The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1922-04-09
British Wives and Legal Fiction
The Theory of Coercion Source of Immunity From
Punishment for Crime
from tic saturday R.pss,o 0, 1oadon.

but here again exceptions have been
made. 1t was held (R. va. williams)
that wife was rightly convicted with
Ter husband of keeping a brothei and
the ratio decidendi in that case was
that the wife might probably have as
great. nay greater share In the crimi-
nal management OF the house and that
the offense was such as might generally
be presumed to be managed by the in
trigues of the sex
In another case, r.. VS.. Cruise. a
woman was convicted with her hus-
band OF assaulting their child on the
ground only that the presumption OF
coercion was rebutted by the active part
taken by the wife In the ferocious
i'll treatment Of her child. 1t was in
this case that dictum Of Mr.. Justice
Burroughs was quoted. 'that II wife
was in company with her husband the
law always presumed her to be under
his control, though the jury, being mar
ried men, probably knew that the con-
erary was often the fact"
A quite opposite view was taken in
another case, r. VS.. Price, IN which a
woman charged with her husband with
uttering counterfeit coin was by direc-
ito nof the presiding Judge, acquitted OH
the same presumption, and in the case
of r. VS.. Torpey (assault) a similar
course was followed. Ali this tends TO
show that the decision OF cases in
which the defense Of coercion has been
raised rests largely upon the facts Of
the case actually under consideration.
- u - - IA y
can the presumption or coercion prop
erly be applied under present and prob
able future conditions? Having regard
to the provisions Of the representation
Of the people act, 1913, and OF the sex
disqualification tremovaD act 1919,
can it reasonably BE argued that mar
ried woman must in committing a crim-
inal act Jointly with her husband be
deemed TO act under his coercion?
Surprising that wife is a parliament
tary elector, and In that capacity capa-
BILE Of influencing legislation. is it to
be assumed that she is not responsible
to the laws which she has indirectly
made? Again, consider the case Of
wife who happens to be peerless,
member Of Parliament, a doctor of medi-
cine, or, as may shortly be the case,
barrister at law. Would any sensible
person maintain that II a wife go quail
fed be charged with her husband with
criminal offense she should receive the
benefit of the fiction OF coercion" and
be acquitted, when, as a matter OF fact.
the husband devoid of such qualifica-
lions. may even have taken counsel with
his wife before they together embarked
on their nefarious scheme?
1t is a truism that privileges and re-
sponsibilities o. citizenship must go hand
in hand, and II rs difficult TO understand
why in these days a woman should,
simply owing to her married state, be
legally irresponsible for her criminal
acts. The present state OF the law upon
this subject is uncertain and anomalous
and appears to be to a great extent
opportunist.
We suggest that the question of the
responsibility OF married women for
their criminal acts. whenever and how
ever committed, should be settled, once
and for ALL by Parliament.