a regular part of her life since age 8, and worked as a prostitute, taking after her mother who had introduced her to the sex trade at the age of 14. Tucker later became involved in a relationship with Daniel Ryan Garrett while her long-time friend Shawn, who had also traveled with the Allman Brothers Band, had married Jerry Lynn Dean. Approximately one month before the night of the offence, Tucker had assaulted Dean for having defaced photographs of her mother, who had died from drug abuse on December 24, 1979. Shortly thereafter, Jerry Lynn Dean assaulted Shawn, prompting her to move in with Tucker and her roommates. On the night leading up to the offense, Tucker was heavily intoxicated, having ingested alcohol, speed, and a host of other drugs over a two-week period. She had not slept for three nights due to her significant intake of speed. In the early morning hours of June 13, 1983, 23-year-old Tucker, her then boyfriend, 37-year-old Garrett, and a mutual friend, James Liebrant, went to DeanÊs apartment to steal his motorcycle. Upon discovering Dean in the apartment with Deborah Thornton, whom Dean had met at a party earlier that evening, Garrett proceeded to hit Dean on the head with a hammer until Tucker entered with a pickax and struck him to death. Tucker and Garrett then turned to Thornton, who was hiding in the bedroom, and struck her to death with the pickax. The victims were found dead with more than 20 stab wounds each, the pickax left embedded in ThorntonÊs chest. Dubbed the „Pickax Murderer,‰ Tucker boasted about her role in the murders and claimed that she had experienced sexual gratification with each strike of the ax. She later denied this claim, explaining that she had simply been trying to impress her friends. Tucker was arrested July 21, 1983, and indicted for capital murder; she pleaded not guilty before the court though she never denied her role in the murders. A jury found her guilty of capital murder on April 19, 1984, and sentenced her to death on April 25, 1984. She was detained in Harris County Jail until December of that year, before being transferred to the female death row in the Mountain View Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Tucker testified against former boyfriend and co-defendant in the murders, Garrett, who was sentenced to death January 10, 1985, but died of liver disease on June 15, 1993, while serving his sentence. Not long after her incarceration, Tucker attended a religious service at the prison where she was detained. She soon converted to Christianity and, on June 24, 1995, married prison chaplain Dana Brown by proxy. (Although Tucker took Dana BrownÊs last name to become Karla Faye Tucker Brown, she is still best known as Karla Faye Tucker.) For nearly a decade, Tucker and her attorneys attempted to appeal her case and ultimately sought executive clemency to commute her sentence to life imprisonment. A number of supporters emerged during this time, including Pat Robertson

620

| Karla Faye Tucker

of the conservative Christian Coalition of America, Pope John Paul II, and Deborah ThorntonÊs brother. With the exception of one stay of execution in 1992, all of TuckerÊs applications and appeals were denied·the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld TuckerÊs conviction and sentence in 1998, and the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear her case. In a letter to the governor and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, published in the Houston Chronicle, and in an interview for CNN talk show Larry King Live, Tucker claimed that her request for clemency should not be granted on the basis of gender, despite the mediaÊs focus on gender in coverage of her execution. Rather, Tucker argued that she no longer posed a threat to the public and could make an important contribution to society through prison ministry. TuckerÊs attorneys made a formal submission to the 18-member Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, requesting it recommend to the governor of Texas a commutation of her sentence to life imprisonment. Because the board denied this request, the governor of Texas could only invoke his independent authority to grant a one-time 30-day reprieve of execution. George W. Bush denied this request, claiming there was no doubt about TuckerÊs guilt and the courts had had the opportunity to review the legal issues of her case. Having exhausted all possibilities for appeal and commutation, Karla Faye Tucker was executed by lethal injection in Huntsville, Texas, on February 3, 1998, and pronounced dead at 6:45 PM. In her final statement prior to execution, she apologized to the families of the victims and thanked her supporters. Tucker had attracted significant media attention and public sympathy, and several academic scholars have since examined the role of race, gender, sexuality, femininity, and faith in her execution and the publicÊs response (Beckman, 2004; Cooey, 2002; Farr, 2000; Howarth, 2002; Sigler, 2007). Resources Beckman, Karen. 2004. Dead woman glowing: Karla Faye Tucker and the aesthetics of death row photography. Camera Obscura 19(1): 1ă41. Cooey, Paula M. 2002. WomenÊs religious conversions on death row: Theorizing religion and state. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70(4): 699ă717. Farr, Kathryn A. 2000. Defeminizing and dehumanizing female murderers: Depictions of lesbians on death row. Women & Criminal Justice 11(1): 49ă66. Howarth, Joan W. 2002. Executing white masculinities: Learning from Karla Faye Tucker. Oregon Law Review 81: 183ă230. King, Larry. 1998. Karla Faye Tucker: Live from death row. CNN Larry King Live Transcript (#98011400V22), January 14. Long, Walter C. 1999. Karla Faye Tucker: A case for restorative justice. American Journal of Criminal Law 27: 117. Lowry, Beverly. 1992. Crossed over: A murder, a memoir. New York: Knopf.

Karla Faye Tucker | 621

Sigler, Mary. 2007. Mercy, clemency, and the case of Karla Faye Tucker. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 4: 455ă486. Strom, Linda. 2000. Karla Faye Tucker set free: Life and faith on death row. New York: Random House. Tucker, Karla Faye. 1998. Excerpts from Karla Faye TuckerÊs letter. Houston Chronicle, 21 January, A25.

Katherine R. Rossiter

This page intentionally left blank

V Leslie Van Houten (1949–) In a 1977 interview with Barbara Walters, Leslie Van Houten expressed her regret for the Tate-LaBianca murders, though she did not expect much forgiveness in return. For much of her time since the Tate-LaBianca murders, Van Houten has openly expressed remorse for her participation in the crimes. She has spent much of her imprisoned life at California Institution for Women (CIW), where she is serving a life sentence for the murders of wealthy Los Angeles grocers Rosemary and Leno LaBianca on the night of August 10, 1969, and for conspiring in the murders on the night previous, August 9, of Abigail Folger, coffee heiress; Voytek Frykowski, FolgerÊs lover; teenager Stephen Parent; Hollywood hair stylist Jay Sebring; and actress Sharon Tate, who was eight months pregnant. Born Leslie Louise Van Houten in Altadena, California, Van Houten lived much of her early life in Monrovia. The young Leslie Van Houten is remembered for her kindness and joy. She expressed this joy through cheerleading and being twice elected homecoming princess. During her adolescence, Van HoutenÊs happiness took a dark turn. Her parents divorced when she was 14 years old. Around this time, Van Houten began to experiment with LSD. Becoming pregnant just before she turned 17, she had an abortion she claims she did not want. Feeling a need for love and a sense of purpose in her life, Van Houten broke away from her family and plunged into the Haight-Ashbury drug scene in San Francisco. In 1968, while in Berkeley, she connected with drifters Bobby Beausoleil, an aspiring actor; his wife Gail; and Catherine Share, who went by the name „Gypsy.‰ Gypsy often told stories of „the family‰ and a wild, fabulous man she knew: Charlie Manson, who was their leader. Van Houten met Manson within a month of meeting and hanging with the Beausoleils and Gypsy, and she soon fell under MasonÊs charismatic influence. When she joined the family, Van Houten maintained that it was only so that she could remain close to Beausoleil. However, in 1969, when Beausoleil was found guilty of the murder of Gary Hinman, a music teacher, and then jailed, Van Houten chose to stay with Manson. 623

624

| Leslie Van Houten

Van Houten recalled in a 1994 interview with the Washington Post that MansonÊs teachings were simple and that everyone fed into what he had to say. Manson taught them to distrust their conscience and to be ashamed. They were taught to see what they had learned as children as being part of a deliberate attempt by parents and society to control them. Manson then presented himself as the freedom to this societal control. Manson also encouraged everyone to let go of their sexual inhibitions; in fact, one of Van HoutenÊs responsibilities was to entertain the local bikers. She claims she later realized Manson used family women as payment for his drug deals. Shortly before the murders of August 9ă10, Former Charles Manson follower 1969, Van Houten recalls that it was a dangerous Leslie Van Houten is taken to the time for Manson and the family. Their acid trips courtroom during 1978 proceedbecame more frequent and violent, and his mes- ings in Los Angeles where a jury sage more urgent. During this time, Manson talked found her guilty of first-degree about the inevitability of a race war, which he de- murder in the 1969 killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. scribed as an apocalyptic battle in which blacks (AP/Wide World Photos) would rise up against their white oppressors and kill them. Manson was influenced by the BeatlesÊ White Album, which he played endlessly. He claimed that during the war, the family would be safe. At the end of this war, family members would be made into gods and eventually rule the Earth when blacks realized that they were unable to do it by themselves. Though the plans were undoubtedly delusional, Van Houten and the others believed every word that came out of MansonÊs mouth. For Van Houten, „Helter Skelter‰ came to fruition on the night of August 10, when Manson drove her, Charles „Tex‰ Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Steve Grogan, and Linda Kasabian to the LaBianca residence in the Los Feliz section of Los Angeles. Alone, Manson went into the house first. A few minutes later, he came out to let the others know that the couple was tied up, and then he ordered Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten to go inside and kill them. Manson told them to do whatever Watson said. Van Houten and Krenwinkel entered the house and found Rosemary LaBianca in a bedroom, where they paused for a moment to sit with her. Then, Van Houten covered Mrs. LaBiancaÊs head with a pillowcase and, together with Krenwinkel, tied an electrical cord from a nearby lamp around Mrs. LaBiancaÊs neck. Suddenly,

Leslie Van Houten | 625

she panicked at hearing LaBiancaÊs husbandÊs screams from another room where Watson stabbed him to death. Van Houten held Mrs. LaBianca down while Krenwinkel stabbed her repeatedly and very hard in the chest, bending the knife against her collarbone. Despite her painful injuries, Mrs. LaBianca continued to struggle, causing Van Houten to knock a lamp away from her. At that moment, Van Houten called assistance from Watson and reportedly told him that she wasnÊt able to kill Mrs. LaBianca. Van Houten then left the room. She stood in the hallway and stared blankly into a nearby room to somewhat remove herself from what was happening. Watson finished stabbing Mrs. LaBianca with a sword-like knife; he then handed Van Houten a knife and told her to join him. Van Houten stabbed Mrs. LaBianca over a dozen times, even though she was certain she was already dead. The autopsy revealed several postmortem wounds on Mrs. LaBiancaÊs body, though no one could determine their cause. Following the murders, Van Houten cleaned everything for fingerprints and put on some of Mrs. LaBiancaÊs clothing, since hers were likely covered with blood. Then, she, Krenwinkel, and Watson began to eat cheese and drink milk from the refrigerator, which bore blood-laden messages such as „Death to Pigs‰ and „Helter Skelter.‰ In the months following the murders, Van Houten, Manson, Krenwinkel, and Atkins were tried in Los Angeles. Watson had a separate trial, due to the fact that he was in Texas fighting extradition at that time. Of the defendants, Van Houten, the youngest, was considered the least devoted to Manson. Therefore, of all the defendants, Van Houten was considered the most likely to be given mercy for her role in the killings. However, during the trial, she behaved uncooperatively and inappropriately, often disrupting the proceedings with giggling, mainly when the murders of Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas were being discussed. During the sentencing phase of the trial, Van Houten stated with little emotion or remorse that „[s]orry is only a five-letter word. How do I feel? I feel like it happened.‰ As a result, any sympathy she may have had with the jury quickly vanished. All defendants were convicted, found guilty of murder, and subsequently sentenced to death on March 29, 1971. However, after the California Supreme Court invalidated death sentences imposed in California prior to 1972 with People v. Anderson, the defendantsÊ sentences were automatically commuted to life in prison. Van Houten went through several lawyers and trials before her final conviction. Donald Barnett, her first attorney, was dismissed following his cross-examination of Manson. Marvin Part, her second lawyer, wanted to demonstrate Van HoutenÊs mindset during the crime, which he viewed as being influenced by LSD and Manson. Van Houten differed, stating that she „was influenced by the war in Vietnam and TV‰ (Linder, 2010). Dismayed, Manson urged Van Houten to fire Part. Her third attorney, Ronald Hughes, also suggested that Manson influenced Van Houten. During the trial, Hughes disappeared and eventually turned up dead.

626

| Leslie Van Houten

Though Manson family members were suspected of the killing, no one was ever charged. In 1976, a California State Appellate Court overturned Van HoutenÊs first-degree murder conviction on grounds that Van Houten was not granted her motion for a mistrial following attorney HughesÊs disappearance. The jury could not reach a verdict during the first re-trial. Consequently, Van Houten was released on bond. During this time, she stayed with Los Angeles High School teacher Linda Grippi, re-learned how to drive, and went with Grippi to ballet classes. The impact that Van Houten had on those students, who were flirting with drugs, was profound. Grippi reported that Van HoutenÊs influence was so profound that many of the students just straightened themselves out. In 1978, the court tried her for a third time and convicted her of first-degree murder, felony robbery murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. She mounted a defense of diminished capacity, resulting from her extensive use of hallucinogenic drugs, but the jury did not accept it. By her sentencing in 1978, many people had recognized that Leslie Van Houten had changed tremendously. Even the sentencing judge at this third and final trial appeared distraught as he sentenced Van Houten back to prison for the rest of her life. With only one mark on her prison record·her relationship to ex-convict Bill Cywin·Van HoutenÊs time behind bars has been uneventful. Van HoutenÊs transformation throughout her years in prison has been remarkable. Clinical and staff psychiatrists have noted significant progress and change in her mental health and fitness and her productivity behind bars. California Superior Court Judge Bob Krug confirmed this progress by stating in 2002 that Van Houten had been a model prisoner for 30 years, completing all available prison programs and helping other inmates. Judge Krug further noted that Van Houten was actually already eligible for parole in 1978 since she had already served eight years in prison and her sentence allowed for the possibility of parole. Since that time, Van Houten has gone before the board of parole hearings and has applied for parole 18 times, but she has not yet been successful. Over the years, Van Houten has often challenged her parole denials. In 2004, Van Houten was denied parole. She challenged this denial in federal court, but the attorney general has opposed her petition. The parole board last denied Van Houten parole on August 30, 2007. Like many heinous crimes, the Tate-LaBianca murders dismantled societyÊs sense of social order. The victims did not know the murderers who delivered them to society on a bloody platter of „Helter Skelter‰ mayhem and chaos. Charles Manson has been thought to be the Devil in human form·the women, his faithful servants. Even with the exchange of evidence for immunity or remorseful statements at parole hearings, it is difficult to know Leslie Van HoutenÊs fate. Her hearing for the 2004 parole denial, originally scheduled for 2009, was held on July 6, 2010. Leslie Van HoutenÊs 19th bid for parole was

Elizabeth Van Lew | 627

ultimately denied. She now needs to wait until 2013 before she can go before the board of parole once more. See also Atkins, Susan; Good, Sandra; Kasabian, Linda; Krenwinkel, Patricia

Resources Bugliosi, Vincent, and Curt Gentry. (1974). Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Faith, Karlene. (2001). The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten: Life Beyond the Cult. Boston: Northeastern University Press. In re Leslie Van Houten. Biennial Report Major Activities 2007ă2008, California DOJ, 9ă15ă2008. http://ag.ca.gov/publications/biennial_report_07ă08.pdf Linder, Douglas O. (2010). „Famous Trials: Charles Manson‰ University of Missouri· Kansas City (UMKS) School of Law. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ manson/mansondefendants.html Morganstein, M. (2010, July 7). „Manson family member Van Houten denied parole again.‰ http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/06/manson.family.parole/index.html Sanders, Ed. (1989). The Family: The Manson Group and Its Aftermath. New York: New American Library/Signet. Watkins, Paul, and Guillermo Soledad. (1979). My Life with Charles Manson. New York: Bantam Books.

Sue Cote Escobar

Elizabeth Van Lew (1818–1900) Elizabeth (Louise) Van Lew, a resident of Richmond, Virginia, was a spy for the Union Army during the American Civil War. She brought food, clothing, and other items to the Union soldiers incarcerated at the Confederate Libby Prison in Richmond, Virginia, and left with vital information about Confederate troop movements. This information was then relayed to General Ulysses S. Grant through an elaborate cryptic courier system. She also housed Union prisoners who had escaped from Libby Prison in her home and farmhouse outside of Richmond. Van Lew was the first child of a prominent slaveholding Richmond family. Her father, John Van Lew, and her mother, Eliza Baker, were not native to Virginia. However, they met and settled in Richmond, Virginia. Her father was a successful businessman who played a large part in the construction of the University of Virginia. Van Lew was sent to attend a Quaker academy in Philadelphia in the early 1830s where she first developed her abolitionist standpoint. Her mother shared her stance against slavery. After her father died, Elizabeth Van Lew and her mother

628

| Elizabeth Van Lew

took private actions to grant various degrees of freedom to their slaves against John Van LewÊs will (Varon 2003). During her four years of espionage, authorities investigated her, but she was never arrested (Varon 2003: 181). Historians argue Confederate authorities were persuaded to dispel their suspicions about her loyalty due to Van LewÊs class and gender identity as a „Southern Lady,‰ rather than from her insane „Crazy Bet‰ persona. She had always led a double life, attending the functions of her class and backing the Confederacy when the situation called. Additionally, authorities were never able to collect hard evidence against her or her coconspirators. According to Varon, Van Lew was more of a „spymaster‰ than a „spy‰ (158). Her primarily function was to receive questions from Union commanders and then deploy her scouts to gather information. After interpretation and encryption, Van Lew would then send the information to the commander via undercover courier. Free African Americans, her servants, and other Union sympathizers comprised her agents. Commanders praised Van LewÊs network for its efficiency, boasting an average of three intelligence reports a week. For example, she implanted a spy, Mary Elizabeth Bowser, in the confederate White House·the home of President Jefferson Davis. Bowser was a former slave of the Van Lew family who, after her release, was sent to be educated in a Quaker school for blacks in Philadelphia and later to Liberia to perform missionary work before coming back to Virginia. BowserÊs cover as an illiterate servant granted her access to overhear conversations and read documents she found and then relay the information to other slaves and Van Lew. The vital information was then conveyed to Benjamin Butler and General Grant through an elaborate courier system comprised of her freed servants. The system was so efficient that Grant would often receive flowers from Van LewÊs garden while they were still fresh. She also developed a cipher system that involved her putting messages in hollowed-out eggs transferred by basket to Union officials. The messages that Van Lew delivered and received throughout the war helped the Union succeed in its takeover of Richmond and, ultimately, in the dismantling of the Confederacy. Unsubstantiated claims that Van Lew had gone crazy and gained entry into Libby Prison have been completely discounted by Varon (2003). John Reynolds, who wrote to several newspapers in the early 1900s that he was constructing a narrative of her life, initially based the claim on exaggerated interpretations of Van LewÊs eccentricity. Rather than playing the role of a crazy person, Van Lew instead played one of a loyal Confederate (Varon 2003). After the war, one of GrantÊs first official acts of presidency was to appoint Van Lew postmaster of Richmond, a highly political position that she held from 1896 to 1877. She helped to modernize the antiquated postal system by instituting a citywide delivery of letters rather than having post office boxes, among other improvements (Varon 2003:220). She lost her office when Rutherford B. Hayes was elected

Elizabeth Van Lew | 629

president. Van Lew did not go without a fight. She tried, to no avail, to regain her position under Hayes and Garfield. While in Richmond, the cityÊs elite ostracized Van Lew for her Union sympathies, and she lived the rest of her life in her family mansion in poverty. She was supported only by an annuity from the family of a Union soldier whom she had assisted. Her grave was unmarked until a Union soldier she assisted commissioned a tombstone that reads: Elizabeth L. Van Lew 1818ă1900 She risked everything that is dear to man·friends-fortune-comfort-healthlife itself·all for the one absorbing desire of her heart·that slavery might be abolished and the union preserved. This boulder from the Capitol Hill in Boston is a tribute from Massachusetts friends. (Ryan 2001: 54ă55) Van Lew is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame, one of the minority of women who have been members. Resources Ryan, David. 2001. A Yankee Spy in Richmond: The Civil War Diary of „Crazy Bet‰ Van Lew. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stockpole Books. Varon, Elizabeth. 2003. Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, A Union Agent in the Heart of the Confederacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Melencia Johnson

This page intentionally left blank

W Rachel Wall (1760–1789) Rachel Wall was a pirate and the last woman to be hanged in the state of Massachusetts. Aside from her prominence as one of only a few female pirates, her story also provides an illustration of postăRevolutionary War small-scale piracy. Although Rachel was hanged for a crime unrelated to her exploits as a pirate, she made her piracy well-known in her dying confession which was printed in the October 7, 1789, edition of the Boston Goal. Rachel Wall was born in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1760. She grew up in a conventional, religious farm family and was 16 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Rachel left home at a young age but returned for two years before running off with a sailor named George Wall. Rachel married George, and they traveled together to New York and to Boston. In Boston, George left Rachel in order to work aboard a fishing schooner. Rachel remained in Boston, working as a servant to a wealthy family. After two months, George returned to Boston to collect Rachel. They left to meet GeorgeÊs fishing schooner but missed their ship because they had fallen into „bad company‰ (Weatherby, 1998) and had been out drinking. Because they had no money and no form of employment, George Wall decided that he and Rachel, along with their friends, should become pirates. Rachel had no previous experience with piracy, but George and his friends had plundered ships when they had served aboard privateers during the Revolutionary War. RachelÊs role in GeorgeÊs piracy scheme was to act as bait. Following a storm, George and the crew made the ship look ragged and sea-battered, while Rachel screamed for help to alert a nearby ship. When the captain and crew of the ship boarded WallÊs vessel, George and his crew killed them and plundered their ship. While some accounts state that both George and Rachel had a hand in killing the crews of the ships that they plundered, others state that Rachel did not kill (Weatherby, 1998). Rachel herself stated that she had never murdered anyone. Once the pirates had relieved the vessel of all valuables, they sank the ship and disposed of the bodies of its crew. The crew used the storm to explain the destruction of the victim ship and the death of its crew. 631

632 |

Rachel Wall

Variations of this ruse of false distress were played out into the following summer, until the crew mistook the eye of a hurricane for the end of the storm, leading to the destruction of their ship. All crew members but Rachel were killed, including RachelÊs husband George. Rachel was rescued by a passing ship and was dropped off in Boston, where she returned to her old job as a servant in Beacon Hill. An opposing account of the end of RachelÊs piracy states that George was killed during a fight with another ship, and Rachel took command of the ship, sailing to safety. According to this account, Rachel actively chose to quit piracy following the death Undated woodcut of the famous New of her husband rather than being forced into England pirate, Rachel Wall. Stockton, that position. Frank Richard. (Buccaneers and Pirates After Rachel WallÊs „retirement‰ from pi- of our Coasts, 1919) racy, she continued to steal valuables from ships docked in Boston Harbor. According to some sources, Wall crept onto ships at night and stole from the sailors as they slept (Weatherby, 1998). The only crime for which Wall was caught, however, was the alleged theft of another womenÊs fancy bonnet. Wall stole the bonnet off of the womanÊs head, placed it on her own, and ran off down the street. She was overtaken by an officer of the law and was taken to jail. It was for this crime that Wall was convicted and hanged on Boston Common on October 7, 1789. Her trial was September 10, 1789, and the charge was that she committed a felony when she assaulted Margaret Bender and took from her a bonnet valued at seven shillings (Weatherby, 1998). She also confessed to another act of robbery for which someone else had been charged. However, Rachel Wall maintained until her death that she was innocent of the theft of the bonnet. Although Rachel Wall was a pirate, her piracy had little to do with the crime for which she was executed. However, Rachel Wall was vocal about her former acts of piracy in her final confession. She may have been hanged as a common thief but clearly she wished to be remembered as a pirate. The extent of her involvement in the acts of George WallÊs pirate crew is debatable, but her participation in piracy is not. Resources Rogozinsky, Jan. 1995. Pirates!: Brigands, Buccaneers, and Privateers in Fact, Fiction, and Legend. New York: Facts on File.

Yvonne Wanrow | 633

Wall, Rachel. 1789. „Life, Last Words and Dying Confessions of Rachel Wall.‰ Boston Goal. October 7. Evans Early American Imprint microcard series, No. 22235. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Weatherby, Myra. 1998. Women Pirates: Eight Stories of Adventure. Greensboro: Morgan Reynolds. Weatherby, Myra. 2006. Women of the Sea: Ten Pirate Stories. Greensboro: Morgan Reynolds Publishing.

Ariel E. Allison

Yvonne Wanrow (1943–) Yvonne Wanrow was an American Indian woman who was sentenced to two 20-year terms and one 5-year sentence for murder and attempted murder. Her criminal prosecution brought to light the lack of womenÊs equal protection under the law. In 1972, Yvonne WanrowÊs son was assaulted by William Wesler, a neighbor. Wesler had previously molested another child in the neighborhood and had given her a sexually transmitted disease (the daughter of Shirley Hooper). WanrowÊs son fled his assailant and came home to report the occurrence to his mother. Wanrow contacted the police and was subsequently told that they were unable to arrest him at that time. Wanrow and Hooper spoke to their landlords and consequently found out that Wesler had molested another child in the area and had spent time in a mental institution. The landlord suggested that Wanrow and Hooper stay together in their home and keep his gun for protection. The two women later called family members over to HooperÊs home and stayed up all night to protect their children. After an invitation to reconcile differences from one of their family members, Wesler and a friend of his came to the house. As he entered the residence, Wesler made a comment to Wanrow about her nephew and moved towards the three-year-old child. Wanrow shot and killed Wesler and shot his friend. Wanrow and Hooper called the police, and Wanrow calmly confessed to the police. As an American Indian female, Wanrow initially lacked access to legal counsel within the criminal justice system. She originally pled guilty until a new attorney, provided for by the Center for Constitutional Rights, advised her to plea not guilty by reason of temporary insanity and self-defense. While she was initially convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree assault, WanrowÊs trial was reversed on appeal, and a retrial was mandated. Her retrial resulted in a plea to reduced charges, and her sentence was decreased to five years probation and 2,000 hours of community service. Wanrow spent her time speaking for the womenÊs movement and

634 |

Yvonne Wanrow

the American Indian Movement, counseling alcoholics and volunteer teaching to students on her reservation. WanrowÊs trial brought numerous issues to light. Her attorneys argued that her confession was gained by illegal means and that and expert testimony focusing on her American Indian background and culture was banned from delivery. Of the most importance to feminists and proponents of womenÊs rights was the manner in which the jury was instructed. At her original trial, the jury was instructed to base their decision on the standards of a „reasonable man.‰ Upon appeal, WanrowÊs attorney pointed out that, due to this standard of masculinity, Wanrow was denied equal protection of the law. Instructing the jury in masculine terminology presented a precedent that was unequal to WanrowÊs gender status. This did not allow the jury to consider her perceptions, her status as a mother, or an acceptable level of defense when a female felt threatened by a male. WanrowÊs appeals process resulted in what is known as the „Wanrow jury instruction,‰ which stipulates that juries must be instructed to consider the facts in gender-neutral terminology. This advance in court instruction also allows the jury to consider what a female will find „reasonable‰ and „justifiable‰ instead of judging them by male standards. Utilizing gender-neutral terminology within the court system helps afford females equal protection under the law. WanrowÊs case also demonstrated how cultural narrative is used in the legal process. Wanrow was on welfare, was divorced with children, had problems with alcohol, and was an American Indian. Calling attention to her cultural narrative and background as an American Indian female, her attorneys argued that she must be convicted or sentenced according to her distinct background, both as a woman and as an American Indian. WanrowÊs trial brought attention to the plight and oppression of women and minorities in a time of political and social turmoil, and the trial highlighted the complex social positioning of females within the criminal justice system. Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion, and national origin, WanrowÊs case provided the framework and guidelines for new jury instruction, equal consideration of defendants, and equal protection for females. It served to focus society on womenÊs rights, cultural background, and the victimization of women and children by males. Resources Jones, Ann. 1980. Women Who Kill. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Schuetz, Janice. 1994. The Logic of Women on Trial: Case Studies of Popular American Trials. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Alana Van Gundy-Yoder

Rosemary West |

635

Rosemary West (1953–) Rosemary West was one of the few female serial killers who, in the 1980s and 1990s, terrorized a society with a rash of kidnappings, rapes, and murders of young women. Most female serial killers commit their crimes alone; however, one-third of the female serial killers in the United States act in partnership with another person, usually an intimate other. Rose West and her husband, Fred West, terrorized Gloucester, England, raping and killing young women. The rarity of the sexually aggressive female serial killer who steps so far out of her gender roles by raping other females makes this case a significant break from societal definitions of womanhood. Furthermore, Rose WestÊs first victim was her stepdaughter; this crime represented to many the ultimate betrayal of womanhood. Rosemary Letts was born on November 29, 1953, to Bill and Daisy Letts. One of seven children, RoseÊs siblings and mother endured constant violence at the hands of her schizophrenic father. Even prior to her birth, Bill Letts was very abusive to her mother. The beatings lead Daisy Letts into a state of depression. Finally, in 1953, Daisy Letts was hospitalized and treated with electroshock therapy. Shortly after this hospitalization, Daisy became pregnant with Rose. It is uncertain if the electroshock therapy did any damage to the fetus; however, it is known that as a young child, Rose would rock her body so hard in her cot that she would slide it across the room. As she grew older, Rose would rock only her head for hours. She was believed to be slow and was called „Dozy Rosey.‰ While receiving affection from Bill Letts was extremely hard, Rose appeared to be his pet gaining affection that none of the other children received. It is claimed that as her fatherÊs favorite, Rose was able Undated photo of British serial killer Rosemary West and her husband Fred, who was found to escape his beatings. However, hanged in his prison cell awaiting trial on 12 murder others claim that Bill Letts beat and charges in 1997. (AP/Wide World Photos) raped his daughter. Furthermore, as

636 |

Rosemary West

a young teenager, Rose started having sexual relations with older men. Fred West, a man 12 years her senior, would turn out to be the love of her life. Rose met Fred in 1969 at the bakery where she worked. As an impressionable 15 year old, Rose took to FredÊs gifts and soon moved in with him in order to raise his children, Ann Marie and Charmaine. In 1970, when Fred West was arrested and incarcerated, Rose began beating their children. After his nine-month stint in prison, Fred joined in on the beating of his children, especially Charmaine, who had been fathered by another man. In 1971, Fred and Rose West killed and buried Charmaine and FredÊs former wife Rena when she came to claim her children. From this point on, Rose and FredÊs crimes became more violent and extended beyond the victimization of their own children. On February 24, 1994, a warrant was served to search the house of Fredrick West for the remains of Heather West, the daughter of Rosemary and Fredrick West. Heather disappeared at the age of 16 in 1987. Police believed that Fred West killed her and buried her under the patio. The next day, Fred confessed to the police that he killed his daughter, cut her body in three pieces, and buried her. He also claimed that Rose had nothing to do with the murder. Twenty minutes later he denied the entire story. However, after learning that the police found three human bones, though they were not HeatherÊs, he once again confessed, giving all of the gory details. In 1994, upon further investigation and confessions, Fred and Rose West were charged with murder. Fred West was charged with 12 murders. Rose West was charged with 10 murders, including the murder of FredÊs first child Charmaine (in 1971), Fred and Rose WestÊs first child Heather (in 1987), a lodger in the West house Shirley Robinson (in 1977), and seven other victims. In their crimes, Fred and Rose West often befriended or kidnapped young women, held them captive in their house on 25 Cromwell Street in London, sexually assaulted them, and then murdered them. Rose WestÊs trial started on October 3, 1995. During her 31-day trial, Rose West was depicted as an unfeminine, aggressive, manipulative, violent, sexual predator. Furthermore, it was revealed that Rose had prostituted herself in their home and had even became pregnant from a client. In all, Rose had three children from other men while married to Fred West. These actions are not believed to belong to the ideal woman who may claim victim status. While Rose West was convicted of 10 murders, the evidence against her was only circumstantial. The prosecution used RoseÊs sexual deviance as well as her inability to behave as a good woman and a good mother as the basis for the murder charges. The defense counsel, on the other hand, tried to show that one can not assume that murder is linked to sexual deviance. Officials had the initial confessions of Fred West, who continuously professed RoseÊs innocence. However, after RoseÊs rejection of Fred West, he hanged himself in his cell on January 1, 1995. Since Fred West was not able to stand trial, some claim that Rose West was inadvertently standing trial for both of their crimes.

