The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1872-08-16
About Hanging Women,

. "N-AS-'
The question whether women should
be hanged for those acts which the law
makes capital crimes in men seems
easily disposed of by the short process
of argument; that women should be
judged by the same laws as man. But
is not this an unfounded assumption?
Why should she be judged by the same
laws? She is not the equal of men be-
fore the law. Not till she is can we
justly say she should be held to the same
accountability. And if she were equal
in the eye of the law, she has sexual
disabilities which prevent her from be-
ing equal in fact. Who will say that,
even if the law made her equal, the
woman would have fair chance with
man in the battle of life? In every
stage and ramification of il she would be
at disadvantage. In the strife for sub
sistence she must go to the wall. In
the perils of the affections, what is sport
to man is death to her. In marriage she
is a subject whose subsistence and hap
piness depend absolutely upon her mas
ter. If she were to try to compete with
man for existence, she must be content
that he shall seize on all the best Oeeu-
pations. He allows her no alternative
but that of defenseless enemy or 4 sub
missive subject. Thus all the essentials
are wanting to make it Just to hold her
to the same accountability rs men to
the law.
But what is it to judge her by the
same laws rs men? If the jumping as
sumption be granted that she should be
held accountable to the same criminal
laws, do we give her an equal chance
with men? We hold that man, no
matter how atrociOus his crime, has the
iAalienable right to be tried by a jury.
And always it was held the essential
quality of n jury that it should be Of
ones peeTs-that is, equals, of the same
rank in life, the same quality, charac-
ter, and endOwments. Thus in Eng
land, from which we inherited this
right, the nObleman cannot be tried by
a jury of cOmmoners, nor the commoner
by jury of the nobility. And a
scholar, or other person having the
privileges of Oxford University, could
demand that half of the jury for his
trial should be of men belonging to the
University. Foreigners, also, were al
lowed TO have half the jury composed of
foreigners. So carefully did English
law provide juries having the same rank
and general endOwments, and sympa-
tween nObleman and cOmmoner, or ma
tive and foreigner, difference Of nature
and endOwments rs wide as between
men and woman? Yet we appoint men
rs jurors 10 try women, and still we re-
iterate that women should be held ac-
cOuntable To tile same laws to men.
Thus the touch of investigation shows
that even il we grant this shallow as
sumption that woman should be held to
the same accountability, it condemns
our hanging of women; for according to
our principle Of law they We're con-
demned without a legal trial. The trial
of women by a jury Of men is not only
a gross violation OF the essential princi-
pie OF trial by jury, but it is revolving
to the moral sense. How can men en-
ter into the feelings of woman and know
her cause, her temptation, and her pow
ers of resistance? We might as well or
der woman to the bowstring at once, af-
ter the oriental fashion, as to put her
through this mockery of a trial. Cen
orally these cases of killing by women
are of men; yet men, who are naturally
moved by the idea that it is necessary
TO strike terror into woman to retain
their own dominion over them, and
who perhaps are terrified by conscious
ness of their own sins against her sex,
are appointed to try her. Thus woman
who has killed a man is before a jury of
men, like slave who has lifted his
hand against his master, before a jury
OF shareholders.
1t may be that the woman has taken
this way of vengeance upon the man
who has brought her to ruin. Can any
thing be more revolving to the principle
of trial by jury than to arrange her be-
fore jury of men? How can they
her wrongs or their effect
upon her nature? Perhaps some wretch,
after long suffering of conjugal
tyranny and brutality, has in a moment
oil frenzy arisen against her master and
put an end TO his lOathsome existence.
Is II not an outrage upon the principle
OF trlai by jury, to appoint n Jury Of
husbands TO try her? She NAV we'll
deny that even a jury of women. if they
De satisfied wives, are fit for Jurors i'm
such case. Only abused and heart
broken wives are capable of entering
INTO her provocatiOn and into its effect
upon her nature.
The magnanimity of man, and his
habit OF generous sympathy with the
weaker sex, is no argument in this oi1os-
ton; for the principle of trial by Jury
does not trust to the magnanimifv of
the superior classes toward the inferior.
but it requires a trial by ones peers-by
persons of the same gene raj condition in
life, so as to come at the same general
capabilities, endowments, character and
sympathies. Trial by jury is the reverse
Of an appeal to magnanimity; it is a de-
mand for the judgment of equals.
We trust that we have said enough to
show that this is n question which can
not be turned Off by the easy affirmation
that woman and man should be tried by
equal laws; for that, firstly, the same
laws cannot be equal to beings who are
so different by nature, and are so une-
quail by custom; and, secondly, if we
grant this assumption, it condemns our
trials of women as illegal. II we are to
recognize woman as a person, and to
hold her to equal legal accountability
with man, it is requisite that we have
code of laws for her, and that
neither her life, liberty, nor property
shall be taken save by the verdict of a
jury of women of similar condition.
Cincinnati Gazette.