Charlotte Anita Whitney | 637

On November 22, 1995, Rose was convicted of 10 murders and sentenced to life imprisonment. Resources Gordon, Burn. 1999. Happy Like Murderers: The True Story of Fred and Rosemary West. London: Farber and Farber. Klein, Shelley. 2003. The Most Evil Women in History. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. Sounes, Howard. 1995. Fred and Rose: The Full Story of Fred and Rose West and the Gloucester House of Horrors. London: Little Brown & Company. Vronsky, Peter. 2007. Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters. New York: Berkley Books. Winter, Jo. 2002. „The Trial of Rose West: Contesting Notions of Victimhood.‰ In H. Carolyn and Y. Richard (eds.), New Visions of Crime Victims, 173ă196. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Venessa Garcia

Charlotte Anita Whitney (1867–1955) Charlotte Anita Whitney was a political radical whose legacy has been primarily legal. An appellate case bearing her name serves as a hallmark in free speech case law. She can also be regarded as important sociologically, as the story of her life illustrates the costs and benefits that social affiliation pose in criminal as well as cultural processes. Though a later observer described her as a „frail, quietmannered, soft-voiced woman [who] maintained a stoic poise which was conceded to be remarkable‰ (Reed, 1922: 93), her relentless dedication to the downtrodden has been lost in the legalistic intricacies of case law and the historical stigmatization of communism. Whitney, the daughter of a San Francisco lawyer, was born into privilege. Both finance magnate Cyrus W. Field and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Johnson Field were her uncles. Her familyÊs wealth and prestige permitted voyages to the East Coast with both educational and personal import. She graduated from Wellesley College in 1889, and in 1893, she famously visited the College Settlement House in New York CityÊs slums. The latter experience ignited her passion for social work and led her back to California, not to retire in San Francisco comfort but across the Bay to the social and economic slums of Oakland. After serving six years in a county-wide nonprofit position, her attentions turned statewide and political, as her contributions to serving marginalized persons began to coalesce and intensify. Whitney began by leading a womenÊs suffrage campaign

638 | Charlotte Anita Whitney

in California, and then she assisted similar efforts in other states, more than a decade before the Nineteenth Amendment allowed women to vote. During that time, she became involved in efforts to exercise and protect speech by the socialist organization Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). She formally joined the Socialist Party in 1914 but found it insufficiently ambitious. When Whitney and other members of the partyÊs „radical‰ wing were ejected from the partyÊs 1919 national convention in Chicago, she founded the Communist Labor Party (CLP). She helped draft the partyÊs constitution which explicitly noted intent to unify American workers into a working-class movement, and pledged to take the principles of Communism and revolutionary industrial unionism and help put them into practice. Her increasing radicalism, however, contrasted sharply with national trends. Only two years earlier, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia had sparked a „red scare‰ of antiradical, revolution-fearing hysteria in the United States. The same year she formed what would become simply the Communist Party, California passed the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act, which expressly prohibited „advocating, teaching or aiding and abetting . . . unlawful acts of force and violence . . . as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change‰ (California statute of 1919 as cited in H.R.M., 1922: 512. After giving a speech on „the negro question‰ to the California Civic League on November 18, 1919, Whitney was arrested on five counts of violating the act and, specifically, of having attended the Chicago convention. Her first lawyer was recused for a 104-degree fever and died one week later; a second had insisted he was „not competent‰ to take charge and that Whitney did not desire his representation, but he was nevertheless compelled by the judge to represent her. Thus subject both to national hysteria and judicial obstinacy, Whitney was convicted on the first count of having organized and joined the party for the purposes of advocating, teaching, and aiding and abetting criminal syndicalism. Although she barely contested that charge, she was ultimately victorious by several measures. While she received a prison sentence of 1 to 14 years at San Quentin Penitentiary, she only served 11 days, due to poor health. And though 8 years of legal appeals went unsuccessful, she was ultimately pardoned by Governor Friend Richardson on June 21, 1927, based on a concurring opinion against her in her final appeal effort, as well as an effort organized on her behalf. The years of legal wrangling concerned whether the state has the power, such as through the 1919 Act, to restrict First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of assembly when that speech and assembly threaten the state itself. In its original case against Whitney (People v. Whitney, 57 Cal. App. 449, 207), the state of California charged that the Community Labor Party was an instrument of syndicalism, which the act clearly defined as teaching and encouraging violent overthrow of state authority. Asserted linkages to violence were tenuous at best: The California CLP had endorsed the national CLP, which had endorsed the national

Charlotte Anita Whitney | 639

IWW, which had endorsed the California IWW, members of which had been found guilty of acts of violence in Bakersfield, California. Whitney did testify in the original trial that neither she nor the other organizers had intended the CLP to be violent or to violate any known law. And in the later appellate process, her lawyers contended that she had not known the convention would turn violent, that she had tried to object to resolutions calling for aggressive means, and that she had offered resolutions toward peaceful means. However, nowhere in the seminal legal history that followed did WhitneyÊs attorneys ever contest that the Communist Party posed a threat nor that Whitney had joined them. (Worse, she continued her involvement, first at the Chicago convention and later as an alternate delegate to state meetings.) Indeed, Justice Louis Brandeis practically complained that no such argument had been made, writing that Whitney „did not claim that . . . there was no clear and present danger of serious evil, nor did she request that the existence of these conditions of a valid measure thus restricting the rights of free speech and assembly be passed upon by the court of a jury‰ (People v. Whitney, 57 Cal. App. 449, 207). Moreover, as he noted, the party had been created for the purpose of teaching criminal syndicalism, violent or not. Indeed, the threat of violence was arguably an important primary difference between the Socialist Party Whitney had left and the Communist Party she had started. As such, the 1919 Act was clearly violated. The question remained, whether the act was constitutional. Whitney appealed on 16 counts, including asserting Fourteenth Amendment violations of due process and equal protection. (Her lawyers had oddly argued that the act prohibited syndicalism by those seeking a shift from capitalism but not by those who would defend it. Justice Earnest T. Stanford ruled that it was within the discretionary power of the state and was not, in fact, arbitrary. The District Court of Appeals (in Whitney v. California, 269 U.S. 530 [1925]), the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court (in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 [1927]) all denied WhitneyÊs claims, the latter in dual opinions issued on May 16, 1927. (An initial appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court had been denied on technical grounds in 1925.) The majority opinion, written by Justice Sanford, ruled that the state has the power to identify and define evils, and invoked the CourtÊs recent opinion in Gitlow v. New York (1925), that free speech can be restricted. (Notably, Whitney was represented by New York lawyers Walter Pollak and Walter Nelles, who also represented Benjamin Gitlow.) But Sanford, and the seven justices who joined his opinion, went beyond the previous Holmes test of clear and present danger, arguing that the state has the power to punish words that merely have a potential to threaten even if they donÊt rise to a direct threat. The opinion written by Justice Brandeis (joined by Oliver Wendell Holmes), while formally a concurring opinion, entailed stark differences and subtle dissent and had the most lasting legal impact. Both opinions agreed on the Fourteenth

640 | Charlotte Anita Whitney

Amendment questions before the court, and that, as Brandeis wrote, „although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute.‰ However, whereas Stanford wrote that „every presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of the statute‰ and that only restrictions that were considered arbitrary or unreasonable could be found unconstitutional, Brandeis suggested that there must be limits to the stateÊs power to prohibit First Amendment exercises. Further, he argued that citizens in a democracy have a responsibility to criticize government policy, „the function of speech [being] to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.‰ In place of „clear and present danger,‰ he argued that the danger must be both serious and imminent: „The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State‰ (Whitney v. People of State of California). Further, he suggested what has been called a „time to answer‰ test, the danger of words not being clear and present if they can be contested, as should be part of the democratic process. „Even advocacy of violation [of the law], however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement‰ (Whitney v. People of State of California). That position would later be taken up by Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black in the second half of the century, and ultimately adopted in Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 US 444, 1969), which explicitly overturned the Whitney decision. Whitney continued her efforts·political, sociological, and criminal·for the rest of her life. She was a Communist candidate for California state treasurer in 1924, receiving over 100,000 votes. In 1935, she faced convictions for election fraud, distribution of communist literature, and lecturing without a permit. She became national chairman of the Community Party in 1936, was twice nominated for the U.S. Senate, and got nearly 99,000 votes in 1950, despite anticommunist attacks by Ronald Reagan and Joe McCarthy. Just five years later, on February 3, 1955, she passed away in San Francisco. By the time her legacy ruling was overturned 14 years later, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a second „red scare‰ had struck America as communism became a threat not just of worker revolt but of international annihilation. Twenty years beyond that, iconic events worldwide would be heralded as the death of communism. WhitneyÊs legacy has thus been dually lost·SanfordÊs opinion was overturned years after she died, and communism has been stigmatized to the point of its reported death. Resources Bhagwat, Ashutosh. 2004. „The Story of Whitney v. California: The Power of Ideas.‰ In Constitutional Law Stories, ed. Michael C. Dorf, 383ă408. New York: Foundation Press.

Aileen Wuornos | 641

Blasi, Vincent. 1988. „The First Amendment and the Ideal of Civic Courage: The Brandeis Opinion in Whitney v. California.‰ William & Mary Law Review 653. Collins, Ronald, and David Skover. 2005. „Curious Concurrence: BrandeisÊ Vote in Whitney v. California.‰ Supreme Court Review 333. Dee, Juliet. 2003. „Whitney v. California.‰ In Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, ed. Richard A. Parker. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. H.R.M., 1922. „Criminal Law: Criminal Syndicalist Act: Constitutional Law: Validity Under the Act Under the Free Speech Clause. California Law Review, 10: 512ă518. People v. Whitney, 57 Cal. App. 449, 207. Reed, Alma. 1922. „Woman Tests Free Speech: Case Against Anita Whitney for Syndalicism Up to Supreme Court.‰ New York Times (September 17), 93. Rubens, Lisa. 1986. „The Patrician Radical: Charlotte Anita Whitney.‰ California History 158. Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 [1927].

Ellis Godard

Aileen Wuornos (1956–2002) Aileen Wuornos was a female serial killer who was deemed „too aggressive‰ in her killings. Aileen Wuornos was considered to be a predatory killer. As a highway prostitute who sought out her victims, shot, and then robbed them, Wuornos defied societal ideas of female normalcy and deviance. Adding to the defiance of her gender role expectations, Wuornos was also lesbian. During her trial, her deviant behaviors and lesbianism were used by both the prosecution and the defense. Aileen Wuornos was born on February 29, 1956, to Diane Wuornos and Leo Pittman. Abandoned by their parents, Aileen and her brother Keith were raised by their maternal grandparents, Britta and Lauri Wuornos. Until she was 11, Aileen and Keith were led to believe that, Britta and Lauri were their parents and that their aunts and uncles were their siblings. Diane had married Leo at the young age of 14; however, they divorced when Diane was pregnant with Aileen. Leo was known to beat Diane and engage in criminal behaviors. Eventually, Leo was given a life sentence for kidnapping and raping a 7-year-old girl. While in prison, he committed suicide. It has been reported that Aileen and Keith were physically abused and neglected by their grandparents. Britta Wuornos, AileenÊs grandmother, was an alcoholic who turned her head from the abuse her husband Lauri gave to their children and grandchildren. Aileen also claimed to being sexually abused by her grandfather. Although this accusation was not substantiated, researchers speculate that AileenÊs extreme hate for Lauri Wuornos coupled with her early sexual

642

|

Aileen Wuornos

experiences as well as LauriÊs advances on AileenÊs mother Diane would not preclude this possibility. As a child, Aileen was known to have uncontrollable and unprovoked outbursts. She was also sexually active by the age of 11, selling sexual favors for cigarettes and loose change or a couple of dollars. Aileen Wuornos was frequently in trouble and running away. She would spend nights sleeping in the woods, in abandoned cars, or at the house of her only childhood friend, Dawn Nieman. In 1971, Britta became very ill and although she needed hospitalization, Lauri never called an ambulance. Britta died of cirrhosis of the liver when Aileen was 15 years old. It was at this time that Lauri blamed Aileen and her brother Keith for BrittaÊs death. Lauri threatened to kill the children if their mother did not take them away. Although Aileen never got along with her grandparents, BrittaÊs death, AileenÊs hostile behavior at her funeral, and LauriÊs threats resulted in AileenÊs final departure from her home. LauriÊs children believe that he let Britta die when he neglected to call an ambulance. Aileen Wuornos admitted that she was a prostitute by the age of 15 when she hitchhiked across the country to settle in Florida following her grandmotherÊs funeral. In addition to prostitution, she engaged in other crimes such as check forgery, shoplifting, identity and car theft, and ultimately armed robbery. She spent most of her time on her own and initially expressed disgust for lesbians; however, after serving three years in prison for robbing a convenience store with a .22 caliber gun, she claimed to be a lesbian. Wuornos did not have any significant relationships until she met Tyria (Ty) Moore in a gay bar in 1986. Prior to her four-and-a-half year relationship with Ty, the longest relationship Wuornos ever had had lasted two months. Wuornos was the one in control within her relationship with Ty, and although Ty maintained her job as a hotel maid, they often had trouble making ends meet. They often moved from hotel to hotel, sometimes sleeping in the woods or staying with TyÊs sister and her husband. Throughout their relationship, Wuornos prostituted herself on the highways of Florida trying Convicted serial killer Aileen Wuornos making a living to support both herself and Ty. waits to testify in the Volusia County In early December 1989, Wuornos got into courthouse in Daytona Beach, Florida, 2001. Wuornos was sentenced the car of Richard Mallory on FloridaÊs Inter- to death six times for killing middlestate 4. Mallory was a well-known patron of aged men along the highways of cenprostitutes with a distant past of attempted rape tral Florida in 1989 and 1990. (AP/ for which he spent nine years in a Maryland Wide World Photos)

Aileen Wuornos | 643

prison. WuornosÊs goal that night was to make some money by prostituting herself, but she ended the encounter by pumping four bullets into the body of Richard Mallory, stealing his car, his wallet, and other personal possessions. Wuornos returned home with MalloryÊs car in order to move her and TyÊs possessions from their hotel room to an apartment. According to Ty, Wuornos was calm and collected that night and gave no indication of her murderous act. The next day she returned to the scene of the crime in order to bury the body and clean and abandon MalloryÊs car. That night Wuornos told Ty, „I killed a guy today.‰ Ty claimed that she wanted to leave Wuornos at that point, but she was too afraid. In the next 12 months, Wuornos proceeded to shoot and kill six other clients and rob them of their possessions. After being seen fleeing the scene of a car accident, Wuornos was arrested for the highway murders. With the help of Ty, the police were able to gain a confession from Wuornos on January 16, 1991. In her confession, however, Wuornos gave several accounts as to why she killed Richard Mallory. In the end, Wuornos claimed that Mallory tried to rape her and that she had to kill him in self-defense. Wuornos claimed that each of her seven victims (Richard Mallory, Dick Humphreys, Troy Burress, David Spears, Charles Carskaddon, and Walter Gino Antonio) assaulted, threatened, or raped her. She was not charged with the murder of Peter Sims because his body was never found; however, Wuornos was suspected of his murder as well. On January 14, 1992, Aileen Wuornos was tried for MalloryÊs murder. By this time, Wuornos claimed that Mallory had raped and tortured her. MalloryÊs sexual criminal history was not brought into the trial. However, due to FloridaÊs Williams Rule, evidence of WuornosÊs other murders was presented. FloridaÊs Williams Rule allows the presentation of evidence related to other cases if it helps to demonstrate a pattern. With evidence of the other murders presented in the Mallory case, establishing a viable self-defense was extremely difficult. Wuornos became very hostile and argumentative during her testimony, which was extremely damaging to her case. On January 27, after two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict. In her angered response, Wuornos yelled to the jury, „IÊm innocent! I was raped! I hope you get raped! Scumbags of America!‰ Wuornos pleaded no contest to three other murders and guilty to the murders of Carskaddon and Antonio. In all she was given five death sentences. Aileen Wuornos was executed on October 9, 2002, by lethal injection. While Aileen WuornosÊs crimes were unacceptable and tragic, this case exemplified societyÊs willingness to demonize female offenders. These murders and the circumstances do not compare to those of male serial killers who often incorporate sexual fantasies through control and/or torture. While Wuornos claimed to be a victim, evidence also points to a financial motivation. Furthermore, while most women kill family members or intimate others, Wuornos focused on strangers in a predatory fashion. Another component of Aileen WuornosÊs case that

644

|

Aileen Wuornos

worked to demonize her was her claim to be a victim of multiple rapes. Society often denies that prostitutes can be raped. That is, it is assumed that prostitutes enjoy the risks of their chosen profession, or, they are thought to deserve being raped. Furthermore, the claim of multiple rapes is often dismissed as implausible by society although research shows that this is quite common, especially among sex workers. Resources Gehring, Krista. 2006. „A Star is Formed: Media Construction of the Female Criminal.‰ In R. Muraskin and S. F. Domash (eds.), Crime and the Media: Headlines vs. Reality, 117ă132. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Keitner, Chimene I. 2002. Victim or Vamp? Images of violent Women in the Criminal Justice. Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 11: 38ă72. MacLeod, Marlee. 2011. „Aileen Wurnos: Killer Who Preyed on Truck Drivers.‰ TruTV Crime Library. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/nororious_murders/wmen/wuor nos/10.html. Shipley, Stacey L., and Bruce A. Arrigo. 2004. The Female Homicide Offender: Serial Murder and the Case of Wuornos. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Vronsky, Peter. 2007. Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters. New York: Berkley Books.

Venessa Garcia

Y Donna Yaklich (1955–) Donna Yaklich was in her early thirties in 1988 when she began serving a 40-year sentence for conspiring to kill her husband, Dennis, a 6-foot 5-inch man of muscular build and member of the Pueblo, Colorado, police department. Donna Yaklich admitted to hiring the two young brothers who were the triggermen. She was too terrified to kill him herself. His body was found in her driveway on December 12, 1985. YaklichÊs case exposed the depths of desperation of an abused wife, one who turned to hired killers to do the job for her. Donna and Dennis began dating in 1977, two months after DennisÊs first wife, Barbara, had died, according to published reports. Donna and Dennis had a child together, a son, and cared for DennisÊs children from his previous marriage. Donna described in court how her marriage had been rocky from the start, how Dennis had beaten her many times, choked her, put the barrel of the gun he carried into her face, and played psychological games that included showing her photographs of homicide cases. Her defense also told the jury that Dennis used steroids and that the drugs made him violent. Because he was a police officer, Donna felt she could not go to authorities for help. She believed they would protect Dennis and not believe her. She told jurors she tried to get away, but she felt that there was no place she could go without being found. Once, she fled to a battered womenÊs shelter in Denver. Though Dennis did not find her, she said she returned home on her own after she spoke to her husband on the telephone, and he asked her to forgive him. But psychological abuse continued, according to Donna, so she turned to Ed and Charles Greenwell, two brothers she had met who agreed to kill Dennis. Both eventually pleaded guilty for the slaying. DonnaÊs defense had maintained that she suffered from battered wifeÊs syndrome and that her actions were justified. A debate emerged, however, because her case illustrated a different angle from similar cases in which battered wifeÊs syndrome had been used as a defense. In such cases, it is more common for an abused wife to act aggressively, going after her husband with a gun or a knife. But in DonnaÊs case, she had spent months discussing 645

646 |

Andrea Yates

her husbandÊs slaying and the terms of payment with the Greenwill brothers. And prosecutors asserted that DonnaÊs motive was to gain more than $250,000 in life insurance that Dennis had bought. Lenore Walker, a psychologist and expert on battered wifeÊs syndrome who testified on DonnaÊs behalf, said women in DonnaÊs situation feel so terrorized they turn to others they perceive as having power and plead for their help. It is often an unfortunate circumstance because, later, these women may face conspiracy to commit murder charges. Juries have been notably less lenient in deciding conspiracy cases, according to Lenore Walker, author of Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. The Yaklich case is included among the case histories presented in the Walker book. On May 23, 1988, a Pueblo jury acquitted Donna of first-degree murder but convicted her of conspiracy. Her attorneys, Stanley Marks and Richard Hostetler, believed DonnaÊs sentence would be light. Contrary to what her attorneys had predicted, District Court Judge Jack Seavy handed Donna a 40-year sentence. Decades later, after she had served 20 years of her sentence, DonnaÊs story inspired an investigation into the death of DennisÊs first wife, Barbara, who had died at the age of 35. Her death was attributed to a diet drug overdose. A special task force was assembled, but investigators found that while Barbara died under suspicious circumstances, there was no proof that she had been killed by Dennis. Meanwhile, DonnaÊs case brought national headlines along with a documentary on the Oxygen Network series, Snapped, and a 1994 made-for-TV movie, Cries Unheard: The Donna Yaklich Story, starring CharlieÊs Angels star Jaclyn Smith. In 2006, she was transferred to a community-based, residential treatment center after serving less than 20 years in prison. She was released from custody in December, 2010. Resources Delaney, Ted. May 13, 1988. Yaklich relates stories of abuse at husbandÊs hand. Gazette, Colorado Springs. Delaney, Ted. May 14, 1988. Yaklich: HusbandÊs death was „mistake‰·No other way out, she says. Gazette, Colorado Springs. Delaney, Ted. July 30, 1988. Sentence squelches qualified victory. Gazette, Colorado Springs. Walker, Lenore. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper Collins.

Susan Abram

Andrea Yates (1964–) The Andrea (Kennedy) Yates murder trial, appeal, and subsequent second trial stirred controversy and drew renewed attention to the behaviors of people who

Andrea Yates | 647

are mentally ill, particularly women who develop postpartum depression, or in the Yates case, postpartum psychosis. Both are mental disorders that may occur in some women after giving birth. Andrea was born on July 2, 1964, in Houston, Texas. In high school, she was captain of the swim team, an officer in the National Honor Society, and valedictorian of her 1982 graduating class. After high school, Andrea attended the University of Houston, where she completed a two-year nursing program. She went on to obtain her registered nursing license from the University of Texas, School of Nursing in Houston. Upon graduIn 2006, Andrea Yates, left, who has admitted drowning her five children in a ation, Andrea worked as a registered nurse bathtub at the family home, arrives at the at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Harris County Criminal Justice Center Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994. Andrea with Mary Parnham, wife of her defense met her future husband, Rusty, in 1989 when attorney George Parnham. Yates’s de- they were both 25. They married in 1993 fense attorney asked for a delay in the and „planned on having as many children start of the capital murder retrial for the 2001 bathtub drowning deaths of her as nature provided‰ (Montaldo, n.d., Andrea Meets Rusty Yates). children. (AP/Wide World Photos) Their first child, Noah, was born in February 1994. John, their second child, was born in December 1995. After JohnÊs birth, Andrea Yates began to withdraw from people. She became reclusive. She stopped jogging and swimming. In 1996, Rusty accepted a job in Florida. The family moved to Seminole, Florida and lived in a 38-foot travel trailer. Andrea got pregnant while in Florida, but miscarried. In 1997, they returned to Houston, Texas, living in their trailer until RustyÊs parents and inlaws persuaded him to move to a bigger home. Rusty purchased a 350 square foot, renovated bus from a traveling minister who preached „the role of women is derived from the sin of Eve and that bad mothers who are going to hell create bad children who will go to hell‰ (Montaldo, n.d., Michael Woroniecki). Andrea embraced the ministerÊs sermons. Paul, their third child, was born in September 1997, and Luke, their fourth, was born in February 1999. On June 16, 1999, Rusty was at work when he received a phone call from Andrea who begged him to come home. When he arrived, Andrea was shaking and chewing on her fingers. The next day, after Andrea had taken an overdose of pills, Rusty took her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with major depression and admitted. Her doctor halted her antipsychotic drugs and sent her home after only marginal improvement on June 24, 1999. At the insistence of AndreaÊs parents, Rusty purchased

648 |

Andrea Yates

a house. Andrea had viewed her life on the bus as failing herself and her children. In the new home, Andrea began to return to the activities she enjoyed·swimming, cooking, and socializing. Rusty wanted another child; he ignored warnings from AndreaÊs last doctor that additional pregnancies might trigger the psychotic behavior again. Andrea stopped taking birth control medication, and on November 30, 2000, Mary, their fifth child was born. On March 12, 2001, AndreaÊs father died and her mental state began to collapse. She frantically read the Bible, stopped talking, and began mutilating herself. She would not feed their newborn. On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in the bathtub. She called 911 first and then Rusty, who was at work at the time. „ ÂItÊs time. I finally did it,Ê she said before telling him to come home and then hanging up. Rusty called back to ask what happened. ÂItÊs the kids,Ê she said. He asked which of the five and she responded, ÂAll of themÊ ‰ (Berryman et. al., 2006, para. 4). AndreaÊs 2002 trial lasted three weeks. The jury found her guilty of capital murder and sentenced her to life in prison. After an appeal, a second trial convened in 2006. AndreaÊs attorneys argued that severe postpartum psychosis and a delusional state, in which Andrea believed that Satan was inside her, caused her to believe that killing the children would save them. They also noted that AndreaÊs family has a history of mental illness. The jury in this second trial found Yates „not guilty by reason of insanity.‰ She was committed to a state mental hospital in Texas. YatesÊs crime, trial, and verdict, though not the first of its kind, „underlies . . . the dramatic chasm that divides public perceptions and myths about mental illness from what psychiatrists and other experts know to be its reality‰ (Colb 2002, 1). Societal reaction to the Yates verdict of „not guilty by reason of insanity‰ remains split. Those who feel that Yates is morally responsible for her crime of infanticide believe that she should have received life in prison at the least. Those who understand the scientific and medical implications of severe major depression believe that someone who is clinically diagnosed with a mental disorder should not be subject to the same punishment as someone who is not. Still, they recognize that proving mental illness, especially postpartum psychosis, can be a challenge. Voicing another belief, biblical feminists view Yates as a desperate woman, caught up in a strict, conservative Christian culture in which women carry the sin of Eve (Eggenbroten 2001ă2002, 5). The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that „10 to 15 percent of all mothers become depressed during the first six months after the birth of a child‰ (New York Times 2004). Postpartum psychosis is rare·1 in 500 births·and usually ends, if detected, a few days after giving birth. Yates was at greater risk for prolonged postpartum psychosis because she had prior bouts of depression, had a succession of children, and her family has a history of mental illness. Under Texas law, a „not guilty by reason of insanity‰ verdict requires that a judge review the case annually with jail time no longer than a conviction verdict. Andrea Yates, however, committed a capital murder, and she might spend the rest of her life in confinement.

Lila Young | 649

Public and private mental health organizations have made mental illness a major priority, specifically as it relates to women, but many in our society continue to view persons with mental disorders who commit a crime not as sick people but as criminals. Resources Berryman, A., Fowler, D., Hylton, H., and Fulton, G. (2006, July). The Yates odyssey. Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001706,00.html. CBS News.com (2009). Andrea Yates found not guilty. http://www.cbsnews.com/sto ries/2006/07/26/national/main1837248.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo; videoMetaInfo Colb, Sherry F. (2002, March 27). The Andrea Yates verdict: A nation in denial about mental illness. FindLaw. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020327.html Eggenbroten, A. (2001ă2002). A biblical feminist looks at the Andrea Yates tragedy (electronic version). Newsletter of the Evangelical Ecumenical WomenÊs Caucus, 25, 4. Montaldo, C. (n.d.). Profile of Andrea Yates (Supplemental Material]. About.com Guide. Retrieved from http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health. Why women are more vulnerable to depression than men [Special advertising supplement]. (2004, October 24). New York Times. 2, 5.

Dorothy F. Striplin

Lila Young (ca. 1902–1967) Lila Gladys Young (aka „The Butterbox Baby Killer‰) ran an orphanage with her husband from 1928 until 1945 near Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the east coast of Canada. Although it is not clear exactly how many infant and child deaths she is responsible for, one handyman testified that he remembered burying anywhere from 100 to 125 infants placed in butterboxes on land owned by YoungÊs parents. All children reportedly died from neglect and malnutrition. Although this case is relatively recent, witnesses are difficult to find as many feel that they would incriminate themselves if they were to talk about working conditions at this orphanage. She remains, to this day, CanadaÊs most prolific serial murderer. Lila and William Young opened the Life and Health Sanitarium in their fourroom cottage in East Chester, Nova Scotia, Canada, in 1928. At first, most people agreed that the sanitarium was opened with good intentions. Both Lila and her husband had strong ties to the Seventh-Day Adventist faith, and Lila was said to have a very caring nature. She had a degree from the National School of Obstetrics

650

|

Lila Young

and Midwifery, and he was a graduate of the National School of Chiropractic, both awarded in 1928 during their stay in Chicago. By 1929, the majority of her clients were pregnant women and eventually the name of the sanitarium changed to the Ideal Maternity Home and Sanatorium. Soon Lila began to realize that she could make considerable monies if she sold the children, rather than just giving the children away to a loving home. Children were often sold to couples who wanted children, with some sales to couples in the United States. Laws at the time forbid adoption to families where the child and the adoptive family did not have the same religious background. The Youngs were unconcerned about this stipulation, and many Jewish families were allowed to adopt non-Jewish children, and their lives were spared. Problem children were sold to farmers, often at a discounted rate, to ensure a source of free indebted labor. Those who were not adopted, often because they had slight imperfections, were starved to death on a diet of sugar water and/or molasses, often lasting no more than two weeks. In some cases, women who wanted to keep their children were told their children had taken ill and died if there was a prospective buyer for a child. Those infants who were killed were buried on the property and in the surrounding area in small pine butterboxes provided by the local dairy. By 1933, the business was geared for expansion, with additions made to the original building, and a new home for the Youngs. By 1938, the mortgage had been paid off completely. Women who could not afford birthing services at the home could work off their debt by working at the home until their debt was paid. This ensured a constant source of cheap labor. Although official suspicion began in 1933 with the appointment of Dr. Frank Roy Davis to the Health Portfolio in the local government, the orphanage continued to operate. Interestingly, Lila had developed quite a groundswell of local and political support. It is suspected she was supported by the elite of the community, as well as the poor, as many people had discretely used her services. By 1940, changes in the Maternity Boarding House Act required that maternity homes be licensed. The Ideal Maternity Home applied and was denied. This case holds significance for many reasons. Lila Young ran one of the few examples of a black market adoption agency that existed at this time. Women were charged anywhere from $300 to $500 for birthing services, while adoptive parents made generous „contributions‰ to the Ideal Maternity Home, ranging from $1,000 to $10,000. It is estimated that birthing services for the women generated as much as $60,000 per year. Significantly more money came from the selling of babies to couples who could not have children of their own. It has been estimated that approximately 700 babies were sold at an average price of $5,000 during the operation of the orphanage (an estimated $3.5 million in revenue). This case clearly exhibits the profitability to be found in selling children at that time. Finally, this case highlights the lack of protections for small children and infants prior to World War II. Because of the restrictions on reproductive rights, and

Lila Young | 651

the strong taboos on women having children out of wedlock, the environment for abuses of these stigmatized women and unwanted children was ripe. Women used the YoungsÊ services because Lila Young promised to be discrete. The birth mothers seldom came back to check on the services they had paid or worked for. Further, Lila handled most inquiries about children by stating that they had been adopted or, in some cases, that they had died of illness. These agencies were not regulated, and therefore, finding verification for her claims was difficult. Many of the survivors of this orphanage have banded together to search for other survivors and adoptees. A movie, The Butterbox Babies, was made in 1996, documenting the story of Lila YoungÊs activities, bringing national and international attention to her crimes. Resource Cahill, B. L. (2006). Butterbox babies: Baby sales, baby deaths. New revelations 15 year later. Halifax, NS, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Hannah Scott

This page intentionally left blank

Z Anna Zwanziger (1760–1811) Anna Marie Schonleben in Nuremberg, Germany, in 1760. The death of both parents by the time she was 5 years old left her an orphan. She was moved among relatives after her parentsÊ deaths, but at the age of 10, an affluent male relative became AnnaÊs guardian and made certain that she became educated. When she was 15 however, he introduced Anna to Mr. Zwanziger, a man more than 30-years-old. AnnaÊs guardian forced her to marry this man, against her wishes. Anna Zwanziger gave birth to two children during this marriage, but the marriage was doomed from the start. Her husband spent the majority of his time, and the familyÊs money, on alcohol. Anna Zwanziger attempted suicide twice but failed both times. Because her husband continued to spend the familyÊs money on alcohol, Anna Zwanziger had to find a way to support her family, and prostitution was her solution. Upon her husbandÊs death, when she was 33 years old, Anna Zwanziger began taking on housekeeping and cleaning jobs to meet expenses and maintain a livelihood. It has been asserted that she moved from prostitution to housekeeping because she felt the latter employers might be more suitable as future partners. In her mid-forties, Anna Zwanziger became determined to find a second husband. She secured a job with a Bavarian judge named Glaser who was separated from his wife. Though her role was that of housekeeper and cook for the judge, she considered him a potential spouse. Viewing the estranged wife as a threat, Zwanziger lured the wife back to the house and began poisoning her tea with large doses of arsenic, an easily accessible substance at that time. When the judge did not propose to Zwanziger, even after his wifeÊs death, Zwanziger began poisoning guests who came to his home. Judge Glaser eventually began questioning ZwanzigerÊs meals and continued to lack interest in her sexually. Anna Zwanziger consequently decided to leave his residence to for a job with another legal professional. Still seeking a second husband, Anna Zwanziger discovered that her new employer, Judge Grohmann, already had a fiancée. Believing herself once again to have been rejected by her male employer, Anna Zwanziger decided to ensure that he would marry no one else. This time, however, rather than looking at potential 653

654 |

Anna Zwanziger

recipients of his affection, she targeted him. Using arsenic again, she began poisoning GrohmannÊs food and drink. He ultimately died, but because he had frequently suffered from gout, the authorities decreed his death to be from „natural causes.‰ Zwanziger was, consequently, free to continue killing. In a third household, she worked as a nurse for Judge Gebhard, a man seeking a caretaker for his sickly wife who had just given birth. Anna Zwanziger began poisoning GebhardÊs wife, assuming he would desire Anna once his wife was gone. Again, arsenic was her weapon of choice. Although GebhardÊs wife accused Anna of poisoning her, no one believed her and she died a horrible death, as had her other victims. When Gebhard then failed to show Anna Zwanziger attention, she began poisoning others in the household. Soon anyone who visited the home was poisoned, as well as several of GebhardÊs other servants. Ultimately, Judge Gebhard noticed an odd white substance in the bottom of his drink and became suspicious of Zwanziger. He immediately asked Zwanziger to leave his employ. Zwanziger was furious at how she was being treated. Before leaving the Gebhard home, she went to the kitchen and put large amounts of arsenic into the coffee, salt, and sugar jars. Then, she gave GebhardÊs baby an arsenic-infused biscuit to chew on; the child also became ill and died. Because of his continuing suspicions, Judge Gebhard had his kitchen foods and staples tested. The test revealed arsenic. However, Anna Zwanziger had disappeared. On October 18, 1809, she was located and arrested with a packet of arsenic in her pocket. During her trial, which lasted for months, she steadfastly maintained her innocence in the deaths of her past employers and/or their family members. However, when the police exhumed the bodies of Mrs. Glaser and Judge Grohmann, arsenic was found, and Anna Zwanziger finally admitted to murder. Her motive: „She couldnÊt bear to look at their healthy, happy faces and wanted to see them writhe in pain‰ (Davis, 2001). Though not all of her poisoning victims died, she was successful in killing four people, including an infant. She also stated that if she had not been caught, she would have continued killing. The courts, however, denied her any future opportunities; she was beheaded in July 1811. Prior to her execution, Anna Zwanziger confessed that she enjoyed poisoning people. For her, using arsenic to kill was not for vengeance but had, instead, become a source of pleasure. She even admitted that, like a drug, she was unable to resist the urge to poison, and she agreed that her own death was the only way to stop her addiction. Resource Davis, Carol Anne. 2001. Women Who Kill. London: Allison & Busby Limited.

Devon Thacker Thomas

APPENDICES: STATISTICS AND REPORTS ON WOMEN AND CRIME

In the following appendices, statistics from the FBI and the Bureau of Justice provide information on these topics: (a) arrests of women and girls, including trends by sex (gender) from the most recent figures through 2009; (b) gender of offenders according to victims for personal crimes of violence; and (c) numbers of prisoners by gender and incarceration rates, and death penalty imposed on women who have been sentenced for execution. Following these tables is a report, „Death Penalty for Female Offenders. January 1, 1973, Through October 31, 2010,‰ by Victor Streib, which provides additional material that summarizes the most current information on the execution and case status of women who have been sentenced to death. The statistics presented here represent summary data that provide the best available summary of the picture of womenÊs offending. It is crucial to understand the origins of many of these data in order to assess what one is seeing and to make appropriate conclusions. Each picture of gender and offending is slightly different and has its strengths and weaknesses. The reader is cautioned to make conclusions that are appropriate to what the data show and do not show.

655

A. ARRESTS TABLE A.1

Ten-Year Arrest Trends, by Sex, 2000–2009

[8,649 agencies; 2009 estimated population 186,864,905; 2000 estimated population 172,176,040] Male

Female

Total

Under 18

Total

Under 18

2000

2009

Percent change

2000

2009

Percent change

2000

2009

Percent change

2000

2009

6,491,372

6,174,287

−4.9

1,047,690

807,818

−22.9

1,874,217

2,087,303

+11.4

407,526

354,012

−13.1

6,755

6,437

−4.7

576

599

+4.0

844

756

−10.4

80

53

−33.8

Forcible rape

16,139

12,469

−22.7

2,652

1,792

−32.4

169

148

−12.4

22

28

+27.3

Robbery

58,443

67,906

+16.2

14,861

17,342

+16.7

6,663

9,384

+40.8

1,532

1,994

+30.2

Aggravated assault

240,528

209,078

−13.1

31,550

22,685

−28.1

60,787

58,236

−4.2

9,583

7,247

−24.4

Burglary

151,244

159,017

+5.1

51,950

40,897

−21.3

23,497

29,764

+26.7

7,013

5,740

−18.2

Larceny-theft

454,947

451,750

−0.7

146,160

106,852

−26.9

258,379

354,854

+37.3

85,599

90,011

+5.2

67,551

38,987

−42.3

23,314

9,412

−59.6

12,558

8,486

−32.4

4,802

1,942

−59.6

8,820

6,432

−27.1

4,922

3,138

−36.2

1,556

1,300

−16.5

662

477

−27.9

321,865

295,890

−8.1

49,639

42,418

−14.5

68,463

68,524

+0.1

11,217

9,322

−16.9

Property crime

682,562

656,186

−3.9

226,346

160,299

−29.2

295,990

394,404

+33.2

98,076

98,170

+0.1

Other assaults

590,790

592,155

+0.2

98,731

88,631

−10.2

179,874

211,334

+17.5

43,968

46,494

+5.7

40,765

31,152

−23.6

2,746

889

−67.6

26,468

18,840

−28.8

1,398

388

−72.2

116,447

78,550

−32.5

3,871

2,637

−31.9

100,219

61,385

−38.7

2,003

1,454

−27.4

6,207

5,743

−7.5

686

224

−67.3

6,249

6,013

−3.8

638

169

−73.5

62,320

52,247

−16.2

15,179

9,670

−36.3

13,151

14,057

+6.9

2,812

2,320

−17.5

Offense charged TOTALa Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

656

Motor vehicle theft Arson b

Violent crime

b

Forgery and counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

Percent change

Vandalism

143,680

133,421

−7.1

62,404

48,203

−22.8

26,230

29,090

+10.9

8,863

7,554

−14.8

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

86,024

90,182

+4.8

20,096

18,553

−7.7

7,614

8,040

+5.6

2,287

2,143

−6.3

Prostitution and commercialized vice

18,886

11,639

−38.4

332

167

−49.7

25,779

25,757

−0.1

397

624

+57.2

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)

50,319

42,609

−15.3

10,103

7,061

−30.1

3,831

4,019

+4.9

745

738

−0.9

Drug abuse violations

771,170

806,669

+4.6

102,909

86,857

−15.6

167,968

189,039

+12.5

18,757

16,800

−10.4

3,984

2,877

−27.8

431

304

−29.5

584

482

−17.5

27

8

−70.4

67,421

53,001

−21.4

3,029

1,701

−43.8

18,828

17,574

−6.7

1,738

988

−43.2

Driving under the influence

734,872

651,424

−11.4

10,500

6,033

−42.5

144,794

190,445

+31.5

2,183

2,052

−6.0

Liquor laws

311,989

244,047

−21.8

66,585

41,879

−37.1

94,783

96,795

+2.1

30,753

25,980

−15.5

Drunkenness

363,705

331,804

−8.8

11,406

7,381

−35.3

56,312

66,608

+18.3

2,846

2,456

−13.7

Disorderly conduct

280,158

257,713

−8.0

69,814

61,616

−11.7

89,049

96,319

+8.2

29,020

31,138

+7.3

13,151

13,189

+0.3

1,287

824

−36.0

3,721

3,628

−2.5

360

223

−38.1

1,720,089

1,746,701

+1.5

186,628

145,383

−22.1

460,661

530,612

+15.2

65,789

50,653

−23.0

2,757

958

−65.3

575

119

−79.3

696

335

−51.9

174

33

−81.0

Curfew and loitering law violations

67,275

50,288

−25.3

67,275

50,288

−25.3

30,078

21,915

−27.1

30,078

21,915

−27.1

Runaways

37,693

26,800

−28.9

37,693

26,800

−28.9

53,571

32,423

−39.5

53,571

32,423

−39.5

Gambling Offenses against the family and children

657

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion

a

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 33. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_33.html.

TABLE A.2

Five-Year Arrest Trends, by Sex, 2005–2009

[9,651 agencies; 2009 estimated population 192,575,487; 2005 estimated population 186,517,601] Male

Female

Total

Under 18

Total

Under 18

2005

2009

Percent change

2005

2009

Percent change

2005

2009

Percent change

2005

2009

Percent change

7,387,112

6,999,896

−5.2

1,072,951

933,186

−13.0

2,328,402

2,360,522

+1.4

448,722

404,317

−9.9

8,179

7,471

−8.7

756

747

−1.2

1,005

869

−13.5

88

56

−36.4

Forcible rape

17,066

14,289

−16.3

2,684

2,134

−20.5

212

172

−18.9

56

38

−32.1

Robbery

70,325

76,306

+8.5

18,661

20,105

+7.7

8,865

10,233

+15.4

1,951

2,216

+13.6

Aggravated assault

245,046

225,292

−8.1

32,669

25,695

−21.3

64,094

62,273

−2.8

10,041

8,071

−19.6

Burglary

174,890

176,704

+1.0

48,636

46,194

−5.0

29,738

31,558

+6.1

6,366

6,105

−4.1

Larceny-theft

489,368

517,082

+5.7

121,909

122,850

+0.8

311,727

405,250

+30.0

89,047

103,184

+15.9

82,705

46,703

−43.5

22,048

11,775

−46.6

17,515

9,959

−43.1

4,527

2,382

−47.4

9,770

7,142

−26.9

5,035

3,406

−32.4

1,940

1,457

−24.9

802

516

−35.7

340,616

323,358

−5.1

54,770

48,681

−11.1

74,176

73,547

−0.8

12,136

10,381

−14.5

Property crime

756,733

747,631

−1.2

197,628

184,225

−6.8

360,920

448,224

+24.2

100,742

112,187

+11.4

Other assaults

677,259

665,940

−1.7

116,749

99,969

−14.4

222,433

234,696

+5.5

57,700

51,608

−10.6

48,539

35,015

−27.9

2,002

1,012

−49.5

32,429

21,226

−34.5

949

419

−55.8

120,597

84,764

−29.7

3,619

2,934

−18.9

101,738

65,647

−35.5

1,933

1,579

−18.3

6,560

6,159

−6.1

461

239

−48.2

6,631

6,459

−2.6

365

192

−47.4

70,996

55,717

−21.5

12,626

10,406

−17.6

16,629

13,148

−20.9

2,307

2,013

−12.7

Offense charged TOTALa Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

658

Motor vehicle theft Arson b

Violent crime

b

Forgery and counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

Vandalism

163,956

156,806

−4.4

64,250

55,650

−13.4

33,741

34,394

+1.9

10,253

8,834

−13.8

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

121,704

104,946

−13.8

28,398

21,500

−24.3

10,739

9,119

−15.1

3,405

2,457

−27.8

Prostitution and commercialized vice

17,924

13,105

−26.9

275

197

−28.4

32,953

27,709

−15.9

741

675

−8.9

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)

56,144

47,954

−14.6

10,627

8,307

−21.8

5,109

4,368

−14.5

1,092

953

−12.7

1,022,878

930,152

−9.1

111,771

102,338

−8.4

242,534

212,255

−12.5

22,852

19,086

−16.5

6,524

6,231

−4.5

1,358

1,223

−9.9

567

586

+3.4

31

18

−41.9

68,478

60,511

−11.6

2,415

1,976

−18.2

22,007

20,091

−8.7

1,547

1,117

−27.8

Driving under the influence

744,389

733,761

−1.4

9,497

6,976

−26.5

178,347

214,911

+20.5

2,704

2,330

−13.8

Liquor laws

301,462

280,477

−7.0

57,358

48,804

−14.9

109,796

114,805

+4.6

32,370

30,884

−4.6

Drunkenness

323,717

347,376

+7.3

8,218

7,492

−8.8

58,915

70,203

+19.2

2,591

2,573

−0.7

Disorderly conduct

346,952

327,950

−5.5

96,322

77,679

−19.4

122,695

119,782

−2.4

46,095

38,263

−17.0

18,620

16,445

−11.7

1,160

817

−29.6

5,310

4,131

−22.2

322

206

−36.0

2,070,416

1,972,015

−4.8

190,799

169,178

−11.3

613,711

605,969

−1.3

71,565

59,290

−17.2

2,114

971

−54.1

226

119

−47.3

362

381

+5.2

102

35

−65.7

Curfew and loitering law violations

67,831

54,080

−20.3

67,831

54,080

−20.3

29,101

23,599

−18.9

29,101

23,599

−18.9

Runaways

34,817

29,503

−15.3

34,817

29,503

−15.3

47,921

35,653

−25.6

47,921

35,653

−25.6

Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against the family and children

659

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion

a

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 35. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_35.html.

TABLE A.3

Current Year Over Previous Year Arrest Trends, by Sex, 2008–2009

[11,310 agencies; 2009 estimated population 224,035,573; 2008 estimated population 222,163,484] Male

Female

Total Offense charged TOTALa

2008

2009

7,640,534 7,394,270

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

Under 18

Total

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

−3.2

1,079,484

976,538

−9.5

2008

2009

2,510,670 2,514,440

Under 18 Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

+0.2

467,876

432,979

−7.5

8,113

7,723

−4.8

815

737

−9.6

974

931

−4.4

61

60

−1.6

Forcible rape

15,808

14,906

−5.7

2,359

2,189

−7.2

189

187

−1.1

38

40

+5.3

Robbery

82,549

79,722

−3.4

22,491

19,908

−11.5

11,026

10,898

−1.2

2,349

2,267

−3.5

660

Aggravated assault

249,642

244,031

−2.2

30,759

27,123

−11.8

68,590

68,412

−0.3

9,575

8,918

−6.9

Burglary

194,315

186,328

−4.1

54,136

48,423

−10.6

33,571

32,995

−1.7

7,652

6,341

−17.1

Larceny-theft

548,430

550,408

+0.4

135,022

129,359

−4.2

390,535

430,794

+10.3

107,706

109,283

+1.5

57,144

47,126

−17.5

14,220

11,264

−20.8

11,913

10,239

−14.1

2,705

2,334

−13.7

8,891

7,464

−16.0

4,321

3,527

−18.4

1,670

1,505

−9.9

605

529

−12.6

356,112

346,382

−2.7

56,424

49,957

−11.5

80,779

80,428

−0.4

12,023

11,285

−6.1

Property crime

808,780

791,326

−2.2

207,699

192,573

−7.3

437,689

475,533

+8.6

118,668

118,487

−0.2

Other assaults

696,537

699,135

+0.4

110,518

103,892

−6.0

241,577

247,510

+2.5

57,566

54,546

−5.2

Forgery and counterfeiting

41,312

38,200

−7.5

1,305

1,101

−15.6

25,702

23,125

−10.0

659

467

−29.1

Fraud

98,149

90,429

−7.9

3,634

3,101

−14.7

78,205

69,760

−10.8

1,950

1,682

−13.7

7,616

6,487

−14.8

549

259

−52.8

8,240

6,728

−18.3

403

201

−50.1

66,123

61,491

−7.0

12,799

11,488

−10.2

17,005

16,129

−5.2

2,960

2,677

−9.6

Vandalism

173,154

162,543

−6.1

68,134

57,864

−15.1

35,798

35,661

−0.4

10,606

9,186

−13.4

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

117,737

109,084

−7.3

25,944

22,091

−14.9

9,682

9,577

−1.1

2,772

2,580

−6.9

Motor vehicle theft Arson Violent crimeb b

Embezzlement Stolen property; buying, receiving, .possessing

Prostitution and commercialized vice

15,234

14,507

−4.8

263

203

−22.8

31,431

29,832

−5.1

756

690

−8.7

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)

52,437

50,862

−3.0

9,570

8,913

−6.9

4,852

4,772

−1.6

1,021

1,042

+2.1

961,288

941,094

−2.1

104,916

101,001

−3.7

223,523

219,109

−2.0

20,322

19,624

−3.4

3,091

3,548

+14.8

375

436

+16.3

477

592

+24.1

21

13

−38.1

64,462

60,878

−5.6

2,759

2,194

−20.5

21,812

20,787

−4.7

1,573

1,238

−21.3

Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against the family and children Driving under the influence

835,121

812,236

−2.7

8,724

7,736

−11.3

228,819

236,698

+3.4

2,824

2,540

−10.1

Liquor laws

332,096

305,560

−8.0

61,187

52,654

−13.9

130,202

125,468

−3.6

37,254

33,338

−10.5

Drunkenness

387,855

368,958

−4.9

8,945

7,866

−12.1

75,640

73,872

−2.3

2,906

2,668

−8.2

Disorderly conduct

360,391

345,338

−4.2

91,385

81,531

−10.8

132,544

129,193

−2.5

45,204

40,959

−9.4

18,151

18,552

+2.2

2,179

1,479

−32.1

5,380

5,087

−5.4

874

578

−33.9

2,140,820 2,076,130

−3.0

198,107

178,669

−9.8

645,273

639,443

−0.9

71,474

64,042

−10.4

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) 661

Suspicion

930

1,051

+13.0

139

131

−5.8

262

393

+50.0

45

36

−20.0

Curfew and loitering law violations

69,138

59,650

−13.7

69,138

59,650

−13.7

31,688

26,487

−16.4

31,688

26,487

−16.4

Runaways

34,930

31,880

−8.7

34,930

31,880

−8.7

44,352

38,649

−12.9

44,352

38,649

−12.9

a

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 37. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_37.html.

TABLE A.4

Arrests. Females, by Age, 2009

[12,371 agencies; 2009 estimated population 239,839,971]

Offense charged TOTAL

Total all Ages Ages Ages 18 Under ages under 15 under 18 and over 10

10–12

23,046 104,042

1,795

15

16

17

18

2,714,361

128,883

a

Total percent distribution

100.0

4.7

17.0

83.0

0.1

0.8

3.8

3.6

4.3

4.4

4.8

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

1,020

8

69

951

1

1

6

9

29

23

35

Forcible rape

460,927 2,253,434

13–14

96,462 115,385 120,197

130,097

208

23

45

163

1

7

15

9

7

6

7

Robbery

11,919

547

2,523

9,396

0

64

483

544

669

763

885

Aggravated assault

72,905

3,056

9,747

63,158

45

634

2,377

2,074

2,346

2,271

2,556

Burglary Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson Violent crimeb Violent crime percent distributiona Property crimeb Property crime percent distributiona Other assaults

35,109

1,945

6,863

28,246

58

395

1,492

1,456

1,591

1,871

2,243

463,508

30,641

116,330

347,178

379

6,068

24,194

22,811

29,867

33,011

33,258

11,408

683

2,646

8,762

3

60

620

664

687

612

602

1,617

308

552

1,065

15

87

206

108

81

55

45

86,052

3,634

12,384

73,668

47

706

2,881

2,636

3,051

3,063

3,483

100.0

4.2

14.4

85.6

0.1

0.8

3.3

3.1

3.5

3.6

4.0

511,642

33,577

126,391

385,251

455

6,610

26,512

25,039

32,226

35,549

36,148

100.0

6.6

24.7

75.3

0.1

1.3

5.2

4.9

6.3

6.9

7.1

269,736

21,327

59,135

210,601

284

4,478

16,565

12,320

13,396

12,092

10,316

Forgery and counterfeiting

25,425

57

504

24,921

3

11

43

75

105

267

746

Fraud

69,393

293

1,762

67,631

14

36

243

267

455

747

1,437

Embezzlement

7,177

9

203

6,974

0

1

8

12

54

128

332

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

17,300

711

2,811

14,489

13

120

578

611

696

793

937

Vandalism

38,504

3,814

9,782

28,722

119

1,013

2,682

1,761

2,079

2,128

2,083

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

10,511

1,112

2,767

7,744

54

266

792

492

588

575

501

Prostitution and commercialized vice

39,437

82

844

38,593

2

1

79

175

220

367

1,383

5,337

528

1,109

4,228

26

136

366

220

179

182

249

242,414

4,142

21,002

221,412

23

481

3,638

3,874

5,337

7,649

12,181

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) Drug abuse violations Gambling

904

1

38

866

0

0

1

5

13

19

42

Offenses against the family and children

22,332

354

1,295

21,037

12

74

268

322

293

326

497

Driving under the influence

251,695

70

2,668

249,027

10

6

54

134

604

1,860

5,169

Liquor laws

128,132

3,952

34,049

94,083

26

326

3,600

5,696

9,595

14,806

24,297

662

19

20

21

22

134,691 124,382 108,434

23

24

99,536

95,009

25–29

30–34

35–39

40–44

45–49

89,849 381,314 275,486 240,329 215,857 179,511

65 and over

50–54

55–59

60–64

99,500

42,964

18,592

17,883

5.0

4.6

4.0

3.7

3.5

3.3

14.0

10.1

8.9

8.0

6.6

3.7

1.6

0.7

0.7

46

44

61

44

36

42

173

128

82

108

70

46

18

10

8

9

13

13

3

8

7

31

16

21

17

8

5

5

0

0

785

679

581

543

501

429

1,709

1,028

811

685

461

200

66

21

12

2,765

2,911

2,931

2,749

2,725

2,630

11,314

8,395

7,161

6,526

5,362

3,014

1,206

508

405

2,059

1,764

1,629

1,312

1,259

1,131

5,062

3,511

2,843

2,289

1,712

840

360

138

94

27,879

22,513

18,630

15,949

14,607

13,638

54,579

37,902

31,140

27,010

22,653

14,036

7,029

3,525

2,830

534

513

426

428

403

375

1,796

1,210

938

733

488

212

66

22

16

48

35

32

43

30

35

174

124

108

124

135

62

36

15

19

3,605

3,647

3,586

3,339

3,270

3,108

13,227

9,567

8,075

7,336

5,901

3,265

1,295

539

425

4.2

4.2

4.2

3.9

3.8

3.6

15.4

11.1

9.4

8.5

6.9

3.8

1.5

0.6

0.5

30,520

24,825

20,717

17,732

16,299

15,179

61,611

42,747

35,029

30,156

24,988

15,150

7,491

3,700

2,959

6.0

4.9

4.0

3.5

3.2

3.0

12.0

8.4

6.8

5.9

4.9

3.0

1.5

0.7

0.6

10,355

10,458

10,526

9,927

9,335

8,824

37,207

27,107

23,860

20,783

16,537

8,694

3,731

1,640

1,301

1,066

1,223

1,102

1,037

1,049

1,099

5,088

4,003

3,102

2,414

1,635

848

319

137

53

1,896

2,290

2,166

2,254

2,236

2,320

12,287

10,779

10,186

8,093

5,438

3,183

1,577

837

652

488

388

378

332

278

296

1,125

873

779

628

489

321

152

72

43

891

820

788

751

686

630

2,844

1,974

1,490

1,232

820

384

152

57

33

1,958

1,728

1,746

1,561

1,362

1,307

5,145

3,351

2,723

2,253

1,866

944

381

176

138

443

445

422

390

378

345

1,409

922

728

657

529

295

158

65

57

1,932

1,946

1,817

1,731

1,617

1,409

6,275

4,779

5,136

4,947

3,579

1,529

393

91

29

266

241

193

185

168

176

670

526

500

422

342

153

84

37

16

13,113

12,225

11,381

10,186

9,867

9,333

39,392

26,802

23,166

21,798

18,243

9,145

3,288

935

357

54

68

13

14

13

16

66

54

75

84

102

98

68

54

45

550

633

730

815

895

963

4,558

3,838

3,051

2,080

1,315

658

265

102

87

7,219

8,342

12,713

12,551

12,143

11,083

44,220

29,811

26,618

26,295

25,143

15,186

7,175

3,235

2,124

25,167

19,285

2,253

1,480

1,208

997

3,810

2,952

2,923

3,207

3,332

1,809

797

322

244

(Continued) 663

TABLE A.4

Arrests. Females, by Age, 2009 (Continued)

[12,371 agencies; 2009 estimated population 239,839,971] Offense charged Drunkenness Disorderly conduct Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion

Total all Ages Ages Ages 18 Under ages under 15 under 18 and over 10

10–12

13–14

15

16

17

18

78,141

504

2,814

75,327

13

48

443

545

659

1,106

2,376

139,315

16,744

44,722

94,593

131

3,415

13,198

9,839

9,916

8,223

6,321

5,655

164

601

5,054

0

22

142

169

161

107

293

696,621

17,595

67,793

628,828

336

2,606

14,653

15,020

17,173

18,005

21,289

424

10

39

385

3

1

6

6

10

13

17

Curfew and loitering law violations

27,504

7,442

27,504

−

73

1,042

6,327

6,658

7,460

5,944

−

Runaways

40,710

12,761

40,710

−

151

1,647

10,963

10,586

11,115

6,248

−

a

Because of rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.0.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 40. http://www2.fbi.gov/ ucr/cius2009/data/table_40.html.

664

30–34

20

21

22

23

24

25–29

2,729

2,536

3,407

3,056

2,950

2,628

11,147

8,265

8,405

9,734

9,640

5,463

2,000

692

299

5,512

5,135

5,548

4,780

4,372

3,911

15,507

10,573

9,537

8,647

7,568

4,141

1,722

703

616

314

246

179

123

133

112

547

508

689

695

639

370

138

44

24

26,589

27,879

28,740

27,272

26,728

26,093 115,121

86,014

74,208

64,370

51,383

27,843

11,769

5,152

8,378

24

22

29

20

22

20

58

41

49

26

22

21

9

2

3

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

665

35–39

40–44

45–49

50–54

55–59

60–64

65 and over

19

TABLE A.5

Arrests, by Sex, 2009

[12,371 agencies; 2009 estimated population 239,839,971] Percent distributiona

Number of persons arrested Offense charged a

TOTAL

Total 10,741,157

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery

Male

Female

Percent male

Percent female

Total

Male

Female

8,026,796

2,714,361

74.7

25.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

9,775

8,755

1,020

89.6

10.4

0.1

0.1

*

16,442

16,234

208

98.7

1.3

0.2

0.2

*

100,702

88,783

11,919

88.2

11.8

0.9

1.1

0.4

Aggravated assault

331,372

258,467

72,905

78.0

22.0

3.1

3.2

2.7

Burglary

235,226

200,117

35,109

85.1

14.9

2.2

2.5

1.3

1,060,754

597,246

463,508

56.3

43.7

9.9

7.4

17.1

64,169

52,761

11,408

82.2

17.8

0.6

0.7

0.4

9,509

7,892

1,617

83.0

17.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

458,291

372,239

86,052

81.2

18.8

4.3

4.6

3.2

Property crime

1,369,658

858,016

511,642

62.6

37.4

12.8

10.7

18.8

Other assaults

1,036,754

767,018

269,736

74.0

26.0

9.7

9.6

9.9

67,357

41,932

25,425

62.3

37.7

0.6

0.5

0.9

Larceny-theft 666

Motor vehicle theft Arson Violent crimeb b

Forgery and counterfeiting Fraud

162,243

92,850

69,393

57.2

42.8

1.5

1.2

2.6

Embezzlement

14,097

6,920

7,177

49.1

50.9

0.1

0.1

0.3

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

82,944

65,644

17,300

79.1

20.9

0.8

0.8

0.6

Vandalism

212,981

174,477

38,504

81.9

18.1

2.0

2.2

1.4

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

130,941

120,430

10,511

92.0

8.0

1.2

1.5

0.4

Prostitution and commercialized vice

56,640

17,203

39,437

30.4

69.6

0.5

0.2

1.5

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)

60,422

55,085

5,337

91.2

8.8

0.6

0.7

0.2

Drug abuse violations

1,305,191

1,062,777

242,414

81.4

18.6

12.2

13.2

8,067

7,163

904

88.8

11.2

0.1

0.1

Gambling Offenses against the family and children

8.9 *

87,889

65,557

22,332

74.6

25.4

0.8

0.8

0.8

1,112,384

860,689

251,695

77.4

22.6

10.4

10.7

9.3

Liquor laws

447,496

319,364

128,132

71.4

28.6

4.2

4.0

4.7

Drunkenness

471,727

393,586

78,141

83.4

16.6

4.4

4.9

2.9

Disorderly conduct

518,374

379,059

139,315

73.1

26.9

4.8

4.7

5.1

26,380

20,725

5,655

78.6

21.4

0.2

0.3

0.2

2,946,277

2,249,656

696,621

76.4

23.6

27.4

28.0

25.7

1,517

1,093

424

72.1

27.9

*

*

*

Curfew and loitering law violations

89,733

62,229

27,504

69.3

30.7

0.8

0.8

1.0

Runaways

73,794

33,084

40,710

44.8

55.2

0.7

0.4

1.5

Driving under the influence

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion

667

Note: * = Less than one-tenth of 1 percent. a

Because of rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.0.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 42. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_42.html.

TABLE A.6

Trends, Cities, by Sex, 2008–2009

[8,275 agencies; 2009 estimated population 155,344,295; 2008 estimated population 153,870,093] Male

Female

Total

Under 18

Total

Under 18

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

5,701,583

5,494,797

−3.6

884,010

799,180

−9.6

1,920,138

1,918,882

−0.1

390,761

361,643

−7.5

5,966

5,602

−6.1

647

585

−9.6

692

643

−7.1

51

50

−2.0

Forcible rape

11,449

10,759

−6.0

1,754

1,568

−10.6

127

130

+2.4

29

26

−10.3

Robbery

70,428

67,651

−3.9

19,476

17,227

−11.5

9,543

9,463

−0.8

2,072

2,022

−2.4

Aggravated assault

187,580

182,925

−2.5

24,099

20,994

−12.9

53,480

52,952

−1.0

7,624

6,943

−8.9

Burglary

143,181

137,090

−4.3

41,283

37,659

−8.8

25,783

25,256

−2.0

6,192

5,176

−16.4

Larceny-theft

452,441

456,752

+1.0

115,012

110,192

−4.2

337,948

373,269

+10.5

95,953

97,364

+1.5

42,810

34,687

−19.0

10,992

8,603

−21.7

8,971

7,646

−14.8

2,077

1,791

−13.8

6,659

5,468

−17.9

3,469

2,800

−19.3

1,209

1,097

−9.3

459

418

−8.9

Offense charged TOTALa Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

668

Motor vehicle theft Arson b

Violent crime

275,423

266,937

−3.1

45,976

40,374

−12.2

63,842

63,188

−1.0

9,776

9,041

−7.5

Property crimeb

645,091

633,997

−1.7

170,756

159,254

−6.7

373,911

407,268

+8.9

104,681

104,749

+0.1

Other assaults

528,071

527,055

−0.2

85,150

79,825

−6.3

183,843

187,405

+1.9

45,480

42,753

−6.0

Forgery and counterfeiting

31,655

28,874

−8.8

1,016

864

−15.0

19,376

17,432

−10.0

527

374

−29.0

Fraud

60,122

57,126

−5.0

2,896

2,443

−15.6

43,158

40,072

−7.2

1,519

1,336

−12.0

5,813

4,923

−15.3

447

208

−53.5

6,489

5,182

−20.1

329

159

−51.7

51,202

47,284

−7.7

10,850

9,764

−10.0

13,795

13,152

−4.7

2,644

2,385

−9.8

Embezzlement Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

Vandalism

136,785

127,288

−6.9

55,938

47,005

−16.0

28,410

28,006

−1.4

8,665

7,385

−14.8

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

92,594

85,251

−7.9

21,262

18,225

−14.3

7,584

7,518

−0.9

2,182

2,034

−6.8

Prostitution and commercialized vice

14,126

13,374

−5.3

239

175

−26.8

29,320

27,893

−4.9

692

636

−8.1

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution)

36,710

35,851

−2.3

6,732

6,359

−5.5

3,959

3,759

−5.1

810

775

−4.3

728,856

703,920

−3.4

83,919

80,579

−4.0

165,599

159,104

−3.9

15,882

15,273

−3.8

2,598

2,745

+5.7

337

407

+20.8

354

378

+6.8

17

8

−52.9

Offenses against the family and children

26,378

27,123

+2.8

1,672

1,652

−1.2

13,578

13,673

+0.7

1,111

990

−10.9

Driving under the influence

520,544

495,964

−4.7

5,906

5,221

−11.6

149,511

151,809

+1.5

2,004

1,773

−11.5

Liquor laws

266,182

244,615

−8.1

46,989

40,246

−14.4

103,839

99,472

−4.2

28,540

25,469

−10.8

Drunkenness

334,247

318,915

−4.6

7,789

6,843

−12.1

63,767

62,588

−1.8

2,522

2,315

−8.2

Disorderly conduct

307,347

295,566

−3.8

78,918

70,183

−11.1

113,560

110,385

−2.8

39,255

35,649

−9.2

Drug abuse violations Gambling

669

Vagrancy

16,385

16,361

−0.1

1,955

1,315

−32.7

4,674

4,042

−13.5

784

499

−36.4

1,529,191

1,480,535

−3.2

163,000

147,145

−9.7

467,564

461,498

−1.3

59,336

52,982

−10.7

Suspicion

712

481

−32.4

118

67

−43.2

174

163

−6.3

35

16

−54.3

Curfew and loitering law violations

66,115

56,760

−14.1

66,115

56,760

−14.1

29,954

24,905

−16.9

29,954

24,905

−16.9

Runaways

26,148

24,333

−6.9

26,148

24,333

−6.9

34,051

30,153

−11.4

34,051

30,153

−11.4

All other offenses (except traffic)

a

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 45. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_45.html.

TABLE A.7

Arrest Trends, Metropolitan Counties, by Sex, 2008–2009

[1,195 agencies; 2009 estimated population 47,724,783; 2008 estimated population 47,402,595] Male

Female

Total Offense charged TOTALa Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape

2008

2009

1,355,319

1,320,026

1,605

Under 18 Percent change

2008

2009

−2.6

148,865

135,120

1,520

−5.3

130

116

Total Percent change

Under 18 Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

413,902

+0.2

58,820

54,722

−7.0

194

−7.2

9

8

−11.1

2008

2009

−9.2

413,087

−10.8

209

670

2,946

2,740

−7.0

405

404

−0.2

39

38

−2.6

2

9

+350.0

Robbery

10,584

10,395

−1.8

2,855

2,484

−13.0

1,271

1,222

−3.9

259

231

−10.8

Aggravated assault

46,063

45,200

−1.9

5,380

4,983

−7.4

11,554

11,702

+1.3

1,625

1,637

+0.7

Burglary

35,498

33,831

−4.7

9,483

7,804

−17.7

5,561

5,405

−2.8

1,102

863

−21.7

Larceny-theft

72,528

71,542

−1.4

16,187

15,606

−3.6

42,664

46,532

+9.1

10,220

10,280

+0.6

Motor vehicle theft

10,761

9,362

−13.0

2,473

2,084

−15.7

2,214

1,932

−12.7

471

380

−19.3

1,566

1,400

−10.6

671

553

−17.6

321

296

−7.8

117

88

−24.8

Arson b

61,198

59,855

−2.2

8,770

7,987

−8.9

13,073

13,156

+0.6

1,895

1,885

−0.5

Property crimeb

120,353

116,135

−3.5

28,814

26,047

−9.6

50,760

54,165

+6.7

11,910

11,611

−2.5

Other assaults

116,313

118,572

+1.9

19,397

18,415

−5.1

39,949

41,905

+4.9

9,286

9,184

−1.1

Violent crime

Forgery and counterfeiting

7,166

7,016

−2.1

227

197

−13.2

4,370

4,003

−8.4

93

69

−25.8

24,569

21,306

−13.3

521

507

−2.7

21,774

18,031

−17.2

318

235

−26.1

1,440

1,227

−14.8

94

43

−54.3

1,324

1,167

−11.9

63

39

−38.1

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

11,686

10,944

−6.3

1,561

1,369

−12.3

2,563

2,319

−9.5

251

212

−15.5

Vandalism

25,264

24,495

−3.0

9,132

7,849

−14.0

5,142

5,362

+4.3

1,437

1,337

−7.0

Fraud Embezzlement

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

19,257

17,722

−8.0

3,976

3,296

−17.1

1,645

1,576

−4.2

513

478

−6.8

987

1,032

+4.6

20

24

+20.0

2,018

1,865

−7.6

62

53

−14.5

10,913

10,575

−3.1

1,952

1,795

−8.0

629

715

+13.7

148

180

+21.6

171,242

172,071

+0.5

16,668

16,193

−2.8

41,447

42,448

+2.4

3,314

3,287

−0.8

333

578

+73.6

21

23

+9.5

77

180

+133.8

2

4

+100.0

Offenses against the family and children

28,383

24,699

−13.0

819

378

−53.8

5,860

4,813

−17.9

336

159

−52.7

Driving under the influence

199,271

199,979

+0.4

1,617

1,346

−16.8

51,340

54,515

+6.2

480

423

−11.9

Liquor laws

41,081

38,188

−7.0

9,098

7,950

−12.6

16,505

16,437

−0.4

5,580

5,260

−5.7

Drunkenness

37,416

35,025

−6.4

773

724

−6.3

8,130

7,618

−6.3

248

259

+4.4

Disorderly conduct

36,005

33,814

−6.1

9,304

8,458

−9.1

12,886

12,730

−1.2

4,439

3,975

−10.5

1,568

1,903

+21.4

209

157

−24.9

665

973

+46.3

86

74

−14.0

431,443

416,451

−3.5

26,461

23,923

−9.6

123,445

122,015

−1.2

8,874

8,089

−8.8

147

501

+240.8

10

56

+460.0

68

220

+223.5

7

19

+171.4

Curfew and loitering law violations

2,705

2,607

−3.6

2,705

2,607

−3.6

1,551

1,373

−11.5

1,551

1,373

−11.5

Runaways

6,726

5,832

−13.3

6,726

5,832

−13.3

7,934

6,536

−17.6

7,934

6,536

−17.6

Prostitution and commercialized vice Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) Drug abuse violations Gambling

671

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion

a

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 51. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_51.html.

TABLE A.8

Arrest Trends, Nonmetropolitan Counties, by Sex, 2008–2009

[1,840 agencies; 2009 estimated population 20,966,495; 2008 estimated population 20,890,796] Male

Female

Total Offense charged TOTALa Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery

Under 18

Total

Under 18

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

583,632

579,447

−0.7

46,609

42,238

−9.4

177,445

181,656

+2.4

18,295

16,614

−9.2

542

601

+10.9

38

36

−5.3

73

94

+28.8

1

2

+100.0

1,413

1,407

−0.4

200

217

+8.5

23

19

−17.4

7

5

−28.6

672

1,537

1,676

+9.0

160

197

+23.1

212

213

+0.5

18

14

−22.2

Aggravated assault

15,999

15,906

−0.6

1,280

1,146

−10.5

3,556

3,758

+5.7

326

338

+3.7

Burglary

15,636

15,407

−1.5

3,370

2,960

−12.2

2,227

2,334

+4.8

358

302

−15.6

Larceny-theft

23,461

22,114

−5.7

3,823

3,561

−6.9

9,923

10,993

+10.8

1,533

1,639

+6.9

3,573

3,077

−13.9

755

577

−23.6

728

661

−9.2

157

163

+3.8

666

596

−10.5

181

174

−3.9

140

112

−20.0

29

23

−20.7

19,491

19,590

+0.5

1,678

1,596

−4.9

3,864

4,084

+5.7

352

359

+2.0

43,336

41,194

−4.9

8,129

7,272

−10.5

13,018

14,100

+8.3

2,077

2,127

+2.4

52,153

53,508

+2.6

5,971

5,652

−5.3

17,785

18,200

+2.3

2,800

2,609

−6.8

2,491

2,310

−7.3

62

40

−35.5

1,956

1,690

−13.6

39

24

−38.5

13,458

11,997

−10.9

217

151

−30.4

13,273

11,657

−12.2

113

111

−1.8

363

337

−7.2

8

8

0.0

427

379

−11.2

11

3

−72.7

3,235

3,263

+0.9

388

355

−8.5

647

658

+1.7

65

80

+23.1

11,105

10,760

−3.1

3,064

3,010

−1.8

2,246

2,293

+2.1

504

464

−7.9

Motor vehicle theft Arson Violent crimeb Property crime

b

Other assaults Forgery and counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing Vandalism

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc. Prostitution and commercialized vice Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against the family and children Driving under the influence

5,886

6,111

+3.8

706

570

−19.3

453

483

+6.6

77

68

−11.7

121

101

−16.5

4

4

0.0

93

74

−20.4

2

1

−50.0

4,814

4,436

−7.9

886

759

−14.3

264

298

+12.9

63

87

+38.1

61,190

65,103

+6.4

4,329

4,229

−2.3

16,477

17,557

+6.6

1,126

1,064

−5.5

160

225

+40.6

17

6

−64.7

46

34

−26.1

2

1

−50.0

9,701

9,056

−6.6

268

164

−38.8

2,374

2,301

−3.1

126

89

−29.4

673

115,306

116,293

+0.9

1,201

1,169

−2.7

27,968

30,374

+8.6

340

344

+1.2

Liquor laws

24,833

22,757

−8.4

5,100

4,458

−12.6

9,858

9,559

−3.0

3,134

2,609

−16.8

Drunkenness

16,192

15,018

−7.3

383

299

−21.9

3,743

3,666

−2.1

136

94

−30.9

Disorderly conduct

17,039

15,958

−6.3

3,163

2,890

−8.6

6,098

6,078

−0.3

1,510

1,335

−11.6

198

288

+45.5

15

7

−53.3

41

72

+75.6

4

5

+25.0

180,186

179,144

−0.6

8,646

7,601

−12.1

54,264

55,930

+3.1

3,264

2,971

−9.0

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion Curfew and loitering law violations Runaways a

71

69

−2.8

11

8

−27.3

20

10

−50.0

3

1

−66.7

318

283

−11.0

318

283

−11.0

183

209

+14.2

183

209

+14.2

2,056

1,715

−16.6

2,056

1,715

−16.6

2,367

1,960

−17.2

2,367

1,960

−17.2

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 57. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_57.html.

TABLE A.9

Arrest Trends, Suburban Areas, by Sex, 2008–2009

[6,008 agencies; 2009 estimated population 94,512,203; 2008 estimated population 93,792,021] Male

Female

Total Offense charged TOTALa Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape

Under 18

Total

Under 18

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2008

2009

Percent change

2,855,567

2,764,735

−3.2

397,850

361,410

−9.2

932,258

935,325

+0.3

162,412

152,145

−6.3

2,355

2,193

−6.9

200

182

−9.0

295

288

−2.4

14

18

+28.6

5,348

4,984

−6.8

802

797

−0.6

63

67

+6.3

8

15

+87.5

Robbery

21,703

21,796

+0.4

5,896

5,329

−9.6

2,739

2,790

+1.9

537

528

−1.7

Aggravated assault

82,775

81,907

−1.0

10,920

10,246

−6.2

21,627

21,929

+1.4

3,417

3,370

−1.4

Burglary 674

Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson

69,118

66,127

−4.3

19,702

16,871

−14.4

11,018

10,950

−0.6

2,389

1,977

−17.2

194,747

194,848

+0.1

48,941

46,307

−5.4

130,924

145,246

+10.9

34,053

34,614

+1.6

18,428

16,151

−12.4

4,512

3,818

−15.4

3,846

3,510

−8.7

905

779

−13.9

3,613

3,158

−12.6

1,886

1,578

−16.3

618

570

−7.8

263

214

−18.6

112,181

110,880

−1.2

17,818

16,554

−7.1

24,724

25,074

+1.4

3,976

3,931

−1.1

Property crime

285,906

280,284

−2.0

75,041

68,574

−8.6

146,406

160,276

+9.5

37,610

37,584

−0.1

Other assaults

244,098

246,006

+0.8

44,201

41,948

−5.1

86,277

88,761

+2.9

21,852

20,966

−4.1

Violent crimeb b

Forgery and counterfeiting

14,985

14,553

−2.9

505

466

−7.7

9,543

8,838

−7.4

256

171

−33.2

Fraud

44,356

39,896

−10.1

1,370

1,194

−12.8

36,843

31,592

−14.3

740

610

−17.6

2,708

2,306

−14.8

191

75

−60.7

2,775

2,408

−13.2

125

80

−36.0

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing

24,518

23,283

−5.0

4,524

4,139

−8.5

6,148

5,753

−6.4

1,019

926

−9.1

Vandalism

63,615

59,784

−6.0

26,464

22,147

−16.3

12,371

12,191

−1.5

4,125

3,569

−13.5

Embezzlement

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.

37,696

35,083

−6.9

8,997

7,650

−15.0

3,258

3,368

+3.4

1,024

1,047

+2.2

Prostitution and commercialized vice

1,935

1,857

−4.0

58

63

+8.6

3,496

3,181

−9.0

102

88

−13.7

19,448

18,688

−3.9

3,776

3,462

−8.3

1,297

1,357

+4.6

358

389

+8.7

346,821

342,702

−1.2

42,438

41,141

−3.1

83,654

83,694

*

8,804

8,472

−3.8

680

976

+43.5

69

104

+50.7

127

259

+103.9

8

5

−37.5

35,867

32,555

−9.2

1,422

941

−33.8

9,447

8,478

−10.3

720

525

−27.1

Driving under the influence

371,886

362,717

−2.5

3,771

3,277

−13.1

104,185

107,158

+2.9

1,239

1,046

−15.6

Liquor laws

125,109

117,333

−6.2

26,650

23,326

−12.5

51,470

50,741

−1.4

16,194

14,810

−8.5

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against the family and children

675

Drunkenness

115,485

110,265

−4.5

3,399

3,000

−11.7

25,273

24,658

−2.4

1,143

1,110

−2.9

Disorderly conduct

132,422

125,390

−5.3

37,425

33,765

−9.8

47,557

46,945

−1.3

17,142

15,734

−8.2

3,637

3,933

+8.1

498

364

−26.9

1,100

1,419

+29.0

148

138

−6.8

847,782

813,856

−4.0

74,801

66,832

−10.7

256,486

251,617

−1.9

26,006

23,387

−10.1

405

641

+58.3

68

84

+23.5

133

293

+120.3

21

25

+19.0

Curfew and loitering law violations

13,195

12,158

−7.9

13,195

12,158

−7.9

6,431

6,071

−5.6

6,431

6,071

−5.6

Runaways

11,237

10,230

−9.0

11,237

10,230

−9.0

13,390

11,486

−14.2

13,390

11,486

−14.2

Vagrancy All other offenses (except traffic) Suspicion

Note. Suburban areas include law enforcement agencies in cities with less than 50,000 inhabitants and county law enforcement agencies that are within a metropolitan statistical area. Suburban areas exclude all metropolitan agencies associated with a principal city. * = Less than one-tenth of 1 percent. a

Does not include suspicion.

Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. b

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Table 63. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_33.html.

This page intentionally left blank

B. OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO VICTIMIZATION DATA

These tables provide data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (a division of the Department of Justice). The data reflect victimsÊ perceptions of the offenders who victimized them violently. These data include crimes that may not have been known to police, but they are also limited by both victim memory and by victimsÊ willingness to report in the survey that they had been victimized. (For more on victimization see „Victimization and WomenÊs Offending‰ in part 1.)

677

Personal Crimes of Violence, 2007: Percent Distribution of Singleoffender Victimizations, by Type of Crime and Perceived Gender of Offender TABLE B.1

Perceived gender of offender

Type of crime Crimes of violence

Number of single-offender victimizations

Male

Female

Not known and not available

4,074,630

75.6

20.1

4.2

Completed violence

1,171,330

78.5

19.4

2.1*

Attempted/threatened violence

2,903,300

74.5

20.4

5.1*

Rape/sexual assaulta

226,590

94.9

Robbery

297,500

86.3

11.7

2*

208,430

81.6

15.5*

2.9*

Completed/property taken With injury

5.1*

0*

89,950

75.7

21.5*

2.8*

Without injury

118,470

86

11.1*

2.9*

Attempted to take property

89,070

97.4

2.6*

0*

23,100*

89.9*

10.1*

0*

0*

0*

With injury Without injury Assault Aggravated Simple

65,970

100

3,550,540

73.5

21.8

4.7

643,570

83.8

13.3

2.9*

2,906,960

71.3

23.6

5.1

Note: Detail may not add to total shown because of rounding. a

Includes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault.

* Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Filename: cv0738.csv. Table 38. Percent distribution of singleoffender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived gender of offender. Data source: National Criminal Victimization Survey, 2007 NCJ 227669. Produced by: Cathy Maston. Authors: Patsy Klaus and Cathy Maston. Data of version: 02/03/10.

678

Personal Crimes of Violence, 2007: Percent Distribution of Multipleoffender Victimizations, by Type of Crime and Perceived Gender of Offenders TABLE B.2

Perceived gender of offenders Number of multiple-offender victimizations

All male

All female

Male and female

Not known and not available

937,200

69.10

10.30

13.10

7.50

Completed violence

365,130

72.3

13.3

9.8

4.6b

Attempted/threatened violence

572,070

67.1

8.5

15.1

9.4

Rape/sexual assaulta

8,310b

100b

0b

0b

0b

273,640

82.4

8.1b

5.7b

3.8b

Completed/property taken

213,030

78.6

9.2b

7.4b

4.8b

With injury

70,600

79.4

20.6b

0b

0b

b

b

Type of crime Crimes of violence

Robbery

Without injury

142,420

78.2

3.6

11

7.2b

Attempted to take property

60,610

95.7

4.3b

0b

0b

With injury

20,330b

0b

0b

0b

b

100b

40,270

93.6

6.4

0

0b

655,240

63.2

11.4b

16.3

9.2

Aggravated

183,180

65.3

3.9b

23.5

7.4b

Simple

472,060

62.3

14.3

13.5

9.9

Without injury Assault

b

Note: Detail may not add to total shown because of rounding. a

Includes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault.

b

Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Filename: cv0744.csv. Table 44. Personal crimes of violence, 2007: Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived gender of offenders. Data source: National Criminal Victimization Survey, 2007 NCJ 227669 Produced by: Cathy Maston. Authors: Patsy Klaus and Cathy Maston. Data of version: 02/03/10.

679

C. GENDER, PRISONERS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY

These tables, adapted from the Bureau of Justice StatisticsÊ report „National Prisoner Statistics,‰ concern both incarceration and the death penalty and provide a specific look at gender and sentencing. Those who are incarcerated are a small proportion of those who commit crimes, and there are demonstrated patterns in the kinds of persons who are more likely to receive correctional sentences than others. (See „Criminal Justice System and Women: Corrections and Correctional Issues‰ in part 1.) These data provide a census of both rate (adjusted for population) and raw numbers of those who are in correctional facilities and sentenced to death.

680

Females Prisoners under the Jurisdiction of State or Federal Correctional Authorities, by Jurisdiction, December 31, 2000, 2007, and 2008 TABLE C.1

Number of female prisoners December 31, 2000

Average annual Percent percent change, change, 2000–2007 2007–2008

December 31, 2007

December 31, 2008

93,234

114,505

114,852

3

0.3

Federal

10,245

13,338

13,273

3.8

−0.5

State

82,989

101,167

101,579

2.9

0.4

9,082

9,694

9,844

0.9

1,406

1,496

1,502

0.9

Region and jurisdiction U.S. total

Northeast Connecticut a Maine

0.4

66

139

156

11.2

12.2

Massachusetts

663

790

751

2.5

−4.9

New Hampshire

120

202

234

7.7

15.8

New Jersey

1,650

1,410

1,299

−2.2

−7.9

New York

3,280

2,754

2,587

−2.5

−6.1

Pennsylvania

1,579

2,463

2,954

6.6

19.9

238

282

243

2.5

−13.8

Rhode Island Vermont

a

a

80

158

118

10.2

−25.3

14,598

17,929

17,741

3

−1

Illinois

2,849

2,824

2,721

−0.1

−3.6

Indiana

1,452

2,295

2,493

6.8

8.6

Iowab

592

717

749

2.8

4.5

Kansas

504

625

569

3.1

−9

Michigan

2,131

2,080

1,957

−0.3

−5.9

Minnesota

368

602

628

7.3

4.3

Missouri

1,993

2,522

2,449

3.4

−2.9

Nebraska

266

399

390

6

−2.3

68

147

160

11.6

8.8

2,808

3,822

3,913

4.5

2.4

200

369

355

9.1

−3.8

Midwest

North Dakota Ohio South Dakota Wisconsin

1,367

1,527

1,357

1.6

−11.1

39,652

48,503

49,050

2.9

1.1

1,826

2,158

2,231

2.4

3.4

Arkansas

772

1,066

1,060

4.7

−0.6

Delaware a

597

577

557

−0.5

−3.5

District of Columbia

356

*

*

**

**

South Alabama

Florida

4,105

6,854

7,151

7.6

4.3

Georgiab

2,758

3,545

3,692

3.7

4.1 (Continued)

681

Females Prisoners under the Jurisdiction of State or Federal Correctional Authorities, by Jurisdiction, December 31, 2000, 2007, and 2008 (Continued) TABLE C.1

Number of female prisoners

Region and jurisdiction Maryland

December 31, 2000

December 31, 2007

1,219

1,184

December 31, 2008 1,060

Average annual Percent percent change, change, 2000–2007 2007–2008 −0.4

−10.5

Mississippi

1,669

1,962

1,981

2.3

1

North Carolina

1,903

2,626

2,778

4.7

5.8

Oklahoma

2,394

2,607

2,524

1.2

−3.2

South Carolina

1,420

1,604

1,633

1.8

1.8

Tennessee

1,369

1,923

2,129

5

10.7

Texas

13,622

13,931

13,853

0.3

−0.6

Virginia

2,059

2,933

2,967

5.2

1.2

West Virginia West Alaskaa b

Arizona

303

634

648

11.1

2.2

19,657

25,041

24,944

3.5

−0.4

284

564

503

10.3

−10.8

1,964

3,460

3,766

8.4

8.8

California

11,161

11,628

11,620

0.6

−0.1

Colorado

1,333

2,335

2,294

8.3

−1.8

Hawaii

b

561

746

728

4.2

−2.4

Idaho

493

800

758

7.2

−5.3

Montana

306

301

363

−0.2

20.6

Nevada

846

1,179

982

**

**

New Mexico

511

576

569

1.7

−1.2

Oregon

596

1,060

1,109

8.6

4.6

Utah

381

632

640

7.5

1.3

1,065

1,514

1,404

5.2

−7.3

156

246

208

6.7

−15.4

Washington Wyoming

*Not applicable. After 2001, responsibility for sentenced felons from the District of Columbia was transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. ** Not calculated. a

Prisons and jails form one integrated system. Data include total jail and prison populations.

b

Prison population based on custody counts.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p08at04.csv. Appendix table 4. Females prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, by jurisdiction, December 31, 2000, 2007, and 2008. Report title: Prisoners in 2008 NCJ 228417. Data source: National Prisoner Statistics, 1b. William J. Sabol, PhD, Heather C. West, PhD, and Matthew Cooper. Date of version: December 8, 2009.

682

Imprisonment Rates of Sentenced Prisoners under Jurisdiction of State and Federal Correctional Authorities, by Gender and Jurisdiction, December 31, 2007, and 2008 TABLE C.2

Imprisonment rate 2007

2008

Region and jurisdiction

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

U.S. total

506

955

69

504

952

68

Federal

59

112

8

60

113

7

447

844

61

445

840

61

306

598

30

306

597

30

410

794

45

407

787

45

148

284

18

151

289

19

b

Massachusetts

249

499

13

218

434

13

New Hampshire

222

420

29

220

410

35

New Jersey

308

597

32

298

578

29

New York

322

635

27

307

605

25

365

710

38

393

762

42

Rhode Island

235

463

21

240

475

19

Vermonta

260

495

32

260

504

24

393

743

52

392

741

52

Illinois

350

668

42

351

669

41

Indiana

426

791

71

442

818

77

291

542

47

291

538

49

Kansas

312

584

44

303

570

40

Michigan

499

971

41

488

951

39

Minnesota

181

341

23

179

336

24

Missouri

506

948

83

509

957

81

Nebraska

243

449

41

247

455

42

North Dakota

221

394

46

225

400

50

Ohio

442

838

65

449

851

66

South Dakota

413

736

92

412

738

87

Wisconsin

397

748

50

374

709

43

556

1,050

79

552

1,043

77

Alabama

615

1,180

85

634

1,215

88

Arkansas

502

949

73

511

969

72

Delaware

482

945

47

463

906

45

Florida

535

1,013

73

557

1,054

76

Georgiac

563

1,069

72

540

1,021

74 (Continued)

State Northeast Connecticut

a

Maine

Pennsylvania a

Midwest

Iowa

c

South

a

683

Imprisonment Rates of Sentenced Prisoners under Jurisdiction of State and Federal Correctional Authorities, by Gender and Jurisdiction, December 31, 2007, and 2008 (Continued) TABLE C.2

Imprisonment rate 2007 Region and jurisdiction

2008

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

404

793

39

403

796

33

Mississippi

734

1,385

121

735

1,389

121

North Carolina

361

696

41

368

707

42

Oklahoma

665

1,211

131

661

1,203

132

South Carolina

524

1,009

64

519

1,000

63

Tennessee

424

804

61

436

824

66

Texas

669

1,244

97

639

1,191

87

Virginia

490

921

74

489

918

75

West Virginia

333

610

68

331

604

69

438

807

67

436

803

67

Maryland

West a

Alaska

447

785

82

430

752

79

Arizonac

554

1,009

97

567

1,031

101

California

471

880

62

467

872

62

Colorado

465

829

96

467

834

93

Hawaii

338

594

79

332

585

74

Idaho

483

854

106

474

844

99

356

649

62

368

660

74

486

880

76

New Mexico

313

580

54

316

583

56

Oregon

369

686

56

371

688

58

Utah

239

428

46

232

415

45

Washington

273

500

46

272

501

43

Wyoming

394

686

95

387

687

79

a

Montana b

Nevada

Note: Imprisonment rate is the number of prisoners sentenced to more than 1 year per 100,000 U.S. residents. a

Prisons and jails form one integrated system. Data include total jail and prison populations.

The 2008 imprisonment rate includes 4,012 male prisoners sentenced to more than one year but held in local jails or houses of corrections in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 2007 imprisonment rate includes 6,200 sentenced males held in local jails or houses of corrections in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and an estimated number of sentenced prisoners in Nevada. See Methodology. b

c

Prison population based on custody counts.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p08at10.csv. Appendix table 10. Imprisonment rates of sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction of state and federal correctional authorities, by gender and jurisdiction, December 31, 2007 and 2008. Report title: Prisoners in 2008 NCJ 228417. Data source: National Prisoner Statistics, 1b. Authors: William J. Sabol, PhD, Heather C. West, PhD, and Matthew Cooper. Date of version: December 8, 2009. 684

Estimated Number of Sentenced Prisoners under State or Federal Jurisdiction, by Gender, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age, December 31, 2008 TABLE C.3

Male Age c

Total

Female

Totala

Whiteb

Blackb

Hispanic

Totala

Whiteb

Blackb

Hispanic

1,434,800

477,500

562,800

295,800

105,300

50,700

29,100

17,300

18–19

23,800

6,500

10,400

4,900

1,000

400

300

200

20–24

208,400

59,400

85,000

48,400

11,500

5,400

3,000

2,300

25–29

246,400

66,000

102,800

60,000

16,000

7,300

4,400

3,100

30–34

238,100

70,700

96,800

54,400

18,500

8,900

5,000

3,200

35–39

226,700

75,200

90,500

45,900

20,800

9,900

5,900

3,200

40–44

202,500

75,500

77,400

35,600

17,900

8,700

5,100

2,600

45–49

136,300

53,100

51,300

22,600

10,700

5,200

3,100

1,500

50–54

75,800

31,600

27,000

12,300

5,000

2,500

1,400

700

55–59

39,100

19,000

11,900

6,200

2,100

1,300

500

300

60–64

19,200

10,700

4,700

3,000

1,000

600

200

200

65 or older

15,800

9,300

3,700

2,200

600

400

100

100

Note: Totals based on prisoners with a sentence of more than one year. a Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two or more races. b

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

c

Includes persons under age 18.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p08at13.csv. Appendix table 13. Estimated number of sentenced prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, and age, December 31, 2008. Report title: Prisoners in 2008 NCJ 228417. Data source: National Prisoner Statistics, 1b. Authors: William J. Sabol, PhD, Heather C. West, PhD, and Matthew Cooper. Date of version: December 8, 2009.

685

Estimated Rate of Sentenced Prisoners under State or Federal Jurisdiction per 100,000 U.S. Residents, by Gender, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age, December 31, 2008 TABLE C.4

Male

Female

Age

Totala

Whiteb

Blackb

Hispanic

Totalc

952

487

3,161

1,200

68

50

149

75

18–19

528

238

1,532

614

23

16

44

25

20–24

1,916

893

5,553

2,474

112

86

202

131

25–29

2,238

1,017

7,130

2,612

153

115

301

167

30–34

2,366

1,217

8,032

2,411

190

155

380

174

35–39

2,159

1,171

7,392

2,263

201

156

434

183

40–44

1,903

1,090

6,282

2,032

169

127

364

170

45–49

1,202

671

4,056

1,523

93

65

211

106

50–54

713

407

2,385

1,085

45

31

106

61

55–59

429

276

1,325

739

22

18

44

30

60–64

259

184

738

502

12

9

25

23

95

69

294

186

3

2

6

4

65 or older

Totala

Whiteb

Blackb

Hispanic

Note: Totals based on prisoners with a sentence of more than one year. Rates are per 100,000 U.S. residents in each reference population group. Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two or more races. a

b

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

c

Includes persons under age 18.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p08at14.csv. Appendix table 14. Estimated rate of sentenced prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction per 100,000 U.S. residents, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, and age, December 31, 2008. Report title: Prisoners in 2008 NCJ 228417.Data source: National Prisoner Statistics, 1b. Authors: William J. Sabol, Ph.D., Heather C. West, Ph.D., and Matthew Cooper. Date of version: December 8, 2009.

686

Estimated Number of Sentenced Prisoners under State Jurisdiction, by Offense, Gender, Race, and Hispanic Origin, Year End 2006 TABLE C.5

All inmates

Male

Female

Whitea

Blacka

Hispanic

1,331,100

1,238,900

92,200

474,200

508,700

248,900

667,900

638,100

29,800

217,100

256,400

145,300

144,500

135,700

8,800

34,700

61,400

36,800

Manslaughter

16,700

14,900

1,800

6,900

6,100

2,400

Rape

54,800

54,400

400

26,600

16,900

7,400

Other sexual assault

105,500

104,100

1,400

56,800

20,600

23,900

Robbery

179,500

172,400

7,100

37,500

91,500

33,900

Assault

136,600

128,800

7,900

42,800

49,800

34,700

30,300

27,800

2,400

11,800

10,100

6,100

Offense Total Violent Murder

b

Other violent Property

277,900

251,200

26,700

135,300

96,000

25,000

Burglary

138,000

132,300

5,700

68,700

53,600

2,800

Larceny

51,600

43,800

7,800

23,300

17,600

7,200

Motor vehicle theft

27,100

25,500

1,600

10,900

7,100

7,900

Fraud

34,400

25,000

9,400

19,200

10,000

2,900

Other property Drug offenses Public-order offensesc Other/unspecified

d

26,800

24,700

2,100

13,300

7,600

4,200

265,800

240,500

25,400

72,100

117,600

55,700

112,300

106,100

6,200

48,200

35,400

21,000

7,200

2,900

4,300

1,400

3,300

1,900

Note: Totals based on prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. a

Excludes Hispanics and persons identifying two or more races.

b

Includes negligent manslaughter.

Includes weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses.

c

d

Includes juvenile offenses and other unspecified offense categories.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p08at15.csv. Appendix table 15. Estimated number of sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction, by offense, gender, race, and Hispanic origin, yearend 2006. Report title: Prisoners in 2008 NCJ 228417. Data source: National Prisoner Statistics, 1b. Authors: William J. Sabol, PhD, Heather C. West, PhD, and Matthew Cooper. Date of version: December 8, 2009.

687

Estimated Percent of Sentenced Prisoners under State Jurisdiction, by Offense, Gender, Race, and Hispanic Origin, Year End 2006 TABLE C.6

Offense

All inmates Total

Violent Murderb

100

Male

Female

Whitea

Blacka

Hispanic

100

100

100

100

100

50.2

51.5

32.3

45.8

50.4

58.4

10.9

11

9.5

7.3

12.1

14.8

Manslaughter

1.3

1.2

2

1.5

1.2

1

Rape

4.1

4.4

0.5

5.6

3.3

3

Other sexual assault

7.9

8.4

1.5

Robbery

13.5

13.9

7.7

7.9

Assault

10.3

10.4

8.5

9

Other violent

12

4.1 18 9.8

9.6 13.6 13.9

2.3

2.2

2.6

2.5

2

20.9

20.3

28.9

28.5

18.9

Burglary

10.4

10.7

6.2

14.5

10.5

1.1

Larceny

3.9

3.5

8.5

4.9

3.5

2.9

Motor vehicle theft

2

2.1

1.8

2.3

1.4

3.2

Fraud

2.6

2

10.2

4

2

1.2

Property

Other property Drug offenses Public-order offensesc Other/unspecified

d

2.5 10

2

2

2.3

2.8

1.5

1.7

20

19.4

27.5

15.2

23.1

22.4

8.4

8.6

6.7

10.2

7

8.4

0.5

0.2

4.6

0.3

0.6

0.8

Note: Totals based on prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year. Detail may not add to total due to rounding. a

Excludes Hispanics and persons identifying two or more races.

b

Includes negligent manslaughter.

Includes weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses.

c

d

Includes juvenile offenses and other unspecified offense categories.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p08at16.csv. Appendix table 16. Estimated percent of sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction, by offense, gender, race, and Hispanic origin, yearend 2006. Report title: Prisoners in 2008 NCJ 228417. Data source: National Prisoner Statistics, 1b. Authors: William J. Sabol, PhD, Heather C. West, PhD, and Matthew Cooper. Date of version: December 8, 2009.

688

Elapsed Time since Sentencing for Inmates under Sentence of Death on December 31, 2008, by Gender, Race, and Hispanic Origin TABLE C.7

Elapsed time since sentencing (months) Inmates under sentence of death Total

Mean

Median

147

141

Male

148

142

Female

110

107

Whitea

150

145

a

Black

149

144

Hispanic

131

122

a

Excludes persons of Hispanic/Latino origin.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2008. Table 17. Statistical Tables NCJ 228662. Data source: National Prisoner Statistics (NPS-8). Authors: Tracy L. Snell. Date of version: November 13, 2009.

689

D. DEATH PENALTY FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS

JANUARY 1, 1973, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 20101 by Victor Streib

Preface Beginning with the first legislative enactments of modern death penalty statutes in 1973, we now have over thirty-six years of death sentences being imposed in American jurisdictions. This post-1973 time period is referred to as the current era of the death penalty, operating under quite different laws and procedures than did earlier death penalty eras. This report, now available primarily in electronic format, supersedes the written report, „Capital Punishment of Female Offenders,‰ generated quarterly by this author from 1984 through early 1998. The burdens of constant corrections and updates, coupled with the difficulties of worldwide distribution of regular issues of a printed, hard copy report, led us to this electronic format. The data herein are updated as often and as quickly as possible, with the last date of entry noted on the cover page. However, given the difficulty of gathering complete information from all jurisdictions and as soon as cases develop, these reports may under-report the number of female offenders under death sentences. The subjects of these reports are female offenders sentenced to death. They are not all referred to as women since some were as young as age fifteen at the time of their crimes. However, no such very young female offenders are currently under death sentences. One final source of confusion and occasional inaccuracy is the difference between being legally under a sentence of death and being physically on a prisonÊs death row. These reports chronicle the exact dates of imposition and reversal or removal of the death sentence by a court or executive officer. Therefore, the list of female offenders currently under death sentences excludes those for whom the sentence has been legally reversed or removed even if the case is still being reviewed or reconsidered. However, it is not uncommon for such a person to continue to be housed on the prisonÊs death row even though no longer legally under a death sentence. The list also includes those female offenders under death sentences who are housed temporarily in local jails or prisons rather than the jurisdictionÊs death row prison. Such temporary housing typically occurs (1) when the individual has just been sentenced to death but not yet transported to the death row prison or (2) when she is serving as a witness or defendant in another trial or proceeding and must be 690

Appendices

| 691

located nearby. In either case, they are under sentences of death but are not physically on death row and often are not even known or listed by the prison officials. It is left to other documents and to other organizations to argue about the pros and cons of this practice, with the hope that these data will inform those arguments and deliberations. Therefore, these reports take no position on the legality, the wisdom, or the morality of the death penalty for female offenders. The author of these reports has been involved with this issue for twenty-five years as a researcher and as an attorney. References to some of those involvements can be found in Appendix C to this report. Please feel free to contact the author if further information is desired. Recent Developments (1) From 1973 through late 2010, the leading states for sentencing women to death are California and Texas with nineteen each, Florida with seventeen, and North Carolina with sixteen. (2) As of late 2010, California has sixteen women on death row, and Texas has ten. (3) Currently on death row are fourteen women who killed their husbands or boyfriends, and another eleven women who killed their children. One other women killed both her husband and her children, and three other women killed a young niece, nephew, or child in their care. These twentynine women account for almost half of the fifty-five women now on death row. (4) The most recent execution of a female offender was of Teresa Lewis in Virginia on September 23, 2010. (5) The most unusual fairly recent development is the rebirth of federal death penalties for women. No women had received federal death sentences in the entire current era (beginning in 1973) until one such sentence was imposed in late 2005 and another in early 2008. Screening Female Offenders From the Death Penalty (1) Women account for about 10.0% of murder arrests annually; (2) Women account for only 2.0% (167/8,292) of death sentences imposed at the trial level; (3) Women account for only 1.7 % (55/3,261) of persons presently on death row; and (4) Women account for only 1.0 % (12/1,232) of persons actually executed in this modern era.

692

|

Appendices

Death Sentences Imposed Upon Female Offenders In Current Era (1) A total of 167 death sentences have been imposed upon female offenders from 1973 through late 2010. Table D.1 below provides these data by individual year. (2) These 167 death sentences for female offenders constitute just 2% of all death sentences during this time period. (3) The annual death sentencing rate for female offenders during the last decade has averaged four per year.

Death Sentences Imposed Upon Female Offenders, January 1, 1973, Through October 31, 2010 TABLE D.1

Year

Total death Death sentences sentences for females Percent of total

Year

Total death Death sentences sentences for females Percent of total

1973

42

1

2.4

1994

315

5

1.6

1974

149

1

0.7

1995

326

7

2.1

1975

298

8

2.3

1996

323

2

0.6

1976

233

3

1.3

1997

281

2

0.7

1977

137

1

0.7

1998

306

7

2.3

1978

185

4

2.1

1999

284

4

1.4

1979

151

4

2.6

2000

235

8

3.4

1980

173

2

1.1

2001

167

2

1.2

1981

223

3

1.3

2002

169

5

3.0

1982

267

5

1.8

2003

153

2

1.3

1983

252

4

1.6

2004

140

5

3.6

1984

284

8

2.8

2005

138

5

3.6

1985

262

5

1.9

2006

115

5

4.3

1986

300

3

1.0

2007

115

1

0.9

1987

287

5

1.7

2008

111

3

2.7

1988

291

5

1.7

2009*

0

0

1989

258

11

4.2

2010**

1990

251

6

2.4

Totals

1991

268

7

2.6

* as of December 31, 2010

1992

287

10

3.5

** estimates

1993

287

6

2.0

55** 90**

0

8,292**

167

0 2.0

Appendices

| 693

(4) The wide fluctuations in annual death sentencing rates are unexplained by changes in statutes, court rulings, or public opinion. (5) These 167 death sentences for female offenders since 1973 have been imposed by twenty-five individual states and by the federal government, comprising about two-thirds of the thirty-nine death penalty jurisdictions during this time period. Table D.2 below provides these data by jurisdiction and race of offender. State-by-State Breakdown of Death Sentences for Female Offenders, January 1, 1973, through June 30, 2009 TABLE D.2

State

Total death sentences

White offenders

Black offenders

Latina offenders

American Indian offenders

Texas

19

11

7

1

0

California

19

10

3

6

0

Florida

17

13

3

1

0

North Carolina

16

10

4

0

2

Ohio

12

6

6

0

0

Alabama

11

8

3

0

0

Mississippi

9

7

2

0

0

Oklahoma

8

7

1

0

0

Illinois

7

1

4

2

0

Pennsylvania

7

3

4

0

0

Georgia

6

5

1

0

0

Missouri

5

4

0

1

0

Indiana

4

2

2

0

0

Arizona

3

3

0

0

0

Federal

2

2

0

0

0

Kentucky

3

3

0

0

0

Louisiana

3

2

1

0

0

Maryland

3

1

0

0

2

New Jersey

3

3

0

0

0

Arkansas

2

2

0

0

0

Idaho

2

2

0

0

0

Nevada

2

1

1

0

0

Tennessee

2

2

0

0

0

Delaware

1

1

0

0

0

South Carolina

1

1

0

0

0

Virginia Total

1

1

0

0

0

167

110

42

11

4

694

|

Appendices

(6) The top five states (Texas, California, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio) account for essentially half (83/167) of all such sentences since 1973. (7) Virginia, a leading death penalty state for male offenders, has imposed only one death sentence on a female offender since 1973 (and executed her on 9ă23ă2010) (8) Appendix A to this report provides a detailed listing of name, race, jurisdiction, dates of crimes and sentences, and current status for each female death sentence. Executions of Female Offenders (1) (2) (3)

(4) (5) (6)

(7)

Actual execution of female offenders is quite rare, with only 569 documented instances in the 378 years from 1,632 through late 2010. Beginning with the earliest American colonial period, executions of female offenders constitute about 2.8% (569/20,000) of all American executions. From 1900 through late 2010, 0.6% (51/8,557) of all executions have been of female offenders. Table D.3 (pp. 695-96) provides these data by year and by executing jurisdiction. Comparing these post-1900 data with data from previous American eras reveals that this practice is even rarer now than in previous centuries. Executions of female offenders in the current era (1973ălate 2010) are listed in Table D.4 (p. 696). Only twelve (1.0%) of the 1,232 total executions since 1973 have been of female offenders. This execution pace has changed recently, with only one (0.2%) of the 434 executions from 1973 to 1997 being a female offender. Since 1998, eleven (1.4%) of the 798 total executions have been of female offenders. This recent (1998 to late 2010) execution pace matches almost exactly that beginning in 1900 so it appears that the 1973ă1997 lull in executions of female offenders was atypical and that we have now returned to our normal rate. Females Under Death Sentences As of October 31, 2010

(1) Of the 167 death sentences imposed since 1973, only fifty-five women remained under sentences of death in eighteen states and under federal jurisdiction as of late 2010. Tables D.5 and D.6 (p. 697) provide data describing the offenders and victims in these cases. (2) These fifty-five women comprise only 1.7% of the approximately 3,261 persons currently on death row.

Executions of Female Offenders by State, January 1, 1900, through October 31, 2010 TABLE D.3

State of execution Alabama

Arizona

Date of execution

Name of offender

Race of offender

Age at crime of offender

01-24-1930

Gilmore, Selena

Black

[adult]

09-04-1953

Dennison, Earle

White

54

10-11-1957

Martin, Rhonda Belle

White

48

05-10-2002

Block, Linda Lyon

White

45

02-21-1930

Dugan, Eva

White

49

Arkansas

05-02-2000

Riggs, Christina Marie

White

26

California

11-21-1941

Spinelli, Eithel Leta Juanita

White

52

04-11-1947

Peete, Louise

White

58

06-03-1955

Graham, Barbara

White

32

08-08-1962

Duncan, Elizabeth Ann

White

58

06-07-1935

Carey, May H.

White

52

Delaware

1

Federal (NY)

06-19-1953

Rosenberg, Ethel

White

37

Federal (MO)

12-18-1953

Heady, Bonnie Brown

White

41

Florida

03-30-1998

Buenoano, Judias

White

28

10-09-2002

Wuornos, Aileen

White

33

Georgia

03-05-1945

Baker, Lena

Black

44

Illinois

1-28-1938

Porter, Marie

White

38

Louisiana

02-01-1929

LeBoeuf, Ada

White

38

02-08-1935

Moore, Julia (Powers)

???

11-28-1942

Henri, Toni Jo (Annie)

White

26

01-13-1922

Perdue, Pattie

Black

[adult]

10-13-1922

Knight, Ann

Black

[adult]

04-29-1937

Holmes, Mary

Black

32

05-19-1944

Johnson, Mildred Louise

Black

34

03-29-1909

Farmer, Mary

White

29

01-12-1928

Snyder, Ruth Brown

White

33

08-09-1934

Antonio, Anna

White

27

06-27-1935

Coo, Eva

White

40

07-16-1936

Creighton, Mary Francis

White

36

11-16-1944

Fowler, Helen

Black

37

03-08-1951

Beck, Martha

White

29

01-01-1943

Phillips, Rosana Lightner

Black

25

12-29-1944

Williams, Bessie May

Black

19

11-02-1984

Barfield, Velma

White

52

12-07-1938

Hahn, Anna Marie

White

32

01-15-1954

Dean, Dovie Smarr

White

55

06-12-1954

Butler, Betty

Black

25

Mississippi

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

[adult]

Executions of Female Offenders by State, January 1, 1900, through October 31, 2010 (Continued) TABLE D.3

Race of offender

Age at crime of offender

Black

[adult]

State of execution

Date of execution

Name of offender

Oklahoma

07-17-1903

Wright, Dora

01-11-2001

Allen, Wanda Jean

Black

29

05-01-2001

Plantz, Marilyn Kay

White

27

12-04-2001

Smith, Lois Nadeen

White

41

Pennsylvania

02-23-1931

Schroeder, Irene

White

22

10-14-1946

Sykes, Corrine

Black

22

South Carolina

01-15-1943

Logue, Sue Stidman

White

43

01-17-1947

Stinette, Rose Marie

Black

49

02-03-1998

Tucker, Karla Faye

White

38

02-24-2000

Beets, Betty Lou

White

46

09-14-2005

Newton, Francis Elaine

Black

21

Texas

Vermont

12-08-1905

Rogers, Mary Mabel

White

21

Virginia

08-16-1912

Christian, Virginia

Black

17

09-23-2010

Lewis, Teresa

White

33

Note: Ethel Rosenberg’s capital crime was espionage, the only one of these 20th- and 21st-century executions of female offenders that was for a crime other than murder.

Executions of Female Offenders by States During Current Era, January 1, 1973, through June 30, 2010 TABLE D.4

Date of execution

Date of crime

Executing state

Name of offender

Race and age at crime & execution

11-02-1984

02-01-1978

North Carolina

Barfield, Velma

white; ages 52 & 58

02-03-1998

06-13-1983

Texas

Tucker, Karla Faye

white; ages 23 & 38

03-30-1998

09-16-1971

Florida

Buenoano, Judias

white; ages 28 & 54

02-24-2000

08-06-1983

Texas

Beets, Betty Lou

white; ages 46 & 62

05-02-2000

11-04-1997

Arkansas

Riggs, Christina Marie

white; ages 26 & 29

01-11-2001

12-01-1988

Oklahoma

Allen, Wanda Jean

black; ages 29 & 41

05-01-2001

08-26-1988

Oklahoma

Plantz, Marilyn Kay

white; ages 27 & 40

12-04-2001

07-04-1982

Oklahoma

Smith, Lois Nadeen

white; ages 41 & 61

05-10-2002

10-04-1993

Alabama

Block, Linda Lyon

white; ages 45 & 54

10-09-2002

12-01-1989; 05-24-1990; 07-30-1990; 09-11-1990

Florida

Wuornos, Aileen

white; ages 33 & 46

09-14-2005

04-07-1987

Texas

Newton, Francis Elaine

black; ages 21 & 40

09-23-2010

10-30-2002

Virginia

Lewis, Teresa

white, ages 33 & 41

Appendices

|

697

Characteristics of Offenders in Female Death Penalty Cases in Force as of June 30, 2009 TABLE D.5

Age of offender at crime Current age of offender

Race of offender

ages 18–19 = 4 (7%)

ages 20–29 = 3 (5%)

ages 20–29 = 22 (40%)

ages 30–39 = 14 (25%)

American Indian = 1 (2%) Black = 12 (22%)

ages 30–39 = 20 (36%)

ages 40–49 = 21 (38%)

Latin = 6 (11%)

ages 40–49 = 7 (13%)

ages 50–59 = 4 (8%)

White = 36 (64%)

ages 50–59 = 2 (4%)

ages 60–69 = 5 (9%) ages 70–79 = 1(2%)

Totals = 55(100%)

55 (100%)

55 (100%)

Characteristics of Victims in Female Death Penalty Cases in Force as of October 31, 2010 TABLE D.6

Age of victim at crime

Race and sex of victim

ages 0–4 = 8 (10%)

Asian Male = 1 (1%)

ages 5–9 = 16 (21%)

Asian Female = 1 (1%)

ages 10–19 = 11 (14%)

Black Male = 2 (3%)

ages 20–29 = 12 (15%)

Black Female = 3 (4%)

ages 30–39 = 12 (15%)

Latin Male = 8 (12%)

ages 40–49 = 6 (8%)

Latin Female = 10 (13%)

ages 50–59 = 4 (5%)

White Male = 33 (42%)

ages 60–69 = 2 (3%)

White Female = 20 (26%)

ages 70–79 = 4 5%) ages 80–89 = 3 (4%) Totals = 78 (100%)

78 (100%)

(3) One-quarter (14/55) of these fifty-five death-sentenced women killed their husbands or boyfriends; and another one-fifth (11/55) killed their children. One young woman killed both her husband and her children, and three other women killed a young niece, nephew, or child in their care. (4) The present ages of these 55 female offenders range from 27 to 77 years old, and they have been on death row from less than one year to almost twentyfive years. (5) Appendix B to this report provides the names of these offenders and some brief details about their crimes and sentences. Multiple sentencing dates mean that the earlier death sentence was reversed but then a new death sentence was imposed.

Appendix A Death Sentences Imposed On Females, January 1, 1973, Through June 30, 2009 Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

North Carolina

07-19-1973

09-17-1973

reversed in 1976

North Carolina

07-01-1973

06-10-1974

reversed in 1976

Boykin, Margie (white)

North Carolina

08-14-1975

12-01-1975

reversed in 1976

Dodds, Catherine (white)

Louisiana

01-27-1975

??-??-1975

reversed in 1976

Glenn, Mabel (black)

California

03-??-1975

10-21-1975

reversed in 1979

Kozeak, Marie (white)

California

??-?? 1975

??-??-1975

reversed in 1976

Lockett, Sandra (black)

Ohio

01-15-1975

04-??-1975

reversed in 1978

Osborne, Alberta (white)

Ohio

12-15-1974

06-02-1975

reversed in 1978

Sanders, Janet [aka Miller] (white)

Oklahoma

02-24-1975

08-26-1975

reversed in 1977

Smith, Rebecca (white)

Georgia

08-31-1974

01-30-1975

reversed in 1983

1973: Ward, Mamie Lee (black) 1974: Hunt, Rozell O. (American Indian) 1975:

1976: Brown, Faye B. (black)

North Carolina

09-02-1975

01-05-1976

reversed in 1977

Jacobs, Sonia (white)

Florida

02-20-1976

08-20-1976

reversed in 1981

Wernert. Patricia white

Ohio

11-18-1975

11-22-1976

reversed in 1978

Ohio

05-03-1977

11-30-1977

reversed in 1978

Anderson, Mary (white)

Texas

01-03-1978

08-29-1978

reversed in 1982

Barfield, Velma (white)

North Carolina

02-01-1978

12-02-1978

Executed on 11-02-1984

Bracewell, Debra (white)

Alabama

08-15-1977

05-17-1978

reversed in 1981

Detter, Rebecca (white)

North Carolina

06-02-1977

09-26-1978

reversed in 1979

Binsz, Michelle (white)

Oklahoma

03-18-1979

10-23-1979

reversed in 1984

Burnett, Linda (white)

Texas

06-01-1978

03-20-1979

reversed in 1983

Cunningham, Emma (white)

Georgia

01-01-1979

10-26-1979

reversed in 1983

Tyler, Shirley (black)

Georgia

10-22-1979

12-04-1979

reversed in 1985

1977: Smith, Benita (black) 1978:

1979:

(Continued) 698

Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

1980: O’Bryan, LaVerne (white)

Kentucky

07-05-1979

09-12-1980

reversed in 1982

Perillo, Pamela (white)

Texas

02-24-1980

9-2-1980 & 11-13-1984

reversed in 1998

1981: Buttrum, Janice (white)

Georgia

09-03-1980

08-31-1981

reversed in 1989

Stebbing, Annette (white)

Maryland

04-09-1980

04-30-1981

reversed in 1985

Thomas, Patricia (black)

Alabama

02-28-1981

12-28-1981

reversed in 1990

Cannaday, Attina (white)

Mississippi

06-03-1982

09-23-1982

reversed in 1984

Ford, Priscilla (black)

Nevada

11-27-1980

04-29-1982

died of natural causes in 2005

Foster, Doris (American Indian)

Maryland

01-29-1981

2-8-1982 & 04-04-1984

commuted in 1987

Smith, Nadean (white)

Oklahoma

07-04-1982

12-29-1982

executed on 12-2-2001

Whittington, Teresa (white)

Georgia

01-02-1982

05-07-1982

reversed in 1984

1982:

1983: Grant, Rosalie (black)

Ohio

04-01-1983

10-21-1983

commuted in 1991

Neelley, Judith (white)

Alabama

09-23-1982

04-18-1983

commuted in 1999

Summers, Sheila (white)

Nevada

09-14-1982

12-20-1983

reversed in 1986

Young, Sharon (white)

Ohio

06-12-1983

09-30-1983

reversed in 1986

Maryland

01-29-1981

4-4-1984 & 02-08-1982

commuted in 1987

1984: Foster, Doris (American Indian) Hendrickson, Patricia (white)

Arkansas

03-10-1983

04-13-1984

reversed in 1985

Jackson, Andrea (black)

Florida

05-16-1983

2-10-1984 2-21-1992 & 12-13-95

reversed in 1997

Moore, Marie (white)

New Jersey

01-??-1983

11-19-1984

reversed in 1988

Perillo, Pamela (white)

Texas

02-24-1980

11-13-1984 & 9-2-1980

reversed in 1998

Tucker, Karla Faye (white)

Texas

06-13-1983

04-25-1984

executed on 02-03-1998

Williamson, Celia (white)

Mississippi

03-23-1982

03-14-1984

reversed in 1987

Windsor, Karla (white)

Idaho

09-06-1983

02-28-1984

reversed in 1985

Texas

08-06-1983

10-14-1985

executed on 02-24-2000

1985: Beets, Betty (white)

(Continued) 699

Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Brown, Debra (black)

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

Ohio

07-13-1984

06-18-1985 & 06-23-86

commuted in 1991

Buenoano, Judias (white/Latina)

Florida

09-16-1971

11-26-1985

executed on 03-30-1998

Houston, Judy (white)

Mississippi

06-03-1984

11-30-1985

reversed in 1988

Thacker, Lois (white)

Indiana

11-03-1984

06-27-1985

reversed in 1990

Brown, Debra (black)

Indiana

06-18-1984

06-23-1986 & 06-18-85

would be on death row but in Ohio prison

Cooper, Paula (black)

Indiana

05-14-1985

07-11-1986

reversed in 1989

Owens, Gaile (white)

Tennessee

02-17-1985

01-15-1986

now on death row

1986:

1987: Caillier, Carla (white)

Florida

11-20-1986

03-19-1987

reversed in 1988

Casteel, Dee Dyne (white)

Florida

08-20-1983

09-16-1987

reversed in 1990

Cox, Donna Sue (Allen) (white)

North Carolina

07-12-1986

10-30-1987

reversed in 1992

Dudley, Kaysie (white)

Florida

09-30-1985

01-27-1987

reversed in 1989

Foster, Lafonda (white)

Kentucky

03-09-1986

04-24-1987

reversed in 1991

Green, Elizabeth (black)

Ohio

01-04-1988

07-11-1988

commuted in 1991

Haney, Judy M. (white)

Alabama

01-01-1984

11-18-1988

reversed in 1997

Newton, Francis (black)

Texas

04-07-1987

11-17-1988

executed on 09-14-2005

Wacaser, Nila (white)

Missouri

08-28-1987

05-31-1988

reversed in 1990

Walker, Altione (white)

Alabama

03-31-1988

12-15-1988

reversed in 1992

Allen, Wanda (black)

Oklahoma

12-01-1988

04-26-1989

executed on 01-11-2001

Balfour, Susie (black)

Mississippi

10-07-1988

10-14-1989

reversed in 1992

Coffman, Cynthia (white)

California

11-07-1986

08-30-1989

now on death row

Harris, Louise (black)

Alabama

03-11-1988

08-11-1989

reversed in 2004

Jones, Patricia (white)

Oklahoma

04-??-1988

12-07-1989

reversed in 1995

Lampkin, Beatrice (black)

Ohio

11-04-1988

04-26-1989

commuted in 1991

Landress, Cindy (white)

Indiana

04-23-1988

06-26-1989

reversed in 1992

Plantz, Marilyn (white)

Oklahoma

08-26-1988

03-31-1989

executed on 05-01-2001

Rivers, Delores (black)

Pennsylvania

01-30-1988

03-16-1989

reversed in 2005

Stager, Barbara (white)

North Carolina

02-01-1988

05-19-1989

reversed in 1991

1988:

1989:

(Continued) 700

Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Twenter, Virginia (white)

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

Missouri

05-04-1988

01-06-1989

reversed in 1991

Butler, Sabrina (black)

Mississippi

04-11-1989

03-14-1990

reversed in 1992

Hunt, Deidre M. (white)

Florida

10-20-1989

09-13-1990

reversed in 1992

Jennings, Patricia (white)

North Carolina

09-19-1989

11-05-1990

now on death row

MaHaley, Marilyn (white)

North Carolina

03-17-1990

12-17-1990

reversed in 1992

McDermott, Maureen (white)

California

04-28-1985

06-15-1990

now on death row

Smith, Rebecca (white)

South Carolina

07-17-1989

12-10-1990

reversed in 1992

1990:

1991: Copeland, Faye (white)

Missouri

1986-1988

04-27-1991

reversed in 1999

Gay, Yvette (black)

North Carolina

05-30-1990

08-10-1991

reversed in 1993

Isa, Maria (Latina)

Missouri

11-06-1989

12-19-1991

reversed in 1993

Milke, Debra Jean (white)

Arizona

12-02-1989

01-18-1991

now on death row

Moore, Blanche (white)

North Carolina

10-07-1986

1-18-1991

now on death row

Smith, Geraldine (black)

Illinois

06-??-1987

02-20-1991

reversed in 1997

Williams, Dorothy (black)

Illinois

07-31-1989

04-18-1991

commuted in 2003

Alfaro, Maria (Latina)

California

06-15-1990

07-14-1992

now on death row

Cardona, Ana(Latina)

Florida

11-02-1990

04-01-1992

reversed in 2002

Garcia, Guinevere (white)

Illinois

07-24-1991

10-09-1992

commuted in 1996

Hill, Doneta (black)

Pennsylvania

06-20-1990

4-9-1992 & 03-24-1991

reversed in 2005?

Jackson, Andrea (black)

Florida

05-16-1983

02-21-1992 02-10-1984 & 12-13-95

reversed in 1997

Phillips, Shirley (white)

Missouri

10-03-1989

04-06-1992

reversed in 1997

Wuornos, Aileen (white)

Florida

12-01-1989 05-24-1990 07-30-1990 & 9-11-90

01-31-1992 05-15-1992 05-15-1992 & 5-15-92

executed on 10-09-2002

Ballenger, Vernice (white)

Mississippi

07-10-1983

01-13-1993

reversed in 2000

Larzelier, Virginia (white)

Florida

03-08-1991

05-11-1993

reversed in 2005

Mulero, Marilyn (Latina)

Illinois

05-12-1992

11-12-1993

reversed in 1997

O’Donnell, Kelly (white)

Pennsylvania

11-11-1992

07-01-1993

reversed in 1999

Row, Robin Lee (white)

Idaho

02-10-1992

12-16-1993

now on death row

Thompson, Catherine (black)

California

06-14-1990

06-10-1993

now on death row

California

01-26-1992 & 3-11-92

11-23-1994

now on death row

1992:

1993:

1994: Carrington, Celeste (black)

(Continued) 701

Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

King, Carolyn (black)

Pennsylvania

10-??-1993

11-30-1994

now on death row

Lyon, Linda [Block] (white)

Alabama

10-04-1993

12-21-1994

executed on 05-10-2002

Pulliam, Latasha (black)

Illinois

03-21-1991

06-15-1994

commuted in 2003

Samuels, Mary E. (white)

California

12-08-1988 & 6-?1989

09-16-1994

now on death row

Dalton, Kerry Lyn (white)

California

06-26-1988

05-23-1995

now on death row

Frank, Antoinette (black)

Louisiana

03-04-1995

09-13-1995

now on death row

Henderson, Cathy (white)

Texas

01-21-1994

05-25-1995

now on death row

Jackson, Andrea H. (black)

Florida

05-16-1983

12-13-1995 02-10-1984 & 02-21-92

reversed in 1997

Sheppard, Erica (black)

Texas

06-30-1993

03-03-1995

now on death row

Spunaugle, Delpha (white)

Oklahoma

08-15-1993

03-31-1995

reversed in 1997

Young, Caroline (Latina)

California

06-18-1993

10-27-1995

died of natural causes in 2005

Anderson, Melanie (white)

North Carolina

08-24-1994

09-26-1996

reversed in 2003

Pike, Christa Gail (white)

Tennessee

01-12-1995

03-29-1996

now on death row

Nelson, Leslie (white)

New Jersey

04-20-1995

05-??-1997 & 03-30-01

reversed in 2002

Routier, Darlie (white)

Texas

06-06-1996

02-04-1997

now on death row

Brookshire, Kelly (white)

Georgia

02-07-1997

11-20-1998

now on death row

Buenrostro, Dora (Latina)

California

10-25-1994

10-02-1998

now on death row

Gonzalez, Veronica (Latina)

California

07-21-1995

07-20-1998

now on death row

Holberg, Brittany (white)

Texas

11-13-1996

03-27-1998

now on death row

McCarthy, Kimberly (black)

Texas

07-28-1997

12-??-1998 & 11-01-02

now on death row

Riggs, Christina (white)

Arkansas

11-04-1997

06-30-1998

Executed on 05-02-2000

Williams, Jacqueline (black)

Illinois

11-16-1995

05-11-1998

commuted in 2003

1995:

1996:

1997:

1998:

1999: Basso, Susan (white)

Texas

08-28-1998

09-01-1999

now on death row

Eubanks, Susan (white)

California

10-27-1996

10-13-1999

now on death row

Mata, Bernina (Latina)

Illinois

06-27-1998

10-28-1999

commuted in 2003

Parker, Carlette (black)

North Carolina

05-12-1998

04-01-1999

now on death row (Continued)

702

Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

Byrom, Michelle (white)

Mississippi

06-04-1999

11-18-2000

now on death row

Carlson, Doris (white)

Arizona

10-25-1996

03-31-2000

reversed in 2002

Caudill, Virginia (white)

Kentucky

03-15-1998

03-24-2000

now on death row

Johnson, Shonda (white)

Alabama

12-01-1999

01-19-2000

reversed in 2005

Kemmerlin, Chris (white)

North Carolina

03-24-1999

10-18-2000

reversed in 2002

Nieves, Sandi (white)

California

06-30-1998

10-06-2000

now on death row

Tharp, Michelle (white)

Pennsylvania

04-18-1998

11-14-2000

now on death row

Walters, Christina (Amer. Indian)

North Carolina

08-17-1998

07-06-2000

now on death row

Markman, Beth Ann (white)

Pennsylvania

10-04-2000

[2001]

reversed in 2007

Nelson, Leslie (white)

New Jersey

04-20-1995

03-30-2001 & 05-??-97

reversed in 2002

Blackmon, Patricia (black)

Alabama

05-??-1999

06-07-2002

now on death row

Caro, Socorro (Latina)

California

11-22-1999

04-05-2002

now on death row

Carty, Linda (black)

Texas

05-16-2001

02-21-2002

now on death row

McCarthy, Kimberly (black)

Texas

07-28-1997

11-01-2002 & 12-??-98

now on death row

Michaud, Michelle (white)

California

12-02-1997

09-25-2002

now on death row

Lewis, Teresa (white)

Virginia

10-30-2002

06-03-2003

Executed on 09-23-2010

Roberts, Donna (white)

Ohio

12-11-2001

06-21-2003 & 10-29-07

now on death row

Andrew, Brenda (white)

Oklahoma

11-20-2001

09-22-2004

now on death row

Adrian, Wendi (white)

Arizona

10-08-2000

12-22-2004

now on death row

2000:

2001:

2002:

2003:

2004:

Berry, Kenisha (black)

Texas

11-29-1998

02-19-2004

reversed in 2007

Charbonneau, Linda (white)

Delaware

09-23-2001 & 10-17-01

06-04-2004

reversed in 2006

Rodriguez, Angelina (Latina)

California

09-09-2000

01-12-2004

now on death row

Diar, Nicole (white)

Ohio

08-27-2003

11-02-2005

reversed in 2008

Gobble, Tierra (white)

Alabama

12-15-2004

10-26-2005

now on death row

Johnson, Angela (white)

Federal (Iowa)

07-25-1993 & 11-05-93

12-20-2005

now on death row

Richardson, Chelsea (white)

Texas

12-11-2003

06-01-2005

now on death row (Continued)

2005:

703

704

|

Appendices

Year, name, and race of offender

Sentencing jurisdiction

Date of crime

Date of sentence

Current status

Walter, Shonda (black)

Pennsylvania

03-25-2003

04-19-2005

now on death row

Chamberlain, Lisa Jo (white)

Mississippi

02-20-2004

08-04-2006

now on death row

Coleman, Lisa Ann (black)

Texas

07-26-2004

07-07-2006

now on death row

Fulgham, Kristi Leigh (white)

Mississippi

05-10-2003

12-09-2006

now on death row

Holmes, Brandy (white)

Louisiana

01-01-2003

02-21-2006

now on death row

Snyder, Janeen Marie (white)

California

04-17-2001

09-07-2006

now on death row

Ohio

12-11-2001

06-21-2003 & 10-29-07

now on death row

Cole, Tiffany Ann (white)

Florida

07-08-2005

03-06-2008

now on death row

Lucio, Melissa Elizabeth (Latin)

Texas

02-16-2007

08-??-2008

now on death row

Montgomery, Lisa (white)

Federal (MO)

12-16-2004

04-04-2008

now on death row

Sarinano, Cathy Lynn

California

12-25-2005

06-29-2009

now on death row

Scott, Christie Michelle

Alabama

09-16-2008

08-??-2009

now on death row

2006:

2007: Roberts, Donna (white) 2008:

2009:

2010 [apparently none]

APPENDIX B CASE SUMMARIES FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS UNDER DEATH SENTENCES AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2010 Alabama (last execution of female by Alabama on 5ă10ă2002) (4 female offenders now on AlabamaÊs death row) Blackmon, Patricia: Black; age 29 at crime and now age 39 (DOB 11ă3ă1969); murder of black female age 2 (her adopted daughter) in Dothan in May 1999; sentenced on 6ă7ă2002. Gobble, Tierra Capri: White; age 21 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 4ă18ă1983); murder of white male age 4 months (her son) in Dothan on 12ă15ă2004; sentenced on 10ă26ă2005. Johnson, Shonda Nicole (aka: Richards): White, age 28 at crime and now age 41 (DOB 9ă30ă1969); murder of white male age 29 (1 of her 3 husbands)in Jasper (Walker County) on 11ă30ă1997; sentenced on 10ă22ă1999.

Appendices

| 705

Scott, Christie Michelle: White; age 30 at crime and now age 30 (DOB: 8ă10ă 1978); arson and murder of white male age 6 (her son) in Russellville (Franklin County) on 9ă16ă2008; jury recommended life sentence on 7ă11ă2009, but judge sentenced her to death in early August 2009. Arizona (last execution of female by Arizona on 2ă21ă1930) (2 female offenders now on ArizonaÊs death row) Andriano, Wendi: White; age 30 at crime and now age 38 (DOB: 8ă6ă1970); murder of white (?) male age 33 (her husband) in Mesa on 10ă8ă2000; sentenced on 12ă22ă2004. Milke, Debra Jean: White; age 25 at crime and now age 45 (DOB: 3ă10ă1964); murder of white male age 4 (her son) in Maricopa County on 12ă2ă1989; sentenced on 1ă18ă1991. California (last execution of female by California on 8ă8ă1962) (16 female offenders now on CaliforniaÊs death row) Alfaro, Maria del Rosio [aka Rosie]: Latin; age 18 at crime and now age 37 (DOB: 10ă12ă1971); burglary, robbery and murder of white female age 9 in Anaheim on 6ă15ă1990; sentenced 7ă14ă1992. Buenrostro, Dora Luz: Latin; age 34 at crime and now age 49; murder of Latin females ages 4 and 9 and Latin male age 8 (her children) in San Jacinto on 10ă25ă 1994 and 10ă27ă1994; sentenced on 10ă2ă1998. Caro, Socorro: Latin; age 42 at crime and now age 52 (DOB: 3ă27ă1957); murder of Latin males ages 5, 8, and 11 (her children) in Santa Rosa Valley (Ventura County) on 11ă22ă1999; sentenced on 4ă5ă2002. Carrington, Celeste Simone: Black; age 30 at crimes and now age 47 murders (during burglaries) of Latin male age 34 on 1ă26ă1992 in San Carlos and of white female age 36 in Palo Alto on 3ă11ă1992; sentenced on 11ă23ă1994. Coffman, Cynthia Lynn: White; age 24 at crime and now age 47 (DOB 1ă19ă 1962); murder of white female age 20 in San Bernardino County on 11ă7ă1986; sentenced on 8ă31ă1989. Dalton, Kerry Lyn: White; age 28 at crime and now age 49; murder of white female age 23 in Live Oak Springs on 6ă26ă1988; sentenced on 5ă23ă1995. Eubanks, Susan: White; age 33 at crime and now age 46; murder of four white males ages 4, 6, 7, and 14 (her children) in San Marcos (San Diego County) on 10ă 27ă1996; sentenced on 10ă13ă1999. Gonzalez, Veronica: Latin; age 26 at crime and now age 40; murder of Latin female age 4 (her niece) in San Diego on 7ă21ă1995; sentenced on 7ă20ă1998.

706 |

Appendices

McDermott, Maureen: White; age 37 at crime and now age 62 (DOB 5ă15ă 1947); murder of white male age 27 in Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) on 4ă28ă 1985; sentenced on 6ă8ă1990. Michaud, Michelle Lyn: White; age 38 at crime and now age 48; kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of white female age 22 in Pleasanton (Alameda County) on 12ă2ă1997; sentenced on 9ă25ă2002. Nieves, Sandi Dawn: White; age 34 at crime and now age 45; murder of four Latin females ages 5, 7, 11 and 12 (her children) in Saugus (north of Los Angeles) on 6ă30ă1998; sentenced on 10ă6ă2000. Rodriguez, Angelina: Latin; age 32 at crime and now age 41; murder of Latin male age 41 (her husband) in Montebello (Los Angeles County) on 9ă9ă2000; sentenced on 1ă12ă2004. Samuels, Mary Ellen: White; age 40 at crimes and now age 61; murder (she hired killer) of white male age 40 (her husband) on 12ă8ă1988 in Northridge (Los Angeles County) and of white male age 27 (her husbandÊs killer) in Ventura County on 6ă27ă1989; sentenced on 9ă16ă1994. Sarinano, Cathy Lynn: White, age 30 at crime and now 35; murder of Latin mage age 13 (her nephew) in Riverside on 12ă25ă2005; sentenced on 6ă26ă2009. Snyder, Janeen Marie: White; age 21 at crime and now age 29; murder of white female age 16 in Rubidoux (Riverside County) on April 17, 2001; sentenced on September 7, 2006. Thompson, Catherine: Black; age 42 at crime and now age 61; murder (she hired killer) of black male (her husband) in Westwood (Los Angeles County) on 6ă14ă 1990; sentenced on 6ă10ă1993. Federal (last execution of a female by the federal government on 12ă18ă1953) (2 female offenders now on federal death row) Johnson, Angela Jane: White; age 29 at crime and now age 45; murder of white male age 34, white female age 31, white female age 10, and white female age 6 in Mason City, Iowa, on 7ă25ă1993; and murder of white male age 32 in Mason City, Iowa on 11ă5ă1993; sentenced on 12ă20ă2005. Montgomery, Lisa M.: White; age 36 at crime and now age 41; murder of white female age 23 in Skidmore (Nodaway County), Missouri on 7ă16ă2004; sentenced on 4ă4ă2008. Florida (last execution of female by Florida on 10ă9-2002) (1 female offender now on FloridaÊs death row)

Appendices

| 707

Cole, Tiffany Ann: White, age 23 at crime and now age 27; murder of white female age 61 and white male age 61 in Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, on 7ă8ă2005; sentenced on 3ă6ă2008. Georgia (last execution of female by Georgia on 3ă5ă1945) (1 female offender now on GeorgiaÊs death row) Brookshire, Kelly Renee [aka Gissendaner]: White, age 28 at crime and now age 41 (YOB: 1968); murder of white male age 30 (her husband) in Gwinnett County on 2ă7ă1997; sentenced on 11ă20ă1998. Idaho (Idaho has never executed a female offender) (1 female offender now on IdahoÊs death row) Row, Robin Lee: White; age 35 at crime and now age 51 (DOB 9ă12ă1957); murder/ arson of white male age 34 (her husband), white male age 10 (her son), and white female age 8 (her daughter) in Boise on February 10, 1992; sentenced on 12ă16ă1993. Indiana (Indiana has never executed a female offender) (1 female offender now on IndianaÊs death row) Brown, Debra Denise: Black; age 21 at crime and now age 46 (DOB 11ă11ă1962); murder of black female age 7 in Gary on 6ă18ă1984; sentenced on 6ă23ă1986; (serving life sentence in Ohio but sentenced to death in Indiana). Iowa (see Federal) Kentucky (last execution of female by Kentucky on 2ă7ă1868) (1 female offender now on KentuckyÊs death row) Caudill, Virginia Susan: White; age 37 at crime and now age 48 (DOB: 9ă10ă1960); robbery and murder of black female age 73 in Lexington on 3ă15ă1998; sentenced on 3ă24ă2000. Louisiana (last execution of female by Louisiana on 11ă28ă1942) (2 female offenders now on LouisianaÊs death row)

708

|

Appendices

Frank, Antoinette: Black; age 22 at crime and now age 38 (DOB: 4ă30ă1971); robbery and murder of white male age 25 (police officer), Asian male age 17, and Asian female age 24 in New Orleans on 3ă4ă1994; sentenced on 9ă13ă1995. Holmes, Brandy: White; age 23 at crime and now age 29; robbery and murder of white male age 70 in Blanchard (Cado Parish) on 1ă1ă2003; sentenced on 2ă21ă2006. Mississippi (last execution of female by Mississippi on 5ă19ă1944) (3 female offenders now on MississippiÊs death row) Byrom, Michelle: White; age 43 at crime and now age 52 (DOB: 11ă3-1956); murder (she hired killer) of white male age 56 (her husband) in Tishomingo County on 6ă4ă1999; sentenced on 11ă18ă2000. Chamberlin, Lisa Jo (aka Chamberlain): White; age 31 at crime and now age 36 (DOB: 9ă30ă1972); murder of white male age 34 and white female age 37 in Hattiesburg (Forrest County) on 3ă20(?)ă2004; sentenced on 8ă4ă2006. Fulgham, Kristi Leigh: White; age 26 at crime and now age 33 (DOB: 8ă27ă 1976); murder (she hired killer) of white male age 28 (her husband) in Longview (Oktibbeha County) on 5ă10ă2003; sentenced on 12ă9ă2006.

Missouri (see Federal) North Carolina (last execution of female by North Carolina on 11ă2ă1984) (4 female offenders now on North CarolinaÊs death row) Jennings, Patricia JoAnn [aka Wells]: White; age 47 at crime and now age 66 (DOB: 8ă24ă1942); murder of white male age 77 (her husband) in Wilson County on 9ă19ă1989; sentenced on 11ă5-1990. Moore, Blanche Kiser [aka Taylor]: White; age 56 at crime and now age 76 (DOB: 2ă17ă1933); murder of white male age 50 (her boyfriend) in Alamance County on 10ă7ă1986; sentenced on 1ă18ă1991. Parker, Carlette Elizabeth: Black; age 34 at crime and now age 46 (DOB: 6ă12ă 1963); murder of white female age 86 in North Raleigh (Wake County) on 5ă12ă 1998; sentenced on 4ă1ă1999. Walters, Christina S.: American Indian; age 20 at crime and now age 30 (DOB: 7ă15ă1978); murder of white female age 19 and white female age 25 north of Fayetteville in Cumberland County on 8ă17ă1998; sentenced on 7ă6ă2000.

Appendices

| 709

Ohio (last execution of female by Ohio on 6ă12ă1954) (1 female offender now on OhioÊs death row) Roberts, Donna Marie: White; age 58 at crime and now age 65 (DOB: 5ă23ă 1944); murder of white male age 56 (her husband) near Warren (Trumbull County) on 12ă11ă2001; sentenced on 6ă21ă2003; reversed on 8ă2ă2006; resentenced on 10ă29ă2007. Oklahoma (last execution of a female by Oklahoma on 12ă4ă2001) (1 female offender now on OklahomaÊs death row) Andrew, Brenda E.: White; age 37 at crime and now age 45 (DOB: 12ă16ă1963); murder of white male age 39 (her husband) in Oklahoma City on 11ă20ă2001; sentenced on 9ă22ă2004. Pennsylvania (last execution of female by Pennsylvania on 10ă14ă1946) (3 female offenders now on death row) King, Carolyn Ann [aka Ewell; Goodman; Kline]: Black; age 28 at crime and now age 43 (DOB: 12ă9ă1965); robbery and murder of white female adult in October 1993 in Lebanon; sentenced on 11ă30ă1994. Tharp, Michelle Sue: White; age 29 at crime and now age 40 (DOB: 1ă20ă1969); murder of white female age 7 (her daughter) in Burgettstown (Washington County) on 4ă18ă1998; sentenced on 11ă14ă2000. Walter, Shonda Dee (aka Walters]: Black; age 23 at crime and now age 29 (DOB: 7ă16ă1979); murder of white male age 83 in Lock Haven (Clinton County) on 3ă25ă 2003; sentenced on 4ă19ă2005. Tennessee (last execution of female by Tennessee in 1837) (2 female offenders now on death row) Owens, Gail Kirksey: White; age 32 at crime and now age 56 (DOB 9ă22ă1952); murder (she hired killer) of white male adult (her husband) in Shelby County on 2ă17ă1985; sentenced on 1ă15ă1986. Pike, Christa Gail: White; age 18 at crime and now age 33 (DOB: 3ă10ă 1976); murder of Latin female age 19 in Knoxville on 1ă12ă1995; sentenced on 3ă29ă1996.

710 |

Appendices

Texas (last execution of female by Texas on 9ă14ă2005) (10 female offenders now on death row) Basso, Suzanne Margaret: White; age 44 at crime and now age 55 (DOB: 5ă15ă 1954); murder of white male (her boyfriend) age 59 in Houston (Harris County) on 8ă25ă1998; sentenced on 9ă1ă1999. Carty, Linda Anita: Black; age 42 at crime and now age 50 (DOB: 10ă5ă1958); kidnapping and murder of Latin female age 20 (and victimÊs infant son) in Houston (Harris County) on 5ă16ă2001; sentenced on 2ă21ă2002. Coleman, Lisa: Black; age 28 at crime and now age 33; murder of black male age 9 in Arlington (Tarrant County) on 7ă26ă2004; sentenced on 7ă7ă2006. Henderson, Cathy Lynn: White; age 37 at crime and now age 52 (DOB: 12ă27ă 1956); murder of white male age 3 months (she was babysitter) near Austin (Travis County) on 1ă21ă1994; sentenced on 5ă25ă1995. Holberg, Brittany Marlowe: White; age 23 at crime and now age 36 (DOB: 1ă71973); murder of white male age 80 in Amarillo (Randall County) on 11ă13ă1996; sentenced on 3ă27ă1998. Lucio, Melissa Elizabeth: Latin; age 38 at crime and now age 40 (DOB: 7ă18ă 1968); murder of Latin female age 2 1/2 (her daughter) in Harlington (Cameron County) on 2ă16ă2007; sentenced on 8ă??ă2008. McCarthy, Kimberly Lagayle: Black; age 36 at crime and now age 48 (DOB: 5ă11ă1961); murder of white female age 71 in Lancaster (Dallas County) on 7ă21ă1997; sentenced on 12-?-1998; reversed in 2001; resentenced to death on 11ă1ă2002. Richardson, Chelsea Lea: White; age 19 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 3ă26ă 1984); murder of white male age 46 and white female age 45 in Mansfield (Tarrant County) on 12ă11ă2003; sentenced on 6ă1ă2005. Routier, Darla Lynn: White; age 26 at crime and now age 39 (DOB: 1ă4ă1970); murder of white male age 5 (her son) in Rowlett (Dallas County) on 6ă6ă1996; sentenced on 2ă4ă1997. Sheppard, Erica Yvonne: Black; age 19 at crime and now age 35 (DOB: 9ă1ă 1973); murder of white (?) female age 43 in Houston (Harris County) on 6ă30ă1993; sentenced on 3ă3ă1995.

APPENDIX C SELECTED CITATIONS TO AUTHOR’S PUBLICATIONS CONCERNING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF FEMALES Death Penalty for Women and Girls in North Carolina, 1 ELON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 65 (2009) (with Elizabeth Rapaport).

Appendices

| 711

THE FAIRER DEATH: EXECUTING WOMEN IN OHIO (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press) (2006). Rare and Inconsistent: The Death Penalty for Women, 33 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL 609 (2006). DEATH PENALTY IN A NUTSHELL (St. Paul, MN: West Group) (2003) (2nd ed. 2005) (3rd ed. 2008). Executing Women, Children, and the Retarded: Second Class Citizenship in Capital Punishment, in AMERICAÊS EXPERIMENT WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT at 201 (1998) and at 301 (2nd ed. 2003) (James R. Acker, Robert M. Bohm, & Charles S. Lanier, eds.) (Durham, NC: Carolina Press). Gendering the Death Penalty: Countering Sex Bias in a Masculine Sanctuary, 63 OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL 433 (2002). Sentencing Women to Death, 16(1) CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ABA) 24 (Spring 2001). Women on Death Row, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WOMEN AND CRIME 45 (Nicole Rafter, ed.) (Phoenix: The Oryx Press) (2000). Capital Punishment of Female Offenders, in WOMEN IN PRISON (Shirley Dicks, ed.) (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books) (1998). AmericaÊs Aversion to Executing Women, 1 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY WOMENÊS LAW JOURNAL 1 (1997). Death Penalty for Lesbians, 1 NATIONAL JOURNAL OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION LAW 104 (1994) (available at http://sunsite.unc.edu/gaylaw). Death Penalty for Battered Women, 20 FLORIDA STATE LAW REVIEW 163 (1992). Death Penalty for Female Offenders, 58 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW 845 (1990). Executing Juvenile Females, 22 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW 3 (1989) (with Lynn Sametz). Note 1. Issue #65. Copyright 2010 by Victor Streib. Used by permission.

This page intentionally left blank

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Historical and Contemporary Core Sources in Women’s Offending Adler, Freda. 1975. Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New York: McGraw Hill. Atkins, Susan, and Brenda Hoggett. 1984. Women and the Law. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bach, Steven. 2007. Leni: The Life and Work of Leni Reifenstahl. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Barrows, Sydney. 1986. Mayflower Madam: The Secret Life of Sydney Biddle Barrows. New York: Arbor House. Baskin, Deborah, and Ira Sommers. 1998. Casualties of Community Disorder: WomenÊs Careers in Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview. Baunach, Phyllis. 1985. Women in Prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Bicknell, Anna L. 2009. The Story of Marie-Antoinette. New York: Cornell University Press. Bosworth, Mary, and Jeanne Flavin. 2006. Race, Gender, and Punishment: From Colonialism to the War on Terror. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Press. Brock, Deborah. 1998. Making Work, Making Trouble: Prostitution as a Social Problem. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Broidy, Lisa, and Robert Agnew. 1997. „Gender and Crime: A General Strain Theory Perspective.‰ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34: 275ă306. Browne, Angela. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press. Browne, Angela, Brenda Miller, and Eugene Maguin. 1999. „Prevalence and Severity of Lifetime Physical and Sexual Victimization Among Incarcerated Women.‰ International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(3ă4): 311ă322. Byron, Christopher. 2002. Martha, Inc.: The Incredible Story of Martha Stewart Living. New York: Wiley. Campbell, Anne. 1993. Men, Women, and Aggression. New York: Basic Books. Carlen, Pat. 1983. WomenÊs Imprisonment: A Study in Social Control. London: Routledge. Carr, Nicole T., Kenneth Hudson, Roma S. Hanks, and Andrea N. Hunt. 2008. „Gender Effects along the Juvenile Justice System.‰ Feminist Criminology 3: 25ă43. Chesler, Ellen. 1992. Women of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chesney-Lind, Meda. 1989. „GirlsÊ Crime and WomanÊs Place: Toward a Feminist Model of Female Delinquency.‰ Crime and Delinquency 35: 5ă29. Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2006. „Patriarchy, Crime and Justice.‰ Feminist Criminology 1(1): 6ă26.

713

714 |

Selected Bibliography

Chesney-Lind, Meda, and J. M. Hagedorn, eds. 1999. Female Gangs in America: Essays on Girls, Gangs, and Gender. Chicago: Lakeview Press. Clinton, Catherine. 2004. Harriett Tubman: The Road to Freedom. Boston: Little and Brown. Collier-Thomas, Bettye, and V. P. Franklin. 2001. Sisters in the Struggle: African American Women in the Civil Rights-Black Power Movement. New York: New York University Press. Cook, Sandy, and Susanne Davies, eds. 1999. Harsh Punishment: International Experiences of WomenÊs Imprisonment. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Daly, Kathleen. 1989. „Gender and Varieties of White Collar Crime.‰ Criminology 27(4): 769ă794. Daly, Kathleen. 1994. Gender, Crime, and Punishment. New Haven: Yale University Press. Daly, Kathleen, and Meda Chesney-Lind. 1988. „Feminism and Criminology.‰ Justice Quarterly 5: 497ă538. Daly, Kathleen. 1997. „Different Ways of Conceptualizing Sex/Gender in Feminist Theory and Their Implications for Criminology.‰ Theoretical Criminology 1(1): 25ă51. De Coster, Stacy, and Karen Heimer. 2006. „Crime at the Intersections: Race, Class, Gender, and Violent Offending.‰ In Ruth Peterson, Lauren Krivo, and John Hagan (eds.), The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America, 138ă156. New York: New York University Press. DeHart, Dana. 2008. „Pathways to Prison: The Impact of Victimization in the Lives of Incarcerated Women.‰ Violence Against Women 14: 1362ă1381. DeKeseredy, Walter. 2000. Women, Crime, and the Canadian Criminal Justice System. Cincinnati: Anderson. Denov, Myriam. 2004. Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Dodge, Mara. 2002. Whores and Thieves of the Worst Kind: A Study of Women, Crime, and Prisons: 1835ă2000. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Eaton, Mary. 1993. Women After Prison. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Erlanger, Rachel. 1978. Lucrezia Borgia: A Biography. New York: Hawthorn Books. Esbensen, Finn-Aage, Dana Peterson, Terrance J. Taylor, and Adrienne Feng. 2010. Youth Violence: Sex and Race Differences in Offending, Victimization, and Gang Membership. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Faith, Karlene. 1993. Unruly Women: The Politics of Confinement and Resistance. Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers. Fentinan, Linda. 2009. „Pursuing the Perfect Mother: Why AmericaÊs Criminalization of Maternal Substance Abuse Is Not the Answer·A Comparative Legal Analysis.‰ Journal of Gender and the Law 15: 389ă465. Filetti, Jean S. 2001. „From Lizzie Borden to Lorena Bobbitt: Violent Women and Gendered Justice.‰ Journal of American Studies 335: 471-484. Gado, Mark. 2008. Death Row Women: Murder, Justice, and the New York Press. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gentry, Curt. 1964. The Madams of San Francisco. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Giallombardo, Rose. 1966. Society of Women: A Study of a WomenÊs Prison. New York: John Wiley. Gilfus, Mary. 1992. „From Victims to Survivors to Offenders: WomenÊs Routes of Entry and Immersion into Street Crime.‰ Women and Criminal Justice 4: 63ă90. Gillespie, Cynthia. 1989. Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self Defense, and the Law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Selected Bibliography | 715

Girschick, Lori. 1999. No Safe Haven: Stories of Women in Prison. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Goldman, Emma. 2006. Living My Life. New York: Penguin Books. Goldsmith, Margaret L. 1976. Seven Women Against the World. Westport, CT: Hyperion Press. Gooch, Steve. 1978. The Women Pirates Ann Bonny and Mary Read. London: Pluto Press. Hagan, John. 1987. „Class in the Household: A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency.‰ American Journal of Sociology 92: 788ă816. Hammer, Richard. 1990. The Helmsleys: The Rise and Fall of Harry and Leona. New York: New American Library. Haskins, James. 1988. Winnie Mandela: Life of Struggle. New York: Putnam. Hearst, Patricia Campbell, and Alvin Moscow. 1982. Every Secret Thing. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Heidensohn, Frances. 1985. Women and Crime. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Heidensohn, Frances. 1968. „The Deviance of Women: A Critique and an Enquiry.‰ British Journal of Sociology 19(2): 160ă175. Hendley, Nate. 2007. Bonnie and Clyde: A Biography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hollander, Xaviera. 2002. Child No More: A Memoir. New York: Regan Books. Humphries, Drew. 1999. Crack Mothers: Pregnancy, Drugs, and the Media. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Jensen, Vickie. 2001. Why Women Kill: Gender Equality and Homicide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Kruttschnitt, Candace, and Kristin Carbone-Lopez. 2006. Moving Beyond the Stereotypes: WomenÊs Subjective Accounts of Their Violent Crime. Criminology 44(2): 321ă352. Langlois, Janet L. 1985. Belle Gunness, The Lady Bluebeard. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Leonard, Elizabeth Dermody. 2002. Convicted Survivors: The Imprisonment of Battered Women Who Kill. Albany: SUNY Press. Maher, Lisa. 1997. Sexed Work: Gender, Race, and Resistance in a Brooklyn Drug Market. Oxford: Clarenden Press. Maher, Lisa, and Kathleen Daly. 1996. „Women in the Street Level Drug Economy: Continuity or Change?‰ Criminology 34(4): 465ă491. McNulty, Faith. 1981. The Burning Bed. Toronto: Bantam Books. Messerschmidt, James. 1986. Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime: Toward a Socialist Feminist Criminology. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Meyer, Cheryl, and Michelle Oberman. 2001. Mothers Who Kill Their Children: Understanding the Acts of Moms from Susan Smith to the „Prom Mom.‰ New York: New York University Press. Miller, Jody. 2008. Getting Played: African-American Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence. New York: New York University Press. Miller, Jody. 1998. „Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.‰ Criminology 36: 37ă66. Miller, Jody. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Gender. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, Susan. 2005. Victims as Offenders: The Paradox of WomenÊs Violence in Relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Moore, Lucy. 2007. Liberty: The Lives and Times of Six Women in Revolutionary France. New York: HarperCollins.

716

|

Selected Bibliography

Nadelson, Reggie. 1972. Who Is Angela Davis? The Biography of a Revolutionary. New York: P. H. Wyden. Naffine, Ngaire. 1988. Female Crime: Construction of Women in Criminology. London: University College of London Press. Naffine, Ngaire. 1996. Feminism and Criminology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Naffine, N., and F. Gale. 1989. „Testing the Nexus: Crime, Gender, and Unemployment.‰ British Journal of Criminology 29(2): 144ă156. OÊBrien, Patricia. 2001. Making It In the Free World: Women in Transition From Prison. Albany: SUNY Press. Oberman, Michelle. 2008. When Mothers Kill Kids: Interviews from Prison. New York: New York University Press. Odem, Mary E. 1995. Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885ă1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ogle, Robbin, and Susan Jacobs. 2002. Self Defense and Battered Women Who Kill. Westport, CT: Praeger. Owen, Barbara. 1998. „In the Mix‰: Struggle and Survival in a WomenÊs Prison. Albany: SUNY Press. Pence, Irene. 2001. Buried Memories: The Chilling True Story of Betty Lou Beets, the Texas Black Widow. New York: Pinnacle Books. Ptacek, James. 1999. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Rafter, Nicole Hahn, and Frances Heidensohn, eds. 1995. International Feminist Perspectives in Crime: Engendering a Discipline. Buckingham: Open University Press. Richie, Beth. 1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New York: Routledge. Ross, Ishbel. 1954. Rebel Rose: Life of Rose OÊNeal Greenhow, Confederate Spy. New York: Harper. Salisbury, Emily J., and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2009. „Gendered Pathways: A Quantitative Investigation of Women Probationers.‰ Criminal Justice and Behavior 36: 541ă566. Scherr, Marie. 1970. Charlotte Corday and Certain Men of the Revolutionary Torment. New York: AMS Press. Schiller, Lawrence. 1970. The Killing of Sharon Tate: The Exclusive Story of Susan Atkins. New York: Signet. Scholl, Hans, Inge Jens, and Sophie Scholl. 1987. At the Heart of the White Rose: Letters and Diaries of Hans and Sophie Scholl. New York: Harper and Row. Schuetz, Janice. 1994. The Logic of Women on Trial: Case Studies of Popular American Trials. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Schur, Edwin. 1984. Labeling Women Deviant: Gender Stigma and Social Control. New York: McGraw Hill. Schwartz, Martin, and Dragan Milovanovic. 1999. Race, Gender, and Class in Criminology: The Intersections. New York: Garland Publishing. Seagrave, K. 1992. Women Serial and Mass Murderers: A Worldwide Reference, 1580ă1990. London: McFarland and Co. Sharp, Susan. 2003. The Incarcerated Woman: Rehabilitative Programming in WomenÊs Prisons. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shipley, Stacey L., and Bruce A. Arrigo. 2004. The Female Homicide Offender: Serial Murder and the Case of Wuornos. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Selected Bibliography | 717

Simkins, Sandra, and Sarah Katz. 2002. „Criminalizing Abused Girls.‰ Violence Against Women 8: 1474ă1499. Simon, Rita. 1975. Women and Crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Simpson, Sally. 1991. „Caste, Class, and Violent Crime: Explaining Differences in WomenÊs Offending.‰ Criminology 29(1): 115ă135. Simpson, Sally, and Lori Ellis. 1995. „Doing Gender: Sorting our the Caste and Crime Conundrum.‰ Criminology 33(1): 47ă81. Skiffer, LaTanya. 2008. How Black Female Offenders Explain their Crime and Describe Their Hopes: A Case Study of Inmates in a California Prison. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press. Smart, Carol. 1976. Women, Crime, and Criminology: A Feminist Critique. London: Routledge. Solinger, Rickie, ed. 2010. Interrupted Life: Experiences of Incarcerated Women in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Steffensmeier, Darrell J., and Emilie A. Allan. 1996. „Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending.‰ Annual Review of Sociology 22: 459ă487. Vernon, Virginia. 1964. Enchanting Little Lady: The Criminal Life of the Marquise de Brinvilliers. London: Abelard-Schuman. Victor, Barbara. 1998. The Lady: Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Laureate and BurmaÊs Prisoner. Boston: Faber and Faber. Visher, Christy. 1983. „Gender, Police Arrest Decisions, and Notions of Chivalry.‰ Criminology 21: 5ă28. Ward, David, and Gene Kassebaum. 1965. WomenÊs Prison: Sex and Social Structure. Chicago: Aldine. Wilczynski, Ania. 1991. „Images of Women Who Kill Their Infants: The Mad and the Bad.‰ Women and Criminal Justice 2: 71ă88. Wood, Ean. 2000. The Josephine Baker Story. London: Sanctuary. Young, Vernetta. 1980. „Women, Race, and Crime.‰ Criminology 18: 26ă34. Zaitzow, Barbara, and Jim Thomas, eds. 2003. Women in Prison: Gender and Social Control. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Selected Secondary Textbooks and Textbook Readers Belknap, Joanne. 2010. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice, 4th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2004. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Lisa Pasko, eds. 2004. Girls, Women, and Crime: Selected Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Randall Shelden. 2003. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Heimer, Karen, and Candace Kruttschnitt, eds. 2006. Gender and Crime: Patterns of Victimization and Offending. New York: New York University Press. Muraskin, Rosllyn, ed. 2012. Women and Justice: ItÊs a Crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pollock, Joycelyn. 2001. Women, Prison, and Crime. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Price, Barbara, and Natalie Sokoloff. 2003. The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Prisoners, Victims, and Workers, 3rd edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

718

|

Selected Bibliography

Renzetti, Claire, and Lynne Goodstein, eds. 2001. Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Original Feminist Readings. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Roberts, Dorothy. 1998. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage. Schram, Pamela, and Barbara Koons-Witt. 2004. Gender (in)Justice: Theory and Practice in Feminist Criminology. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Silvestri, M., and C. Crowther-Dowey. 2008. Gender and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Wormer, Katherine Stuart, and Clemens Bartollas, eds. 2007. Women and the Criminal Justice System. Boston: Pearson.

INDEX

Boldface page numbers reflect main entries. prostitution data, 86 rape of female slaves, 83 release rates vs. African American men, 125 stereotypes of, 130 ă 133, 281 victimization by male police, 190, 193, 195 African National Council (ANC), 525 ă 527 age and womenÊs offending, 99 ă 114 age-graded social control, 103 age invariance theory, 100 ă 101 changes in data, research methods, 104 ă 107 crime mix, 108 ă 109 Criminal Career and Life Course Study, 105 developmental life course criminology, 102 ă 103 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, 102 duration, 109 ă 111 frequency, 108 future research directions, 112 ă 114 gender in the life course perspective, 103 ă 104 general information, 99 ă 100 life course theory, 101 ă 102 Lola (case study), 99 participation, 107 ă 108 Racine Wisconsin adult onset study, 104, 105 WomenÊs Reformatory Study, 103 ă 106 age-crime curve, 100 age-graded social control, 103

Abolition Democracy (Davis), 374 abortion and criminalization, 223 ă 229 1840 ă 1806 period, 226 ă 227 1890 ă 1900 antiabortion policy, 227 Hawaii Court of Appeals ruling, 231 Model Penal Code, 227 ă 228 New York Revised Statutes (1829), 225 19th century policy evolution, 225 ă 226 Revised „Crimes and Punishments‰ law, 224 state laws, 226 ă 227 Supreme Court cases, 228 ă 229 therapeutic exceptions (NYS), 225 Abu-Jamal, Mumia, 374 Adams, Anthony, 11 Adams, Elizabeth, 415 adjudication. See criminal adjudication Adler, Freda, 101 Affair of the Poisons (France), 543 African American women. See also Allen, Wanda Jean; women of color; Wright, Dora anti-court testimony laws, 131, 278 black feminism, 130 comparison with Latinas, 131 comparison with white criminality, 123 drug-related incarceration odds, 126 early-vs. late-onset criminality, 103, 127 femininity construction by, 135 incarceration overrepresentation, 123 ă 124, 127 ă 129, 192 interviews regarding police treatment, 190 IPV in lesbian partnerships, 198 ă 199

719

720 |

Index

age invariance theory, 100 ă 101 Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, 477 Ah Toy, 21, 277–279, 360 Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983), 228 Alarid, Leanne Fiftal, 90 Albright, Gerald, 309 alcohol and drug offenses, 21 ă 23, 154 ă 156. See also substance abuse Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), 504 Alderson Federal Women Penitentiary, 174 Alexander VI (Pope), 328 ă 330 Alice, Mary, 580 Allan, Emilie A., 40, 41, 101, 103, 173 Allen, Wanda Jean, 64 ă 65, 134, 279 – 281 Alliance of Lesbian Feminists of Atlanta, 523 Alligood, Clarence, 522 Allitt, Beverly, 14, 71, 282 – 283 American Civil Liberties Union, 497 American Control League, 573 American Indian Council of the Reformed Church of America, 356 ă 357 American Indian Movement (AIM), 167, 169, 289 ă 290, 633 ă 634 American Indian women, 127, 133. See also Aquash, Anna; Wanrow, Yvonne American Law InstituteÊs Model Penal Code, 227 American Psychiatric Association, 88, 433 American Psychological Association (APA), 497 American Public Health Association, 538 American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), 601 Amnesty International, 428, 568, 608 Anarchist Exclusion Act, 436 Anderson, George (Arthur Dunlop), 302 Anderson, K. B., 203 Andrew, Phil, 371 Andrews, E. Ray, 310 Angel Ranch, 437 Angels of Death. See Allitt, Beverly; Bombeek, Cecile; Jegado, Hélène; Jones, Genene Annan, Kofi, 607 anomie/strain theory, 35 ă 37

Anthony, Casey, 284 – 288 Anthony, Cindy, 286 Anthony, Susan B., 407, 601, 618 antisocial personality disorder, 65, 66. See also Atkins, Susan; Hindley, Myra; Huckaby, Melissa; Krenwinkel, Patricia; Van Houten, Leslie; Wuornos, Aileen antisodomy laws, 88 Antoinette, Marie. See Marie Antoinette Antonio, Walter Gino, 643 Aquash, Anna, 167, 289 – 291 Aquash, Nogeeshik, 290 ă 291 Arab National Movement, 499 Archbold, C. A., 202, 203 Are Prisons Obsolete? (Davis), 374 Arguello, Patrick, 500 Armed Forces of National Liberation of Puerto Rico (FALN), 553 ă 554 ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), 608 The AssassinÊs Accomplice (Larson), 603ă604 Association for Support of ChildrenÊs Rights, 394 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), 608 Atkins, Susan, 13, 66, 291 – 295, 492 ă 493, 624 Atomic Energy Act (1946), 570 Aurnou, Joel, 452 Austria/Australia, infanticide legal status, 60 Avakame, E. F., 197 Axis Sally. See Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk „baby farms‰ (of Amelia Dyer), 14 Bacanovic, Peter, 597 ă 598 Badlands movie, 425 Baez, Jose, 287 Bailey, F. Lee, 459 Baker, E. D., 361 Baker, Josephine, 297 – 299 Balagoon, Kuwasi, 354 Ballard, James David, 166 The Bandit Queen: The True Story of Phoolan Devi (Sen), 376

Index

Bandit Queen of India. See Devi, Phoolan The Bandit Queen of India: An Indian WomanÊs Amazing Journey from Peasant to International Legend (Devi), 171 Barfield, Velma, 14, 69 ă 70, 145 ă 146, 299 – 301 Barker, Arizona „Ma,‰ 17, 302 – 303 Barker, Doyle Wayne, 309 ă 310 Barker-Karpis Gang, 302 ă 303 Baro, A. L., 202 Barron, Charles, 580 Barrow, Clyde, 17, 554 ă 557. See also Parker, Bonnie Barrows, Sydney, 21, 303 – 306 Bàthory, Elizabeth, 69, 306 – 308 battered husbandÊs syndrome, 235 battered spouse syndrome, 235 battered women (battered womenÊs syndrome), 147. See also Bobbitt, Lorena; Hughes, Francine; Kelly, Gladys Cannon; Thurman, Tracy criminal adjudication and, 232 ă 235 as defendant vs. victim, 233 defined, 245 failures in legal protections for, 4 ă 5, 147 individual state codification, 235 New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women, 497 as pathway to prison, 245 Violence Against Women Act, 85, 147 work of Lenore Walker, 150 ă 153 Battered WomenÊs Justice Project (2008), 149 Beauchamp, Jereboam, 358 Beaufort County Jail (North Carolina), 521 ă 522 Beauregard, Pierre, 445 Beausoleil, Bobby, 293, 623 Bedford Hills ChildrenÊs Center, 353. See also Clark, Judith Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women (NYS), 353, 452 Beets, Betty, 14, 145 ă 146, 308 – 310 Beets, James Donald, 309 ă 310 Beirne, Piers, 165, 173 Bell, Charles, 461 ă 462

| 721

Bell, Mary, 157, 310 – 312 Bell, Norma, 311 Belle Boyd in Camp and Prison (Boyd), 333 Bellotti v. Baird (1979), 228 Bembo, Pietro, 330 Bence, Eli, 326 ă 327 Bennett, Keith, 463 Bentley, Alvin, 512 Berk, R. A., 196 Berkman, Alexander, 435ă 436 Bernardo, Paul (Scarborough Rapist), 468 ă 470 Bevan, Catherine, 312 – 314 Bevan, Henry, 312 Bexar County Hospital (Texas), 488 Biggers, J. R., 154 biological perspectives of womenÊs criminality, 57 ă 63 Lombroso/early perspectives, 57 ă 58 mothers who kill their children, 60 ă 63 sexuality and menstruation, 58 ă 59 bipolar disorder, 69, 73. See also Dann, Laurie; Huckaby, Melissa; Lafave, Debra; Letourneau, Mary Kay Bishop, Amy, 14, 314 – 317 Black Liberation Army (BLA), 133, 344, 353 ă 354, 578 Black Movement, 169, 373 Black Panther Party (BPP), 164, 373, 523, 578 Black Tigresses, 380 Black Widow killer. See Doss, Nannie Blackjack Hall of Fame, 389 Blackwell, Henry, 601 Blakey, David, 398 ă 399 Blanchard, Susan, 417 Blee, Kathleen, 163 Block, Carolyn Rebecca, 105, 108 ă 110 Blues Legacies and Black Feminism (Davis), 374 Bobbitt, John Wayne, 319 ă 321 Bobbitt, Lorena, 318 – 321 Boleyn, Anne, 471 Bombeek, Cecile, 14, 70, 321 – 322 Bonnie and Clyde movie, 557. See also Parker, Bonnie Bonny, Anne, 17, 323 – 324

722

|

Index

Borden, Abby Durfee Gray, 326 ă 328 Borden, Andrew Jackson, 326 ă 328 Borden, Lizzie, 325 – 328 borderline personality disorder, 65 ă 66 Borgia, Cesare, 328 ă 330 Borgia, Lucrezia, 328 – 330 Boroughs, Deborah, 91 Bottcher, Jean, 82 Boudin, Kathy, 354 Bowers v. Hardwick (Supreme Court decision), 88 Bowser, Mary Elizabeth, 628 Box, S., 39 Boyd, Belle, 330 – 333 Boyns, David, 166 Brady, Ian, 463 Brame, Robert, 103 Brandenburg v. Ohio (Supreme Court decision), 640 Branson, Robert Franklin, 308 Bremer, Edward George, 303 Bridges, Gail, 449 ă 450 Brinvilliers, Marquise de, 333 – 335 Broderick, Betty, 335 – 337 Broidy, Lisa M., 103 ă 104 Brokaw, Frances Seymour, 417 Brown, Debra, 13 ă 14, 337 – 340 Brown, Joyce Ann, 341 – 343 Brown, Martin, 311 ă 312 Brown, W. O., 291 Brown, Waverly, 353 Bruce, Martha Jean, 342 ă 343 Brundidge, Harry, 368 Brunner, Mary, 293, 502 Brunson, R. K., 192, 195 Buchanan, James, 443, 444 Buck, Marilyn, 167, 343 – 345 Bugliosi, Vince, 493 Bureau of Justice Statistics data African American overrepresentation, 123 imprisonment by gender, race, origin, 242 inmate mental health, 256 Latina overrepresentation, 126 male/female victimization surveys, 187, 196 mental health problems in prison, 256 pre-incarceration abuse, 254

rape with aggravating factors, 199 sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction, 243 violent crime victimization, 195 women under sentence of death, 251 Burlingame, D., 202 The Burning Bed movie, 149, 481. See also Hughes, Francine Burress, Troy, 643 Busch, Francis X., 604 Bush, George W., 90, 168 ă 169, 228, 229, 419, 618 Buttafuoco, Joey, 412 ă 414 Buttafuoco, Mary Jo, 413 The Butterbox Babies movie, 651 „Butterbox Baby Killer.‰ See Young, Lila Byrd, Robert C., 344 Calhoun, Cheshire, 88 California Gold Rush, 277, 360, 387, 444 California Institution for Women (CIW), 295, 504 Campbell, Anne, 11, 68 Campos, Pedro Albizu, 511 Canada, infanticide legal status, 60 Canary, Martha Jane (Calamity Jane), 388 Cantu, Sandra, 473 ă 475 Cao, Liqun, 11 Carey, Hugh, 533 Carrington, Peter J., 108 Carskaddon, Charles, 643 Carter, Jimmy, 459 Casey, James Patrick, 361 Castro, Fidel, 580 Cauffman, Elizabeth E., 103 ă 104 Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew tv show, 416 Celeste, Richard, 340 Center for Constitutional Rights, 633 Central California WomenÊs Facility (Chowchilla), 292, 295, 337, 591 Centurion Ministries, 343 César Chávez Monument (San Jose, CA), 477 „CharlieÊs Girls‰ (Charles Manson). See Atkins, Susan; Brunner, Mary; Fromme, Lynette „Squeaky‰; Good, Sandra; Hindley, Myra; Krenwinkel, Patricia; Van Houten, Leslie

Index

Chávez, César, 477 Che-Lumumba Club (Communist Party), 373 Cheng Chui Ping (Zheng Cui Ping), 347–349 Cheng I Sao, 17, 349 – 351 Chesney-Lind, M., 39, 82, 144, 145, 189 ă 190, 248 Chicano Movement, 169 child abuse and neglect, 142 ă 146. See also Wuornos, Aileen legislative intervention, 142 ă 143 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974), 143 Child Savers Movement (early 1900s), 143 children abuse by pedophiles, 91 ă 92 killing of, by their mothers, 60 ă 63 prostitution by, 156 sexual abuse of, 82 Children of Bedford Foundation, 453 ChildrenÊs Act (1908) (England), 390 ChÊing Yih Szaou. See Cheng I Sao Chivers, Thomas Holley, 359 Choice USA, 595 Christian Coalition of America, 620 Christian Right organization, 89 Civil Rights Act (1964), 201, 634 Civil Rights Movement (U.S.), 297 ă 298, 343 Civil War (U.S.), 83, 167, 330 ă 331, 333, 395, 445 Clark, Judith, 352 – 354 Clark, Justice, 530 Cleghorn, Mildred, 355 – 357 Clinton, Bill, 197, 554, 559 Clinton, Hillary Rodham, 479 Clinton Correctional Facility for Women (NJ), 580 Coalition of Labor Union Women, 594 cocaine addiction, 70, 155 cognitive/learning deficits, 63 ă 65 Coleman, Alton, 338 ă 340. See also Brown, Debra Coleman, Travis, 409 ă 410 Collins, Patricia H., 83 Collison, Merle, 424 Colvert, Robert, 423 commercialized vice, 20 ă 21 Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church for Christ, 522

| 723

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), 202 Committee to Free Debra Gindorf, 433 Committees for Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, 374 Communist Labor Party (CLP), 638 Communist Party youth organization, 373 Community Service Organization (CSO), 477 The Complete Scarsdale Medical Diet (Tarnower), 451 ă 452 Comstock, Anthony, 574 Comstock Act (1873), 436, 573 ă 574 Conciergerie Prison (France), 363, 536 Congressional legislation abortion funding, 228 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 143 Comstock Law (1873), 574 Fourteenth Amendment, 601 freeing prisoners of war (1912), 356 Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, 559 public funding assistance, 5 Sentencing Reform Act (1984), 211 Constitution (U.S.) Equal Protection Clause, 231 Fifth Amendment, 570 First Amendment, 638, 640 Fourteenth Amendment, 201, 601, 639 ă 640 Fourth Amendment, 530, 531 ă 532 Nineteenth Amendment, 638 Sixth Amendment, 567 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading, Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol, 182 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 182 Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 182 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 182 Cook, Ann, 357 – 359 Cora, Belle, 360 – 362 Cora, Charles, 360 ă 362 Corday, Charlotte, 15, 362 – 364

724

|

Index

Cordero, Andres Figuero, 512 Cornfield, Bernie, 415 corrections and correctional issues, 241 ă 264 abuse and victimization, 254 ă 255 assessment and screening, 253 ă 254 community reentry, 263 ă 264 death penalty, 250 ă 251 drug use, 255 ă 256 education, job skills, training, 261 ă 263 female prisoners, 244 ă 245 gender differences in prison adaptations, 249 ă 250 gender-policies and practices, 246 ă 248 incarceration trends, 241 ă 244 management and supervision, 251 ă 253 mental health, 256 ă 257 parenting issues, 257 ă 260 women and pathways to prison, 245 ă 246 Cotton, Mary, 14, 364 – 366 Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), 578 Covenant of Works doctrine (Puritans), 483 Crane, Frederick, 575 Crenshaw, Kimberle, 83 Crime in the United States reports. See FBI Uniform Crime Reports statistics criminal adjudication, 209 ă 235 abortion and criminalization, 223 ă 229 battered women, 232 ă 235 death sentences, 219 ă 220 drug trafficking cases, 215 ă 216 „evil women‰ perspective, 210 federal sentencing, 211 ă 217 gender disparities in outcomes, 209 ă 210 gender disparity studies, 215 Hispanic/black defendants, 216 interaction effect on sentence outcomes, 212 length of imprisonment period, 214 ă 217 maternal substance abuse, 230 ă 232 outcomes for white collar-offenders, 211 ă 214 path modeling studies, 212 prosecutorial charging decisions, 220 ă 223 sentence disparities, 214 ă 215

social world perspective on sentencing, 210 ă 211 state sentencing, gender disparities, 217 ă 219 suspended sentences, 213 Criminal Career and Life Course Study, 105, 108 Criminal Cases Review Commission (2003), 400 Criminal District Court for the Parish of New Orleans, 421 Criminal Women, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman (Lambroso & Ferrero), 170 Crittenden, Alexander P., 407 Crow, Matthew S., 126, 133 Cruz-Vera, Luis Rogelio, 317 Culpepper, Thomas, 472 Cuny, Marie-Therese, 376 Cuomo, Mario, 453 Cussen, Desmond, 399, 400 Cutts, James Madison, 443 Czolgosz, Leon, 435 dÊAquino, Iva (Tokyo Rose), 166, 367 – 369 Daly, Kathleen, 107 Daniels, Andrew, 561 Dann, Laurie, 69, 370 – 372 Dann, Mary and Carrie, 167 Dann, Russell, 370 Davies, K., 198 ă 199 Davis, Angela, 134, 164, 372 – 374, 522 Davis, Carla P., 106 Davis, Jefferson, 443 ă 445 Davis, Jeffrey, 409 Davis, Maria Ragland, 317 De Coster, Stacy, 135 De Vries, Mick and Germaine, 464 Dean, Charles, 65 Dean, Jerry Lynn, 618, 619 Dear Mrs. Parks: A Dialogue with TodayÊs Youth (Parks with Reed), 559 Declaration of the Rights of Women (Gouze), 167 Defendants of Regina McKnight, 538 DeFreeze, Donald, 458 ă 459 DeHärt, Dana D., 157

Index

Demuth, Stephen, 125 Department of Homeland Security (U.S.), 169 Department of Justice (U.S.) data abuse of convicted men, women, 141 drug coping by prostitutes, 86 ă 87 intimate partner violence, 84 males/serious vs. violent crime arrests, 105 race of women under sentence of death, 251 sexual assault reports, 81, 91 dependent personality disorder, 66 ă 67. See also Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk; Lewis, Teresa Dereham, Francis, 471 ă 472 Dershowitz, Allen, 320 Deshayes, Catherine, 543 „Developing a Sociological Theory for the Empirical Understanding of Terrorism‰ (Boyns & Ballard), 166 developmental life course criminology, 102 ă 103 Devi, Phoolan, 171, 374 – 377 Devi: The Bandit Queen (Giddy & Shears), 376 Deviant Children Grown Up (Robins), 107 Devlin, Bernadette, 167, 377 – 379 DeWitt, David, 604 DeWolfe, Thomas, 369 Dhanu (Thenmuli Rajaratnam), 15, 379 – 381 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) absence of postpartum depression, 433 antisocial personality disorder, 66 personality disorders, 65 postpartum depression, 60 Diamond Necklace Affair (France), 534 Dill, Bonnie Thornton, 122 diversity and womenÊs offending, 121 ă 136 African American female perspective, 130 ă 131 definitions, 122 drugs example, 128 ă 129 impacts of stereotypes, 132 ă 135 Latinas/other women of color perspective, 131 ă 132

| 725

need for „intersectionality,‰ 135 patterns and trends, 122 ă 128 Doerner, Jill K., 125 Dolores Huerta Foundation, 478 domestic abuse syndrome, 235 Domestic Violence Experiment (Minneapolis) (1984), 197 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Act (1996), 197 Donizetti, Gaetano, 330 Dorothea Dix State Hospital (North Carolina), 300 Doss, Nannie, 15, 382 – 384 Double Indemnity (Cain), 588 ă 589 Dow, David, 547 Dowley, Philadelphia, 540 ă 541 Downey, Lesley Ann, 463 Drexler, Melissa, 13, 384 – 386 drug abuse. See substance abuse drug-connected women, as pathway to prison, 245 ă 246 drug crimes, 21, 128 ă 129 drug trafficking cases, 18, 180, 215 ă 217, 611 ă 612 Due Process Clause (Constitution), 532 Duluth Domestic Violence Intervention programs, 154 Dumont, Eleanor, 387 – 389 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, 102 Dunlop, Arthur, 302 Durose, M. R., 189 Dwight Correctional Center (Illinois), 428 Dyer, Amelia, 14, 389 – 391 Ebadi, Shirin, 393 – 395 Ebrahimi, Amir Farshad, 394 Edgar, Jim, 428 Edmonds, Sarah, 395 – 398 Eisenhower, Dwight, 571 Eklavya Sena self-defense group, 376 Elder, Glen, 102 Elliott, Delbert S., 108 Ellis, George, 399 Ellis, Ruth, 398 – 400 embezzlement, 9, 18 ă 19, 27 ă 28, 156, 187, 191, 215

726

|

Index

Enemies of the State (Busch), 604 Engel, R. S., 203 Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972), 201 Equal Rights Amendment, 595 Erni, T., 68 Erwin, Joe, 561 escort services, 20 ă 21, 85. See also Barrows, Sydney Estes, Richard J., 157 Etiquette for Consenting Adults (Barrows), 305 Evans, Edward, 463 Everleigh, Ada, 400 – 402 Everleigh, Minna, 403 – 405 „evil women‰ perspective, 210 facilitators (defined), 91 Fair, Laura, 69, 170, 407 – 408 Fair Sentencing Act (2010), 129 Falling, Christine, 408 – 410 Fallmer, Clara, 410 – 412 FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation of Puerto Rico), 553 ă 554 Family Limitations pamphlet (Comstock), 574 Farrell, Joanna, 321 Farrington, David P., 109 Fawcett, Farrah, 481 FBI Most Wanted List, 372, 373 FBI Uniform Crime Reports statistics, 9 age and offending data, 106 aggravated assault, 188 alcohol and drug offenses, 21 battered women, 233 forcible rape, 84 male vs. female arrests, 188 persons arrested by sex, 191 property crime, 18 ă 19 rapes/sexual offenses, 15 reporting by race or gender (not both), 122 ă 123 robbery, 16 „runaway‰ children, 143 ă 144 victimization surveys, 187 ă 188 violent arrests, 10 ă 11 Federal Correctional Institution for Women (West Virginia), 512

Federal Corrections Institute (California), 345 Federal Medical Center (FMC) (Texas), 345 Federal Sentencing Guidelines drug trafficking cases, 215 ă 216 implementation (1987), 211 post-implementation female sentencing, 214 ă 217 federal sentencing of women, 211 ă 217 drug trafficking cases, 215 ă 216 federal districts study, 212 gender disparity studies, 215 Hispanic/black defendants, 216 legal-bureaucratic model, 212 ă 213 length of imprisonment period, 214 ă 217 outcomes for white collar-offenders, 211 ă 214 path modeling studies, 212 post-Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 214 ă 217 sentence disparities, 214 ă 215 suspended sentences, 213 Federal WomenÊs Prison Camp (West Virginia), 579 ă 580 Feldman, T. B., 68 Felson, R. B., 199 female police officers contemporary issues facing, 202 ă 205 historical overview, 201 ă 202 „female public enemy.‰ See Barker, Arizona „Ma‰ feminist criminology, 139 ă 140 feminist (womenÊs) movement, 169. See also Davis, Angela; Fonda, Jane; Steinem, Gloria African American feminists, 131 analyses of rape, 83 assumptions about men and women, 31 biblical feminists, 648 critique of criminology, 121, 128 „double strain‰ concept, 36 ă 37 FBI infiltration of, 169 Francine Hughes case impact, 481 HuertaÊs involvement, 478 lesbians ignored by, 88 Little as cause célèbre, 521, 523 Lorena Bobbitt incident reaction, 320 1970s period, 121, 200

Index

1960s reaction to violence, 196 second generation movement, 38 StoneÊs WomanÊs Journal, 601ă602 support for Joan Little, 523 support for Laura Fair, 407 thoughts on womenÊs offending, 15 ă 16, 41, 177 WanrowÊs speaking for, 633 ă 634 feminist pathways and criminal careers, 76 ă 77 Fergusson, David M., 109 Ferraro, K., 154 Ferrero, Guglielmo, 170 Ferrero, William, 57 ă 58 Fifth Amendment (Constitution), 570 filicide (defined), 8, 60 First Amendment (Constitution), 638, 640 Fisher, Amy, 412 – 414 Fleishman, Gary, 493 Fleiss, Heidi, 21, 415 – 416 Flores, Irvin, 512 Foerster, Werner, 579 Folger, Abigail, 492 Fonda, Henry, 417 Fonda, Jane, 416 – 419 Ford, Gerald, 369, 440 forensic psychiatry, 428 Fort Sill Apache Tribe, 355 ă 357. See also Cleghorn, Mildred Fourteenth Amendment (Constitution), 201, 601, 639 ă 640 Fourth Amendment (Constitution), 530 ă 531, 531 ă 532 Frank, Antoinette, 419 – 421 Free Joan Little Committee, 522 Freedom Forum organization, 607 French, Kristen Dawn, 469 Friedman, Leon, 354 Fromme, Lynette „Squeaky,‰ 440, 502 Frum, Barbara, 440 Frykowski, Voytek, 291, 294 Frykowski, Wojciech, 492 Fualaau, Vili, 513 ă 515 Fugate, Caril, 13 ă 14, 64, 422 – 425 Fuller, Rodney, 517 ă 518 Furman v. Georgia (Supreme Court decision), 523 Fyfe, J. J., 197

| 727

Gandhi, Rajiv, 15 Garcia, George, 428 Garcia, Guin, 145, 156, 427 – 428 Garrett, Thomas, 617 Garrison, William, 617 gay and lesbian sexual issues, 8, 88 ă 91, 169 Gehrke, David, 514 Gelsthorpe, L., 26 gender norms creation/impacts of, 7 described, 42 ă 43 female political prisoners and, 173 hegemonic masculinity and, 5 ă 7, 6, 9, 16, 76 influence on Snyder case, 586 liberated gender ideologies vs., 40 limitations to females, 44 male gender-specific roles and, 82 moral development and, 43 outcomes influenced by, 46 RosenbergÊs alleged violations of, 568 variability over time, 101, 112 gender-responsive programs and services, 246 ă 248 gender systems, contexts of, 3 ă 7. See also men vs. women defined, 3 ă 4 hegemonic masculinity, 5 ă 7, 9, 16, 76 male-female similarities, differences, 26 ă 29 political representation, 5 structural aspects, 4 womenÊs crime, 4 ă 5, 7 ă 9 workforce opportunities, 4 gendered theories of womenÊs offending. See womenÊs offending, gendered theories General Espionage Act (1917), 570 Germany, infanticide legal status, 60 Giallombardo, Rose, 74 Giddy, Isobelle, 376 Gilbert, David J., 354 Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk (Axis Sally), 67, 166, 429 – 431 Gindorf, Debbie, 145 ă 146, 152, 431 – 433 Gindorf, Randy, 432 „girl guerilla.‰ See Khaled, Leila

728

|

Index

Girondists (French political group), 362 ă 363. See also Corday, Charlotte Girshick, Lori B., 142, 145 Gitlow v. New York (Supreme Court decision), 639 global womenÊs crime issues, 177 ă 183 consequences of offending, 180 ă 181 explanations, 179 ă 180 international policymaking, 181 ă 182 patterns of crime, 179 sources of data, 178 ă 179 Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor, 104 ă 106 Gold Rush (California ), 277 Goldman, Emma, 164, 434 – 437 González Valenzuela, Delfina, María de Jesús González, and Eva González, 437 – 439 Gonzalez, Zenaida, 286 Good, Sandra, 439 – 441 Good, Sarah, 549 Good Friday Agreement, 378 Gordon, Carl, 465 Gordon, M., 154 Gottfredson, Michael, 101, 104 Gottfried, Gessina, 441 – 442 Gouze, Marie, 167 Graham, John, 291 Grana, S. J., 189 Gray, Judd, 587 ă 589 Great Manhattan Savings Institution Robbery (1878), 529 Green, John C., 89 Greenberg, David, 101, 103 Greenhow, Rose, 443 – 446 Greensville Correctional Center (Virginia ), 519 Greer, Kimberly R., 89 ă 90 Grogan, Clem, 492 ă 493 Grogan, Steve, 294, 624 Grognan, Steve, 503 Gunness, Belle, 446 – 448 Gurevich, Liena, 133 Habash, George, 499 Hagan, John, 74 ă 75 Hale, C., 39 Handbook for Prison Managers and Policymakers on Women and Imprisonment (UNODC), 182 ă 183

„Hanoi Jane.‰ See Fonda, Jane The Happy Hooker (Hollander), 464 ă 465, 467 Hardinge, Samuel Wylde, Jr., 332 ă 333 harmed and harming women (pathway to prison), 245 Harper, Hames, 579 Harris, Angela, 83 Harris, Bill and Emily, 591 Harris, Clara, 449 – 451 Harris, David, 449 ă 451 Harris, Jean, 451 – 453 Harris, Lindsey, 451 Harris v. McRae (1980), 228 Hayashi, Kenji, 454 Hayashi, Masumi, 453 – 456 Hearst, Patty, 72, 164, 457 – 459 Hearst, Randolph and Catherine, 458 Hearst, William Randolph, 458 hegemonic masculinity, 5 ă 6, 5 ă 7, 9, 16, 76 Heimer, Karen, 135 Helmsley, Harry, 461 Helmsley, Leona, 20, 460 – 462 Henry VIII (King of England), 470 ă 472 Herman, Didi, 89 Hershberger, Mary, 418 ă 419 Hibernia Bank (San Francisco, CA), 459 Hickey, Eric, 14 hijacking of a TWA jet. See Khaled, Leila Hill-Collins, Patricia, 130 Hinchman, Sarah (Sally), 541 Hindley, Myra, 12, 66, 462 – 464 Hinman, Gary, 291, 292, 295 Hirschfeld, Michael L., 354 Hirschi, Travis, 101, 104 Hislop, Julia, 82, 91 histrionic personality disorder, 65, 67 Hitler, Adolph, 563 ă 565, 576 Hollander, Xaviera, 21, 464 – 467 Hollywood Madame. See Fleiss, Heidi Home Sweet Home radio program (Gillars), 430 homicide offending by African Americans, Latinas, 124 by battered women, 233 ă 234 caretaking burden and, 45 by child abuse, 536 ă 539 economic disadvantage and, 32 ă 33 European Sourcebook data, 179

Index

of family, intimate partners, 4 ă 5, 12, 146, 149 ă 154 FBI statistics, 9 female underrepresentation, 27 gender equality and, 39 infanticide, 60 ă 61 juvenile female homicide, 32 maternal substance abuse and, 230 ă 231 men vs. women (NYC data), 123 by minority parents, 133 motives for, 11, 12 ă 13 racial heterogeneity and, 34 serial/mass killings, 13 ă 14 Homolka, Karla, 468 – 470 Homolka, Tammy Lyn, 469 Horwood, L. John, 109 Hostetler, Richard, 648 Hotel Workers Union (California), 478 Houck, Minnie, 561 Houston Police Department, 547 Howard, Katherine, 470 – 472 Howe, Brian, 311 Huckaby, Melissa, 16, 66, 92, 473 – 475 Huerta, Dolores, 134, 476 – 479 Hughes, Francine, 149, 479 – 481 Hughes, Mickey, 479 ă 481 Human Rights Action Center, 607 Human Rights Watch report (1996), 90 Humphreys, Dick, 643 Hutchinson, Anne, 164, 482 – 484 I Am Rosa Parks (Parks with Haskins), 559 I Phoolan Devi, The Autobiography of IndiaÊs Bandit Queen (Cuny & Rambali), 376 Ibargüengoitia, Jorge, 438ă439 incarceration of women abuse and victimization, 254 ă 255 assessment and screening, 253 ă 254 community reentry, 263 ă 264 death row prisoners, 250 ă 251 drug use, 255 ă 256 education, job skills, training, 261 ă 263 gender differences in adaptations, 249 ă 250 management and supervision, 251 ă 253 mental health issues, 256 ă 257 parenting issues, 257 ă 260 trends, 241 ă 244

| 729

Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF), 379 Indianapolis Police Department, 204 Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), 638 ă 639 Infant Life Protection Act (1897) (England), 390 infanticide, 8, 60 ă 62, 390, 648 initiating partners (defined), 91 intensive care unit murders. See Rachals, Terri International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 182 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 182 International Criminal Police Organization, 581 International IDEA, 607ă608 International PeopleÊs Court of Retribution (IPCR), 440 intimate partner violence (IPV), 146 ă 149. See also battered women; Bobbitt, Lorena described, 146 increasing arrests for, 147 ă 148 Latina survivors of, 198 in lesbian relationships, 198 Office of Domestic Violence establishment, 147 police response to, 195 ă 199 rape, 195 statutes by individual states, 149, 154 women of color cases, 198 ă 199 and womenÊs homicide offending, 149 ă 154 IQ (intelligence quotient) and criminal behavior, 63 ă 64. See also Allen, Wanda Jean; Brown, Debra; Fugate, Caril; Lewis, Teresa; West, Rosemary Irish Hunger Strike (1980 ă 1981), 378 Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP), 378 Islamic Revolution (1979), 393 ă 394 Jackson, Andrew, 443 Jackson, George, 164, 373 Jagger, Bianca, 428 Jagger, Mick, 415 Japanese Red Army, 581 ă 583 Japanese Supreme Court, 454 ă 455 Jegado, Hélène, 485 – 487

730 |

Index

Jensen, Robert, 424 Jensen, Vickie, 11 Joann Little Defense Fund, 522 Jobson, Tracey, 283 John Paul II (Pope), 620 Johnson, Adriel D., 317 Johnson, Cassidy Marie, 409 Jones, Genene, 14, 487 – 489 Jones, Palmer and Maggie, 339 The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt (DeWitt), 604 Just Between Us Girls (Barrows), 305 Justice Denied (Joyce Ann Brown), 343 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974), 106 ă 107 Karpis, Alvin, 302 Kasabian, Linda, 13, 293, 294, 491 – 494, 624 Kasabian, Robert (Bob), 491 Keating, Frank, 281 Kellor, Frances, 58 Kelly, Ernest, 494 ă 496 Kelly, Gladys Cannon, 12, 132, 152, 494 – 498 Kelly, Liz, 15 Kennedy, Randall, 83 Kentucky Tragedy, 359. See also Cook, Ann Kerry, John, 419 Khaled, Leila, 165, 498 – 501 Kilgore, Jim, 589 ă 590 Kim Anh Vietnamese Restaurant, 420 King, Carol, 424 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 558 ă 559 Kishwar, Madhu, 376 Knapp Commission, 467 Koischewitz, Max Otto, 430ă431 Kovacs, Francis, 470 Kramer, John, 125 Krenwinkel, Patricia, 13, 66, 291, 293, 295, 492, 501 – 505, 624 Ku Klux Klan (KKK), 163 ă 164 Kunselman, Julie C., 126, 133 La Due. Charles, 410 ă 412 La Voisin, Catherine, 507 – 508

LaBianca, Rosemary, 294, 491, 493, 504 ă 505, 623, 624 ă 626 LaCaze, Rogers, 420 Lady Ching. See Cheng I Sao Lafave, Debra, 16, 508 – 510 Laisure, Donald Lee, 295 Lambroso, Cesare, 170 Land, Kenneth C., 111 Lane, Billy York, 308 ă 309 larceny-theft, 9, 18 ă 19, 32 ă 33, 106, 191 Larson, Kate, 603 Las Muertas (The Dead) (Ibargüengoitia), 438ă439 Latinas (Latin women) African American women comparison, 126 death row underrepresentation, 128 diversity perspective of, 131 ă 132 drug offenses, 125 ă 126 homicide commitment rates, 123 incarceration overrepresentation, 127 incarceration rates, 123 ă 125 IPV in lesbian partnerships, 198 ă 199 stereotypes of, 133 Lau, Linda, 514 Laub, John H., 101, 103, 104 Lautenberg Amendment (Domestic Violence Gun Act) (1996), 197 Lawless, Connie and Clifford, 474 Lawrence v. Texas (Supreme Court decision), 88 Lazarro, Tony, 285 ă 286 Leahy, Joseph G., 317 Leathers, Gloria, 279 ă 281 Leaving Valentine (Ward), 425 Lebron, Lolita, 511 – 513, 579 ă 580 Lederman, Lawrence, 354 Lee, Clark, 368 Lee, John Henry, 300 ă 301 legal-bureaucratic model, of federal sentencing, 212 ă 213 lesbian relationships, 8, 89 ă 91, 169. See also Allen, Wanda Jean; Taketa, Gwen; Wuornos, Aileen Leslie, George, 529 lethal injection deaths Aileen Wuornos, 643

Index

Betty Lou Beets, 310 Christina Riggs, 566, 568 Frances Newton, 545 Kara Faye Tucker, 620 Teresa Lewis, 516, 520 usage data, 251 Velma Barfield, 301 Wanda Jean Allen, 280 ă 281 Letourneau, Mary Kay, 16, 92, 513 – 515 Lewis, Charles, 518 Lewis, Julian Clifton, 517 ă 520 Lewis, Teresa, 64, 67, 515 – 520 „liberated female crook‰ myth, 39 liberation theory, 38, 40 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Tamil Tigers), 15, 380 ă 381 life course theory, 101 ă 102 life span patterns. See age and womenÊs offending Limantour, Jose Yves, 444 Little, Joan, 15, 158, 521 – 524 Living My Life (Goldman), 436 Lokelani, Audrey, 514 Lombroso, Cesare, 57 ă 58, 363 ă 364 Long Island Lolita. See Fisher, Amy Long Termers Organization (prison program), 504 Looking Cloud, Arlo, 291 Lorber, Charles, 494 Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), 201, 589 Louis XIV (King of France), 542, 544 Louis XV (King of France), 534 ă 535 Louis XVI (King of France), 534 ă 535 Louis XVIII (King of France), 542 Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, 421 Louisiana Supreme Court, 421 Lubin, Joseph, 460 Luca, Milton, 561 Lucrèce Borgia opera (Hugo), 330 Lucrezia Borgia opera (Donizetti), 330 Lutesinger, Kathryn, 294 Lynne, Tami, 614 MacKinnon, Catherine, 88 macro-level criminology, 25

| 731

Madame Moustache. See Dumont, Eleanor Madison, Dolley, 443 Madonna/whore duality of womanhood, 82, 84 ă 85 Mahaffy, Leslie Erin, 469 Maher, L., 9 Mallory, Richard, 642 ă 643 Manatu-Rupert, Norma, 132 Mandela, Nelson, 525, 608 Mandela, Winnie, 525 – 527 Mandelbaum, Mother, 528 – 529 Mann, John, 369 Mann Act (1910), 170 Mannox, Henry, 472 Manson (Charles Manson) followers. See Atkins, Susan; Brunner, Mary; Fromme, Lynette „Squeaky‰; Good, Sandra; Grognan, Steve; Hindley, Myra; Krenwinkel, Patricia; Van Houten, Leslie; Watson, Charles „Tex‰ Mapp, Dollree, 530 – 533 Mapp v. Ohio (Supreme Court decision), 530 ă 532 Marat, Jean Paul, 15, 362 ă 364. See also Corday, Charlotte marginalization hypothesis, 36 Marie Antoinette, 534 – 536 Marks, Stanley, 648 Marolla, Joseph, 84 Marshall, Richard „Dickie,‰ 291 Marx, Karl, 122 masculinity, hegemonic, 5 ă 7, 9, 16, 76 Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, 600 maternal substance abuse, 230 ă 232. See also McKnight, Regina Maternity Boarding House Act (1940), 650 Matthews, Jane, 91 Mauron, S., 68 May 19 Communist Organization, 352 ă 353. See also Clark, Judith Mayflower Madame. See Barrows, Sydney Mayflower Madame: The Secret Life of Sydney Biddle Barrows (Barrows), 304 Mazerolle, Paul, 109 McCarthy, Joe, 640 McClellan, Chelsea, 488 McClosky, Jim, 343

732

|

Index

McDonald, Angus, 470 McDonnell, Bob, 519 McKinley, William, 435 McKnight, Regina, 15, 22, 70, 129, 156, 536 – 539 Meadow, Roy, 70 Memoirs from the WomenÊs Prison (Saadawi), 168 men vs. women (boys vs. girls) age invariance theory, 100 ă 101 anger control, 12 anomie/strain theory, 35 ă 37 arrest table, 191 commercialized vice, prostitution, 20 ă 21 dangerous crime patterns, 10 gender disparities in outcomes, 209 government rule, 4 ă 5 hegemonic masculinity, 5 ă 6, 76 homicide arrests, 13 ă 14 juvenile offending data, 108 less serious offending, 29 offending gap, 9 pay, 4 personality disorders, 65 ă 67 robbery, 16 ă 18 running away, 144 serial killing, 14 sexual abuse, 144 ă 145 total offending data, 25, 27 violence and aggression, 81 ă 82 weapons charges arrests, 11 menstruation, 58 ă 59, 61, 407 Messerschmidt, James, 76, 165, 173 Metyard, Sarah, and Sarah Morgan Metyard, 540 – 542 middle-range theories, of female offending, 41 Miller, Jody, 10, 75 Miller, S. L., 192, 195 Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (1984), 196 Minnesota state sentencing guidelines, 217 ă 219 Miranda, Rafael Cancel, 512 Mock, Ronald, 546 Modestin, J., 68, 73

Moffitt, Terrie, 102, 103, 111 money laundering, 215, 348 ă 349. See also Cheng Chui Ping (Zheng Cui Ping) Monitoring the Future survey, 188 Monster movie, 8 Montespan, Marquise de, 542 – 544 Montvoisin, Madame, 543 Moore, Julia Tybor, 514 Moore, Tyria (Ty), 642 ă 643 Morgan, Norris, 561 Morris, A., 26 Morton, Joann Brown, 69 Most, Johann, 435 Mother Earth magazine (Goldman), 435 Mother of all Snakeheads. See Cheng Chui Ping (Zheng Cui Ping) Mothers (Fathers) for the Advancement of Social Systems (MASS), 343. See also Brown, Joyce Ann mothers who kill their children, 60 ă 63 Mount Sinai Medical Center (New York), 462 Mrs. Ching. See Cheng I Sao Mrs. Harris (made-for-tv movie), 453 Ms. Foundation for Women, 595 Munchausen syndrome, 14, 70 ă 71, 282 ă 283, 409. See also Allitt, Beverly; Falling, Christine; Jones, Genene; Tinning, Marybeth Munchausen syndrome by proxy, 488 Murphy, A. K., 193 Murphy, Peter, 313 ă 314 Murray, Ken, 469 ă 470 My Imprisonment and the First Year of Abolition Rule at Washington (Greenhow), 445 Nader, Saladin, 493 Naffine, N., 37 Nagy, Ivan, 415 Naiburg, Eric, 414 Nakamoto, George, 369 Narcotics Anonymous (NA), 504 National Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression, 374, 522 ă 523 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 298, 557

Index

National Association of Colored Women, 618 National Black WomenÊs Health Project, 374 National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorders, 473 National Center for Women and Policing, 201 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 91 National Collaborative Perinatal Project, 105 National Committee of the Communist Party, 374 National Crime Victimization Report (Census Bureau personnel), 26 National Crime Victimization Survey (2006), 84, 188, 197, 198, 199 National Farm Workers Association, 477 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), 106, 199 National Institute of Corrections, 247 National Institute of Justice, 196 National Institute of Mental Health, 648 National League for Democracy (NLD) (Burma), 606 ă 608 National Organization for Women, 478 ă 479, 523 National Research Council, 199 National Security Agency (NSA), 419 National Stillbirth Society, 538 National United Committee to Free Angela Davis, 374 National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA), 600 ă 601 National WomenÊs Political Caucus, 594 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 188 National Youth Survey, 108 Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico, 511 ă 512 Nationalist Socialist Party Congress (Germany), 564, 576 Native Americans, 356 ă 357 American Indian Movement, 167, 169, 289 ă 290, 634 anti-court testimony laws, 131, 278 Natural Born Killers movie, 425 Nazi propaganda radio programs, 430 Nebraska Board of Parole, 425

| 733

Nebraska National Guard, 424 „Nebraska‰ song (Springsteen), 425 Nebraska State Pardon Board, 425 neonaticide (defined), 61 New Jersey ACLU/Coalition for Battered Women, 497 New Jersey v. Kelly court decision, 495 New Left radical movement, 344 New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), 419 ă 421 New York City Police Department, 467 New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, 462 New York Revised Statutes (1829), 225 New Zealand, infanticide legal status, 60 Newton, Frances, 545 – 547 Nineteenth Amendment (Constitution), 638 No Conscription League, 436 Nobel Peace Prize. See Ebadi, Shirin North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, 522 North Carolina Supreme Court, 196 Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association, 377 Office of Domestic Violence (1979), 147 OÊGrandy, Edward, 353 Olson, Sara Jane. See Soliah, Kathleen Oki, Kenkichi, 369 Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (1936), 356 Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 279 Olney, Peter B., 529 Omnibus Crime Control Act (1994), 197 Opelousas Junior Police (Louisiana), 419 Opium Wars (China), 277 Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (Louisiana), 421 Osborn, Sarah, 549 – 551 Owens, Marie, 201 Oxygen Network tv series, 646 Pagan, Dylcia, 134, 374, 553 – 554 Paltrow, Lynn, 22 Pandering (Fleiss), 416 Panzirer, Leo, 460 Paoline, E. A., 204

734 |

Index

paranoid schizophrenia, 69 Parent, Steven, 492 Parker, Bonnie, 17, 554 – 557 Parker, Robert, 561 Parks, Rosa, 557 – 559 Parris, Samuel, 549 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), 229 Peck, Clare, 282 pedophiles, 91 Peltier, Leonard, 290 PEN Prison Writing Program, 345. See also Buck, Marilyn Penal Reform International organization, 182 Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines, 217 Penthouse magazine, 464, 467 People v. Anderson (California Supreme Court), 295, 504 The People v. Margaret Sanger (Supreme Court decision), 574 The People vs. Jean Harris (made-for-tv movie), 453 PeopleÊs Court (Nazi Germany), 577 PeopleÊs Democracy group, 377 Perry, Rick, 546 Pershing, Linda, 320 personality disorders, 65 ă 69, 73 Pettus, Detra, 280 Phillips, Scott W., 148 Pine Ridge Reservation (South Dakota), 290 ă 291 Pinkerton Detectives, 529 Piquero, Alex R., 103 piracy. See Bonny, Anne Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 573. See also Sanger, Margaret Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976), 228 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), 229 Plantation Club (New York City), 297 Pleck, E., 196, 232 Plowman, Daniel, 474 Podila, Gopi, 317 Poe, Edgar Allen, 359 Polanski, Roman, 501 ă 503

Police-Public Contact Survey (2005), 189189 policing and women, 187 ă 205 arrests for prostitution, 191 current trends in arrests, 190 ă 192 female police officers, 201 ă 205 interaction of race and sex, 192 ă 193 intimate partner violence, response to, 195 ă 199 offenders vs. victims, 193 ă 194 rape and sexual assault, response to, 199 ă 200 sex equality in policing, 201 traditional policing styles, 188 ă 190 women victims/survivors of crime, 194 ă 195 Politian (Poe), 359 political assassinations, 15. See also Corday, Charlotte; Dhanu; Surratt, Mary political women and criminalization, 163 ă 175 class, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, 172 ă 173 crimes against the state, 165 ă 169 definitions and types, 163 ă 165 fate of women within the system, 173 ă 174 international political crimes by the state, 171 political crimes by the state, 169 ă 171 Pollak, Otto, 58 ă 59 Pollock, Joycelyn, 21 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), 499 ă 500 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 68, 151, 432, 470, 473, 566 postmenstrual syndrome (PMS), 58 ă 59 postpartum depression, 60 ă 62, 432 ă 433. See also Gindorf, Debbie; Yates, Andrea causes of, 61 ă 62 connection to killing of children, 61 DSM-IV definition, 60 National Institute of Mental Health data, 648 postpartum psychosis, 8, 60, 62. See also Yates, Andrea power-control theory (Hagan), 74 ă 75

Index

PresidentÊs Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967), 201 Pretoria Central Prison (South Africa), 526 Prison Activist Resource Center and Critical Resistance, 374 prison inmates (female), 89 ă 91 African American overrepresentation, 123 ă 124, 127 ă 129, 192 Latina incarceration rates, 123 ă 125 victimization of, 158 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA Act), 90 ă 91 Prisons, Democracy, and Empire (Davis), 374 Prom Mom. See Drexler, Melissa property crime, 18 ă 20 prostitution, 82, 85 ă 87. See also Ah Toy; Barrows, Sydney; Fleiss, Heidi; Hollander, Xaviera aspects of, 20 ă 21 child prostitution, 156 drug use by, 86 ă 87 escort services, 20 ă 21, 85 „high-end,‰ 87 historical background, 85 ă 87 offending patterns, 9, 18, 27 reasons for, 28, 32, 36 ă 37, 43 state statutes, 191 victimization and, 156 ă 158 psychological perspectives cognitive/learning deficits, 63 ă 65 general disorders, 67 ă 70 Munchausen syndrome, 14, 70 ă 71, 282 ă 283, 409 personality disorders, 65 ă 67, 65 ă 69, 73 Stockholm syndrome, 71 ă 73, 457 ă 459 psychotics, 60, 62, 65, 68, 92 Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, 579 ă 580 Puritan statutes (Massachusetts), 196, 549 ă 550 Quiet Strength (Parks with Reed), 559 Quinn, Pat, 433 Rachals, Terri, 561 – 563 Racine Birth Cohort, 111

| 735

Racine Wisconsin adult onset study, 104, 105 Rackham, Jack (Calico Jack), 323 ă 324 Radio Berlin, 430 Radio Tokyo, 368 ă 369 Rajaratnam, Thenmuli. See Dhanu (Thenmuli Rajaratnam) Rambali, Paul, 376 Rankin, Jeannette, 164 rape and sexual assault, 15 ă 16, 199 ă 200 anti-rape movement, 85 crisis centers, 200 marital rape, 84 rape „myths,‰ 199 sexual abuse and, 83 ă 85 Raphael, Jody, 86 Reade, Pauline, 463 Reading Baby Farmer. See Dyer, Amelia Reagan, Ronald, 640 Red Bank Special Unit, 312 Reign of Terror (France), 536 reluctant partners (defined), 91 Rescue the Word (Buck), 345 Resistance Conspiracy Case, 344. See also Buck, Marilyn revictimization rates, 142 Revised „Crimes and Punishments‰ law (Connecticut), 224 Rice, Condoleezza, 169 Richardson, William H., 360 ă 362 Riefenstahl, Leni, 563 – 565 Riggs, Christina, 566 – 568 The Rights of the Child (Ebadi), 394 Rios, Thelma, 291 Rocap, James E., III, 519 Roche, Michael, 369 Rodriquez, Lucy, 174 Roe v. Wade (1973), 228 ă 229 Rogers, Woodes, 323 ă 324 Rooker, Richard, 541 Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for SelfDevelopment, 559 Rosa Parks: My Story (Parks with Haskins), 559 Rosen, John, 470 Rosenberg, Ethel, 167, 568 – 571 Rosenberg, Julius, 568 ă 571

736 |

Index

Rossiter, Lyle Harold, Jr., 428 Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 182 Saadawi, Nawal El, 168 Sampson, Robert J., 101, 103, 104 Sanger, Margaret, 573 – 575 Santos, Rolando, 488 Sarrazin, Rosalie, 486 Savannah WomenÊs Transitional Center, 563 Sawyer, Diane, 505 Scarborough Rapist (Paul Bernardo), 468 Schauer, E. J., 191 schizophrenia, 68 Schneider, Elizabeth M., 497 Scholl, Sophie, 167, 576 – 577 Schulz, D. M., 202, 203 Scott, Eugene, 340 Scully, Diana, 84 Sein Féin political party, 378 Selective Service Act, 436 Sen, Mala, 376 sentencing decisions, social world perspective, 210 ă 211 Sentencing Reform Act (1984), 211 serial murder/mass killings, 13 ă 14, 306, 321 ă 322. See also Bàthory, Elizabeth; Bombeek, Cecile; Cotton, Mary; Doss, Nannie; Falling, Christine; Jegado, Hélène Seward, William, 617 sex crimes, 81, 92, 100 ă 101. See also prostitution Sex Tips DVD (Fleiss), 416 sexual abuse. See also intimate partner violence; rape and sexual assault adulthood consequences of, 155 of children, 82, 144 ă 145, 157 female inmates, 89 ă 91, 141 ă 142, 244 lesbianism and, 89 ă 91 male inmates and, 89 ă 91, 141 rape laws and, 83 ă 85 by women, 15 ă 16 sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE), 200 sexual harassment, 83

sexual offending, 81 ă 93. See also Huckaby, Melissa; prostitution; rape and sexual assault DOJ sexual assaults reports, 81 facilitators (defined), 91 homosexuality and the law, 88 ă 89 influence of male relationships, 82 initiating partners (defined), 91 inmates, lesbian relationships, 89 ă 91 pedophiles, 91 ă 92 psychotics, 60, 62, 65, 68, 92 rape laws/sexual abuse, 83 ă 85 reluctant partners (defined), 91 seducers/lovers, 91 sexual abuse, 83 ă 85, 89 ă 91 sexual victimization, 37, 65, 82, 155 sexuality. See also prostitution connection to romance with men, 15 ă 16 hegemonic masculinity and, 5 ă 6, 9, 16, 76 male-centered focus on, 19 use for criminal gain, 17, 27, 43 ă 44 sexuality and menstruation, 58 ă 59, 61, 407 Sforza, Giovanni, 329 Shakur, Assata, 133, 578 – 580 Shallenberger, Matthew, 517 ă 519 Shapiro, Deborah, 86 Share, Catherine, 491 Sharp, Solomon, 358 Shaw, Bernard, 459 Shears, Richard, 376 Sheridan, Mary, 70 ă 71 Sherman, L. W., 196 Sherwood, Grace, 170 Shigenobu, Fusako, 165, 581 – 583 Shultz, William F., 568 sibling incest, 292 SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), 56, 71, 613 ă 615 Simms, William Gilmore, 359 Simpson, Sally, 11 Sinder, Peter G., 148 Sister Godfrida of the Apostolic Congregation of St. Joseph. See Bombeek, Cecile Sixth Amendment (Constitution), 567 Sizemore, Tom, 416 Skiffer, LaTanya, 127, 134

Index

Sklansky, D. A., 202 Smith, David, 463, 584 ă 585 Smith, E. L., 190, 192 Smith, Susan, 12, 584 – 586 Snakehead Queen. See Cheng Chui Ping (Zheng Cui Ping) Snyder, Ruth, 586 – 589 Sobol, James J., 148 social scientific perspectives dynamics of the context, 75 ă 76 feminist pathways, criminal careers, 76 ă 77 socialization, 73 ă 75 social world perspective, on sentencing, 210 socialization (defined), 73 ă 75 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (late 1800s), 142 Soledad Brothers Defense Committee, 373 Soliah, Kathleen, 72, 589 – 591 South Carolina Medical Association, 538 Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 522 Southern Poverty Law Center, 522 Spears, David, 643 Special Sexual Offender Sentencing Alternative, 514 Spooner, Bathsheba, 591 – 593 Spousal Assault Replication Program (SARP), 197 ă 198 St. Petersburg Police Department, 204 Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 182 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (UN), 182, 183 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 601 Starkweather, Charles, 422 ă 424 The State of Texas vs. Joyce Ann Brown (Dallas County Court), 342 state sentencing, gender disparities, 217 ă 219 statutory rape, 16, 513 Steffensmeier, Darrell J., 40, 41, 100, 101, 103, 125, 173 Steinem, Gloria, 593 – 595 Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), 229 Stephens, B. Joyce, 148 Stern, Howard, 321 Stewart, Martha, 20, 596 – 599

| 737

Still, William, 617 Stockholm syndrome, 71 ă 73, 457 ă 459. See also Hearst, Patty; Soliah, Kathleen Stone, Lucy, 599 – 602 Storey, Tonnie, 339 ă 340 Stork Club (New York City), 298 street women, as pathway to prison, 245 Streifel, C., 40, 100 Stride Toward Freedom (King), 559 Struckman-Johnson, Cindy and David, 90 Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, 373 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), 344 substance abuse assault arrests with, 28 Casey Anthony, 285 criminalization and, 230 ă 232 male vs. female rates, 27 maternal substance abuse, 230 ă 232 morphine addiction, 70 relation to crime, 154 ă 156 schizophrenia and, 73 Susan Atkins, 292 Velma Barfield, 300 victimization and, 154 ă 156 Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling, 231 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), 56, 71, 613 ă 615 Sullivan, Alan, 338 Support of ChildrenÊs Rights, Association for, 394 Supreme Court decisions Bowers v. Hardwick, 88 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 640 Furman v. Georgia, 523 Gitlow v. New York, 639 Lawrence v. Texas, 88 Maher v. Roe, 228 Mapp v. Ohio, 530 ă 532 The People v. Margaret Sanger, 574 Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 228 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 229 Roe v. Wade, 228 ă 229

738

|

Index

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 228 Weeks v. United States, 531 Whitney v. People of State of California, 639 ă 640 Wolf v. Colorado, 530 Supreme Court of Ohio, 530 Surratt, Mary, 15, 602 – 604 Suthanthirap Paravaikal (The Freedom Birds), 380 Suu Kyi, Aung San, 168, 605 – 608 Swindle, William, 409 Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), 458 ă 459, 589 ă 591 Taketa, Gwen, 23, 611 – 612 Tamil Tigers, 15, 380 ă 381 Tarnower, Herman, 451 ă 452 Tate, Sharon, 291, 294, 491, 493, 504 ă 505, 623, 626 Taylor, Rene, 341 ă 342 Temple, Virginia and Rachelle, 339 ă 340 temporary insanity, 407 ă 408, 479, 481, 633 Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds (Walker), 646 Terrorism Act (South Africa), 526 Tessier, Rose, 486 Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 620 Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, 342 ă 343, 620. See also Brown, Joyce Ann Texas State Bar, 546 Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986), 228 Thornton, Deborah, 618 Thornton, Roy, 555 „three-strikes‰ laws, 243 ă 244 Thurman, Tracy, 147 Tigue, John, 596 Tinning, Marybeth, 71, 613 – 615 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), 201 Tokyo Rose. See dÊAquino, Iva (Tokyo Rose) Torres, Haydee, 174 Tracy (CA) Police Department, 475 treason. See dÊAquino, Iva (Tokyo Rose); Gillars, Mildred Elizabeth Sisk

Triumph of the Will (Riefenstahl), 563 ă 564 truth-in-sentencing laws, 243 ă 244 Tryforos, Lynne, 451 ă 452 Tubman, Harriet, 615 – 618 Tucker, Karla Faye, 618 – 620 Turks, Annie, 338 ă 339 Turner, Nat, 616 Turner, Ted, 418 12-Step programs, 295, 504 ă 505 Tye, Yee Ah, 278 Ulmer, Jeffrey T., 125 UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (19th session, 2010), 183 UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (1955), 182 UN Economic and Social Council (1957), 182 UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 182 ă 183 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 182 Unal, H., 36 Underground Railroad, 616 ă 617 United Farm Workers Union of America (UFW), 476 ă 478. See also Huerta, Dolores United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, 183 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 182 „up-crime-ing‰ of young girls, 106 U.S. Secret Service (USSS), 419 Van Houten, Leslie, 13, 66, 291, 294, 295, 491, 503 ă 504, 623 – 627 Van Lew, Elizabeth, 627 – 629 Venkatesh, S. A., 193 victimization. See also battered women; intimate partner violence; rape and sexual assault African American women and, 132 and alcohol/drug abuse and crime, 154 ă 156 childhood vs. adults, 65

Index

early offending and, 113 homicide victimization, 61 influence on crime, 77 inmate victimization, 41, 158 lessened experiences of call-girls, 87 National Crime Victimization Survey, 26, 84 physical victimization, 82 and prostitution, 156 ă 158 race survey comparisons, 195 resistance to, 10 revictimization rates, 142 sexual victimization, 37, 65, 82, 155 of slave women, 131 violent victimization histories, 140 ă 154 vulnerabilities to, 42, 76 women in the drug trade and, 22, 69 Vietnam Veterans Against War (VVAW), 418 ă 419 Vietnam War, 418 Vigilante Committee (1851), 278 Violence Against Women Act (1994), 85, 147 ă 148, 197, 198 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), 216 Violent Crime Victimization Rate by Gender survey, 194 violent victimization histories child abuse and neglect, 142 ă 146 general abuse, 141t intimate partner violence, 146 ă 149 physical abuse, 141t sexual abuse, 141t, 144 ă 145 Virginia Department of Corrections, 518 ă 519 Visher, C. A., 190, 192 Visher, Christy, 133 Vision of Invasion drama (Koischewitz), 430ă431 Vu, Cuong, 420 Vu, Ha, 420 Walker, Lenore, 132 ă 133, 150 ă 152, 495 ă 497, 646 Wall, Rachel, 631 – 632 Walters, Marlene and Harry, 339 ă 340 Wanrow, Yvonne, 133, 633 – 634

| 739

War on Drugs campaign, 244 Ward, Lauer and Clara, 424 Ward, Liza, 425 Warren, Janet, 68, 82, 91 Warren, Robert Penn, 359 Washington Sentencing Reform Act (1981), 218 Waters, Maxine, 580 Watson, Charles „Tex,‰ 291, 293, 294, 492, 502 ă 503, 624 Weather Underground radical group, 344, 354 Weber, Max, 122 Webster, Daniel, 443 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), 228 Weeks v. United States (Supreme Court decision), 531 Weiner, Neil Alan, 157 Weisheit, R., 39 Weller, Sheila, 414 Wells, Alice Stebbin, 201 West, Candace, 81 West, Fred, 635 ă 637 West, Rosemary, 65, 156, 635 – 637 Wheat, Verita, 340 Wheaton, E. M., 191 White Album (Beatles), 293 white-collar crime. See also Helmsley, Leona; Stewart, Martha AdlerÊs research, 38 federal sentencing studies, 211 ă 215, 217 ignoring of, 172 ă 173 media coverage, 20 White Rose group (Germany), 576 ă 577 Whitehouse, James, 295 Whitney, Charlotte Anita, 637 – 640 Whitney v. People of State of California (Supreme Court decision), 639 ă 640 Willett, James, 475 Williams, Donna, 339 ă 340 Williams, Ronald, 420 Wilson, Dennis, 502 Wimmer, Carl D., 229 Winchell, Walter, 298 Winfrey, Oprah, 450 Winkler, Mary, 170

740 |

Index

Winter Soldier Investigation, 418 Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling, 231 witchcraft. See Osborn, Sarah Wittrock, S. M., 36 Wolf v. Colorado (Supreme Court decision), 530 Wolves in the Fold (Fair), 408 The Woman Rebel (Comstock), 574 Women, Culture, and Politics (Davis), 374 Women, Race, and Class (Davis), 374 women of color. See also African American women; Latinas (Latin women) crack addiction pregnancies, 129 diversity perspectives, 131 ă 132 IPV cases, 198 ă 199 prejudicial experiences of, 121 ă 122 rape/sexual assault and, 200 severe sentencing responses, 123, 126, 128 WomenÊs Action Alliance, 594 WomenÊs Christian Temperance Union, 326, 327 ă 328 womenÊs criminality biological perspectives, 57 ă 63 defined, 7 ă 9 diagnosing/defining, 55 ă 57 individual risk factors, 25 ă 26 macro-level patterns of offending, 26 ă 29 offending rates, 26 psychological perspectives, 63 ă 73 WomenÊs Economic Agenda Project (1994), 172 WomenÊs Ku Klux Klan (WKKK), 163 WomenÊs League (African National Council), 525 ă 527 womenÊs movement. See feminist (womenÊs) movement womenÊs offending age and, 99 ă 114 alcohol and drug offenses, 9, 21 ă 23 commercialized vice, 20 ă 21 diversity and, 121 ă 136

homicide, 4, 12 ă 15 larceny-theft, 9, 18 ă 19, 32 ă 33, 106, 191 male vs. female rates, 26 ă 29 non-negligent manslaughter, 9 nonviolent crime, 18 property crime, 18 ă 20 prostitution, 9, 20 ă 21 rape/sexual offenses, 9, 15 ă 16 robbery, 16 ă 17 social scientific perspectives, 73 ă 77 victimization and, 139 ă 159 violent crime, 10 ă 12 womenÊs offending, gendered theories, 41 ă 46 gender norms, 42 ă 43 gendered paradigm of offending, 41 ă 42 middle-range theories, 41 moral development, affiliative concerns, 43 physical strength, aggression, 42 sexuality, 43 social control, 43 ă 46 WomenÊs Reformatory Study (Glueck), 103 ă 106 Worden, R. E., 203 World Festival of Youth and Students (Finland), 373 World League Against Racial Discrimination, 298 Wright, Dora, 279 Wuornos, Aileen, 8, 14, 66, 143 ă 144, 641 – 644 Yaklich, Donna, 152, 645 – 646 Yates, Andrea, 8, 62, 646 – 649 Young, Lila, 649 – 651 Zambrano, Ruth Enid, 121, 122 Zero Hour Japanese radio show, 367 Zimmerman, Don, 81 Zwanziger, Anna, 653 – 654

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

Editor VICKIE JENSEN is a professor of sociology at California State University at Northridge. She earned her doctorate in sociology in 1997 from the University of Colorado at Boulder. She has published in the areas of diversity and violence, family violence, gender and corrections, and homicide, most notably the book Why Women Kill: Gender Equality and Homicide (2001). Her current research interests include intimate partner violence, PTSD and children, and traumatic childbirth.

Contributors SUSAN ABRAM is a reporter for the Los Angeles Daily News, where she covers crime, education, and public health. She also currently writes for a series for the paper called LA@Night. Susan also has worked at the Stamford Advocate, in Connecticut, where she won four Society of Professional Journalism awards and was nominated for a New York Deadline Club Award. Other stories have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, Venice, Latin Style, and Rapport magazines. She holds a degree in sociology from California State University, Northridge, and in journalism from California State University, Fullerton. CELESTA A. ALBONETTI is a professor of sociology at the University of Iowa. She holds a courtesy appointment in the College of Law. Since receiving her PhD in 1984 from the University of WisconsinăMadison, her research has focused primarily on developing theoretical perspectives of judicial and prosecutorial discretion in state and federal courts. Her research has been published in Social Forces, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Law and Society Review, Criminology, Social Problems, American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, Iowa Law Review, and the Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice.

741

742 |

About the Editor and Contributors

ARIEL E. ALLISON is an MA student in sociology, with an emphasis in criminology, at the University of Oklahoma. Her areas of academic interest are women and crime, foreign and domestic terrorism, the sociology of mass movements, and Iranians and Iranian Americans. SHELLEY AZZARITO earned a BA in general sociology in 2007 from California State University at Northridge. Her interests include pursuing a law degree. YOKO BABA received her PhD from the University of Oklahoma in 1987. Currently she is professor in the justice studies department at San Jose State University, San Jose, California. Her research interests are in the areas of intimate partner violence, juvenile delinquency, and victimology. Her recent research involves the maintenance of the language and culture in the Japanese Brazilian communities in Brazil and Japanese Brazilian return migrants to Brazil. KARREN BAIRD-OLSON is an associate professor of sociology at California State University at Northridge. She has published in the areas of victimization, American Indians and crime, and American Indian studies. JAMES DAVID BALLARD is a professor of sociology at California State University, Northridge. His doctorate comes from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and his concentrations include political sociology, criminology, and deviance. He is the author of over 100 articles, book chapters, and various governmental documents primarily focused on transportation-related terrorism attacks, radiological terrorism, and attacks against nuclear waste shipments/storage facilities. ROSEMARY BARBERET, PhD, is an associate professor in the sociology department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, and director of the Master of Arts in International Crime and Justice degree program. Dr. BarberetÊs publications and research interests focus the use of criminal justice data and research in policymaking, crime indicators, victimization, gender and crime, and cross-cultural methodology. She has served two terms as chair of the International Division of the American Society of Criminology and has been awarded the Herbert Bloch Award of the American Society of Criminology for service to the society. She currently represents the International Sociological Association at the United Nations. LIZETTE BARRIENTOS graduated from California State University, Northridge, in 2009 with an MA in clinical psychology. She is currently attending Alliant UniversityÊs Forensic PhD program. Her research interests include psychopathy, forensic assessment, competency to stand trial issues, insanity pleas, and mental illness in corrections. CAROLYN REBECCA BLOCK was senior research analyst at Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago, until her recent retirement, where she

About the Editor and Contributors | 743

maintained (and continues to maintain) the Chicago Homicide Dataset since 1965 and the CWHRS (Chicago WomenÊs Health Risk Study) dataset since 2000. She was a founder (with Richard Block) in 1991 of the Homicide Research Working Group (HRWG). She has worked to establish and support the Working Group on Practitioner /Researcher Collaboration on Research and the Working Group on Criminological Careers Outside of Academia. Her research focuses on homicide, homicide prevention, spatial analysis, time series, and criminal careers. SUSAN BOHRER is a lecturer in writing and is tutor coordinator at the University of California, Merced. She has written about 19th-century women as well as women and disability. CORA MARIE BRADLEY is a graduate student at the University of Central Oklahoma. She has written articles for a womenÊs folklore encyclopedia and has been published in the New Plains Review. In 2008, she won the Sigma Tau Delta national award for her grant proposal, „Extending Literacy to Those Usually Forgotten.‰ KATHRYN A. BRANCH is an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Tampa. Her research interests include the secondary effects of sexual assault disclosures; womenÊs use of intimate partner violence; and the role of social support in womenÊs use of aggression against an intimate partner. NICOLE T. CARR is the director of Student Academic Success and Retention and an associate professor of sociology at the University of South Alabama. Her research interests in criminology include gender and crime, specifically inequality in outcomes for women and girls. She is currently collaborating on a book that examines female reports of criminal activities across the life course. Dr. Carr earned he PhD From Louisiana State University, and her BA and MA from the College of William and Mary. DEANNA CHANG earned her PhD from University of Hawaii, where she received the American Sociological AssociationÊs Minority Fellowship Dissertation Award. She was professor and chair of sociology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania before she retired in 2008. She did research and presented research in the area of domestic violence, victimization, and identity transformation among other topics in crime and deviance. NATASHA COOPER earned her BA in sociology from California State University at Northridge in 2008. Her specialty was in crime and criminal justice. REBECCA CSIKOS is an undergraduate honors student at the University of Tampa. She is pursuing a double degree in criminology and psychology. Her research

744 |

About the Editor and Contributors

interests include the impact of a death sentence on offenderÊs family members and the psychological aspects associated with serial killers and murderers. KIM DAVIES is a sociology professor and chair of the department of sociology, criminal justice, and social work at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. She is author of The Murder Book: Examining Homicide (2007) and various articles about women as criminals or victims. She teaches classes on sociological methodology, murder, deviance, violence and the South, and women and crime. LADAN DEJAM earned her MA in sociology from California State University at Northridge, where she specialized in womenÊs issues in Iran. She is currently working on credentials for secondary education teaching. JO-ANN DELLA GIUSTINA is an assistant professor at Bridgewater State College (Massachusetts), where she teaches courses in gender and crime, homicide, criminal law and procedure, domestic violence, and restorative justice. She also teaches Inside-Out classes at Old Colony Correctional Center (Bridgewater, Massachusetts). She received her PhD in criminal justice from City University of New York (John Jay College) with a specialization in women and crime and her JD degree from Chicago-Kent College of Law. As an attorney, Dr. Della Giustina was an assistant Cook County (Illinois) public defender and a law clerk to Illinois Appellate Court Justice David Cerda. She wrote Why Women Are Beaten and Killed: Sociological Predictors of Femicide (2010) as well as several book chapters and journal articles She is a licensed attorney in Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois. BENEDETTA FAEDI DURAMY is an associate professor at Golden Gate Law School, San Francisco, where she teaches international human rights, and gender and childrenÊs issues in international law. She received her JSD from Stanford Law School in 2010. She is the author of „From Violence against Women to WomenÊs Violence in Haiti‰ was awarded the 2009 Stanford Richard S. Goldsmith Writing Award in Dispute Resolution and the 2008 Marjorie Lozoff Graduate Essay Prize at the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University. It was published in 2010 in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Her article „The Double Weakness of Girls: Discrimination and Sexual Violence in Haiti,‰ in Stanford Journal of International Law (2008) was awarded the 2007 Carl Mason Franklin Prize in International Law at Stanford Law School. SUE COTE ESCOBAR, JD, PhD, professor in the division of criminal justice at California State University, Sacramento, earned her JD from the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law and her PhD (sociology) in 2000 from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Recent publications include a report, „Determining the Size of the Methamphetamine Problem in California,‰ prepared for the California Office of Emergency Services, Drug Enforcement Section; and two

About the Editor and Contributors |

articles, „Same-Sex Domestic Violence‰ and the „Cycle of Violence,‰ for Fisher and LabÊs 2010 Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention. Dr. Escobar also published an edited crime theory anthology in 2002 entitled Criminological Theories: Bridging the Past to the Future. She is currently working on a comprehensive victimology textbook (estimated to be published 2012). KATHLEEN A. FOX is an assistant professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. Dr. Fox earned her PhD in criminology, law, and society from the University of Florida. Her research interests include crime victimization, gangs, fear of crime, gender, and campus safety and security issues. Her work has recently appeared in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime & Delinquency, and the Journal of Interpersonal Violence. VENESSA GARCIA is an associate professor of criminal justice at Kean University, Union, New Jersey. She received her MA and PhD in sociology at the State University of New York University at Buffalo. Her family court research resulted in a book Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers. Her research in policing has been published in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Journal of Criminal Justice, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, Handbook of Police Administration, and Contemporary Issues in Law Enforcement and Policing. In 2005, she won the New Scholar of the Year from the Division of Women and Crime of American Society of Criminology. TAMMY S. GARLAND is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, where she teaches courses in victimology, juvenile justice, media and crime, corrections, and methods. She received a BA in history from the University of Kentucky in 1993, an MS in criminal justice from Eastern Kentucky University in 1999, and a PhD in criminal justice from Sam Houston State University in 2004. Her current research emphasis include victimology, victimization of the homeless, women and crime, popular culture, and juvenile justice. JAMES GEISTMAN is a lecturer of criminal justice at Wayne State University in Detroit. His research interests include policing and stalking. His dissertation explores the effects of patriarchy on criminal justice majors. ARINA GERTSEVA is a research associate for the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) at Washington State University. Dr. Gertseva received her PhD in sociology in 2009 from Washington State University. Her academic background and training is in research methods, statistics, sociology, and criminology. Her current research interests include the linkage between victimization and offending during the transition from childhood to early adulthood, as well as the geography of crime.

745

746 |

About the Editor and Contributors

JENNIFER C. GIBBS is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at West Chester University. She earned a PhD from the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests include violence against women, policing, terrorism, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. ELLIS GODARD is an assistant professor of sociology at California State University, Northridge. His research interests include legal behavior as a labeling process, and he has written about nonlegal means of handling conflicts in settings ranging from reality shows to virtual reality. ERIN ELIZABETH GOURLEY is a graduate from Kean University in New Jersey with a bachelorÊs degree in criminal justice and a second degree in police science. Her area of research is in animal cruelty and criminal behavior. MATTHEW GRINDAL is currently a doctoral student at University California, Riverside. His research interests include the examination of identity-related processes and their role in intergroup behavior, as well as their ability to explain various criminal outcomes. MICHELLE HARTZOG is finishing an MSW from the University of Southern California, with an interest in becoming a clinical licensed social worker. She has participated in the University of ChicagoÊs PhD program in sociology, where she was awarded an OMSA Research Initiative grant to study academic achievement of African Americans in postsecondary education. Her research interests include gender, education, and the African American experience. REBECCA HAYES-SMITH currently is an assistant professor at Central Michigan University in the department of sociology, anthropology, and social work. Her research focuses on racial and gender inequalities in the criminal justice system. Recent work appears in the journals: Critical Criminology, Contemporary Justice Review, and Deviant Behavior. NAYLA HUQ earned her BA degree in English from UCLA and is currently an MA student in sociology at California State University, Northridge. Her research interests are social movements/revolutions, influence of religion on social movements, green movements, and hegemonic culture in the media. KARUNYA JAYASENA earned her BA and MA in sociology from California State University at Northridge. Her research interests include women and terrorism. JANET JIMENEZ earned her BA from California State University at Northridge in sociology. MELENCIA JOHNSON is a doctoral student at Southern Illinois Universityă Carbondale. Her interests include criminology, sociology of gender, and female crime.

About the Editor and Contributors |

CRYSTAL KELLY earned her BA in journalism/public relations from California State University, Northridge, in 2008. Currently, she is an MA student in sociology at California State University, Northridge. GEORGE KIKUCHI is an assistant professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from Purdue University in 2008. He is a certified crime and intelligence analyst from the California Department of Justice and has worked as a crime analyst intern at several law enforcement agencies in the U.S. Additionally, he has worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan, affiliated with the National Police Agency of Japan. His current research interests include spatio-temporal analyses of crime and data mining in crime analysis. BARBARA A. KOONS-WITT received her doctorate degree from Michigan State University. She is currently an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. Her research focuses on sentencing, corrections, and women offenders. She also examines situational factors related to violent offending by women. Dr. Koons-Witt currently serves on the editorial boards of Feminist Criminology and Women & Criminal Justice. In addition to these journals, her work has appeared in Criminology, Crime & Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Criminal Justice. KRISTYAN M. KOURI studied sociology and marriage and family therapy at the University of Southern California, where she earned a MA and a PhD. Her research interests include cultural sociology and the interactions between race, class, and gender. Her scholarly publications focus upon black/white interracial couples and service-learning. A public sociologist, Dr. Kouri also uses her knowledge in ways that are designed to bring about positive social change, and in this regard, she has recently written a number of opinion pieces for the Los Angeles Daily News. MARCIA LASSWELL is a professor emeritus from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, and the author of such books as No-Fault Marriage, Styles of Loving, and Equal Time, and numerous articles in both scholarly journals and in popular magazines and newspapers. She has a clinical practice in Claremont, California. ADI LEVY earned her BA in general sociology in 2009 from California State University at Northridge. She is currently working toward her MS in counseling leading to a career in marriage and family therapy. Her interests include children, delinquency, family violence, and foster care. ANISE LONEY is a student at the University of Tampa. She is pursuing a major in liberal studies with a concentration in social science and a minor in womenÊs studies

747

748

| About the Editor and Contributors

and criminology. Her research interests include women who kill, female soldiers who have been assaulted by other soldiers, and minority women in the military. SHANA MAIER is an associate professor of criminal justice at Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania. She earned her PhD from the University of Delaware. Her research interests include violence against women and the perceptions and experiences of rape victim advocates and sexual assault nurse examiners. KIM S. MÉNARD is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Penn State Altoona. She received her PhD from the Pennsylvania State University, University Park campus in 2003. Her research follows two tracks: (a) gender differences in interpersonal offending and victimization and (b) victimsÊ reporting behavior and criminal justice involvement. CARLOS MORAN earned his BA from California State University, Northridge, where he was involved in American Indian issues through the American Indian Student Association. ROSLYN MURASKIN is a professor of criminal justice at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University and the director of the Long Island WomenÊs Institute. She earned her PhD at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York in criminal justice. She is the author/editor of ItÊs a Crime: Women and Justice, 5th edition (forthcoming) and Visions for Change: Crime and Justice in the TwentyFirst Century, 5th edition (forthcoming). She is the author of Key Correctional Issues, 2nd edition (2010). She is also the editor of a WomenÊs Series for Prentice Hall, having edited books ranging from various issues in women and crime, programming in womenÊs prisons, and women in law enforcement careers. She is the editor of the journal Criminal Justice Series: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society. She has received several awards and has served in several leadership roles in criminal justice professional organizations. ANNIE NEIMAND is a graduate of California State University, Northridge, in sociology. She is currently pursuing doctoral studies at the University of Florida in social psychology and gender. She is interested in identity development, selfperception, and bonding among young women. JUANITA ORTIZ received her bachelorÊs degrees in sociology and political science from the University of Oklahoma. She completed her masterÊs degree in sociology and is currently working on her PhD in sociology. She has recently been named a National Hispanic Scholar; a College of Arts & Sciences Second Century Scholarship Recipient; and the editorial assistant for Feminist Criminology, the official journal of the Division on Women and Crime of the American Society of Criminology. As a graduate student, Mrs. OrtizÊs research has primarily focused on issues relating to prisoner re-entry and child fatality trends in Oklahoma.

About the Editor and Contributors |

SHARON S. OSELIN is an assistant professor of sociology at California State University, Los Angeles. Her research interests include gender, crime and deviance, social movements, and sex workers, and she has published articles in a variety of journals on these topics. She is currently working on a book project that examines how and why women leave street prostitution. MAUREEN OUTLAW is an assistant professor of sociology at Providence College. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence, the role of the motive of control, gender, and situational factors affecting violence. KAY KEI-HO PIH is an associate professor of sociology at California State University, Northridge. His research interests include transnational and organized crimes, gangs, race and inequality, and Asian American communities in the United States. GILLIAN M. PINCHEVSKY received her master of arts degree from the University of MarylandăCollege Park. She is currently pursuing her doctorate in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests focus on policing issues and intimate partner violence. CAMILA KÜHL PINTARELLI received a law degree from Campinas Pontifical Catholic University, São Paulo, Brazil. She is a member of Brazilian Criminal Science Institute (IBCCRIM·www.ibccrim.org.br). HILLARY POTTER is assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She holds a BA and a PhD in sociology from the University of Colorado at Boulder and an MA in criminal justice from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Dr. PotterÊs research has focused on the intersections of race, gender, and class as they relate to crime and violence, and she is currently researching race variations in intimate partner homicides; intimate partner abuse among interracial couples; and community intervention in intimate partner abuse. Dr. Potter is the author of Battle Cries: Black Women and Intimate Partner Abuse (2008) and the editor of Racing the Storm: Racial Implications and Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina (2007). CHRISTINE E. RASCHE, PhD, is a professor emeritus in the department of criminology and criminal justice, University of North Florida, where she continues to teach graduate courses several times a year. Most of her research contributions over the years have been in the area of women and crime, a field which she continues to actively study. DANIELLA REYNOSO graduated with a MA in sociology from California State University, Northridge. TARA N. RICHARDS is a graduate of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee, where she earned a BA in political science with a minor in French and

749

750

|

About the Editor and Contributors

received a MS in criminal justice at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. She is now a doctoral candidate at the University of South Florida, where she is a research coordinator at the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. KATHERINE R. ROSSITER is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Her research interests include trauma and recovery for women at the interface of the mental health and criminal justice systems, womenÊs imprisonment, and intimate partner violence and homicide. PREETA SAXENA earned her MA in sociology, with a focus on gender issues, from California State University at Northridge. She is currently a doctoral student at University of California at Riverside. CORINA SCHULZE is an assistant professor of political science and criminal justice at University of South Alabama, Mobile. With a particular emphasis on the contributions of feminist criminology in the study of crime and punishment, she teaches a course on gender and the criminal justice system. She is currently working on the first national survey of maternity leave policies in U.S. police departments. JENNIFER SCHWARTZ is an associate professor of sociology at Washington State University·Pullman. She earned her PhD in sociology and criminology at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research aims to better understanding and explaining offending and social control trends in girlsÊ and womenÊs crime and substance use. HANNAH SCOTT is an associate professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities and a founding faculty member at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT). She is the author of several publications including „The Female Serial Murderer: The Well Kept Secret of the ÂGentler Sexʉ (Mellen Press) and „Victimology: Canadians in Context‰ (Oxford University Press). She is also the founder and Director of the Centre for Evaluation and Survey Research at UOIT. Her research interests lie in the areas of victimology, homicide studies, statistics, research methods, and more recently, drug courts in Canada. LIZZIE SEAL is currently a lecturer in criminology at School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University, United Kingdom. She earned her PhD from Bristol University in England, focusing on gender representations of women who kill. Her research interests include women who kill, popular culture and crime, public opinions on the death penalty, historical criminology, and cultural criminology. YASMIN SERRATO earned her MA and BA in sociology from California State University, Northridge, where she was very active in the sociology honorary society, Alpha Kappa Delta.

About the Editor and Contributors |

RASHI K. SHUKLA is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Central Oklahoma. She is currently researching the methamphetamine problem in Oklahoma. Her articles have been published in the Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, Substance Use and Misuse and Crime Prevention and Community Safety. NUNE SOGOMONYAN earned her BA in sociology from California State University at Northridge in 2008. She is currently a masterÊs student in sociology at California State University at Northridge. DOROTHY F. STRIPLIN is an English language arts middle and secondary teacher educator who has been a teacher-educator in New York and New Jersey for the last 12 years and taught high school students for 5 years. She earned her doctoral degree in secondary education in literature, reading, and media education from New York University. She is currently a member of Achievement in Action, an educational consulting team, and is an executive board member of the New Jersey Council of Teachers of English. As a board member of the Maggie Fund, she advocates for mentally ill women of color. ANGELA TAYLOR, PhD, is an assistant professor at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina. Formerly a researcher at the National Development and Research Institutes, she researches violence; drugs-crime linkages; drug use measurement; and health disparities and crime. DEVON THACKER THOMAS is a doctoral candidate at the department of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, feminist criminology, qualitative methodology, and law and society. JASON THOMPSON graduated in 2011 with his BA in sociology, with an emphasis in criminology, from California State University, Northridge. He has conducted several research projects involving juvenile offenders. His future ambitions include attending graduate school in sociology, further work in juvenile corrections, and remaining a committed writer. REBECCA TRAMMELL, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. She studies inmate violence, gender, law, and society. She has published articles on relational violence, the inmate code, violence against child molesters in prison, and legal practices in Islamic countries. She is currently writing a book focusing on inmate culture and violence. ALANA VAN GUNDY-YODER is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Criminal Justice Program at Miami University of Ohio. Her work focuses on examining criminological theory for gender inclusion, testing the general versus gender-specificity debate, and assessing the experiences of women married to law

751

752

|

About the Editor and Contributors

enforcement agents. Her research interests include gender and criminological theory, public policy, law enforcement ethics, and accountability. CHRISTOPHER VOLAK is currently working toward a BM degree in commercial music composition at California State University at Northridge. He has done several kinds of journalistic writing, including arts criticism. His current interests include world history, music composition and performance, and literature. YUMIKO WATANUKI is a researcher at Chuo University in Tokyo, Japan. Her interests are in victimology and corrections. DENA WEBSTER has completed undergraduate studies in psychology and criminology at California State University Northridge. She has facilitated support groups for abuse survivors and is currently working with disabled individuals. She will be starting her MA in social work in the fall of 2012. LORETTA I. WINTERS is a professor of sociology at California State University, Northridge. She received her BA in Psychology and MA and PhD in sociology from the University of California, Riverside. Her research interests include biracial identity and teen pregnancy. Some recent publications include „Multiracial Identity‰ in Vincent N. ParrilloÊs Encyclopedia of Social Problems; and New Faces in a Changing America: Multiracial Identity in the 21st Century, edited with Herman DeBose. She is currently working on a project regarding race and teenage pregnancy. LASHEILA S. YATES is an investigator and housing administrator for the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission. She is also the owner of Cultural Perspectives LLC, a diversity training company. Yates received her MA in sociology from Southern Illinois UniversityăCarbondale and an MA in social science from Southern University A&M College, Baton Rouge. Her research areas of interest include gender, civil rights, and race and ethnic relations. PRANA YENKOSKY graduated with her BA in sociology from California State University, Northridge. SHELDON X. ZHANG is a professor of sociology at San Diego State University. His research interests include community corrections and reintegration, and transnational organized crime. His works appeared in such journals as Criminology, British Journal of Criminology, and Crime and Delinquency. He has published two books on human smuggling topics: Chinese Human Smuggling Organizations· Families, Social Networks, and Cultural Imperatives (2008) and Smuggling and Trafficking in Human Beings: All Roads Lead to America (2007).