MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200035103 · doi:10.1162/jinh_r_01744

<i>Debauched, Desperate, Deranged: Women Who Killed, London 1674–1913</i> by Carolyn A. Conley

2021· article· en· W4200035103 on OpenAlexaff
K. J. Kesselring

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Interdisciplinary History · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyPremiseHomicidePunishment (psychology)Intimate partnerDowrySociologyPolitical scienceLawHistoryDomestic violencePsychologyMedicineSuicide preventionSocial psychologyPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conley draws from the rich resources of The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674–1913 (ed. Tim Hitchcock et al.) to present an overview of the prosecution of women for homicide over a span of centuries. Conley begins with the premise that “changes in the types of homicides for which women were prosecuted as well as the official responses and media coverage of these crimes reflect, parallel, and occasionally challenge social, legal, and cultural changes in women’s status, opportunities, and stereotypes” (1). Working from contemporary publications that summarized proceedings at London’s central criminal court and their reports on1,408 women charged with involvement in criminal homicides, Conley argues that women who killed went from being depicted as wicked but fully morally and legally responsible agents to being portrayed most often as vulnerable victims of physiological factors beyond their control. In chapters that divide the material into four temporal blocks—1674–1753, 1754–1833, 1834–1873, and 1874–1913—Conley traces declines over time in the prosecution of women for homicides outside the home and for the killings of infants and of children. She detects more consistency in the rate of prosecution of women for spousal killings, but the emergence of far more sympathetic responses from juries and judges as time passed. Verdicts of insanity became ever-more common.The book purports to offer both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the phenomena involved in the incidence, prosecution, and punishment of women’s homicides. Much of the book consists of short summaries of accounts drawn from the published Proceedings, sometimes enriched with supplementary contemporary publications. A particularly effective passage, for example, looks at how the published description of a woman involved in a killing—Deborah Churchill, executed in 1708—changed from agent of evil in 1714 to victim of passion in 1779. The utility of the quantitative analysis is weakened, however, by the failure to provide raw numbers in all but a few cases. After stating that the data set includes 1,408 women, Conley thereafter provides only percentages and rates, which do not allow readers easily to assess the size or significance of changes or researchers to draw comparisons with the phenomena that she identifies. She writes, for example, that from 1874 to 1893, 69 percent of mothers who killed legitimate children were deemed insane, whereas only 22 percent of women who killed illegitimate children received the same verdict—interesting perhaps, but without raw numbers, just how interesting remains unknown. The nagging suspicion is that the raw numbers behind these percentages must be exceedingly small.Conley’s decision to include women charged as accessories is defensible, but, again, without raw numbers to allow some disaggregation, comparisons across time and place become more difficult. It might mislead unwary readers, too. Conley’s observation early in the book about eighteenth-century women charged for killings with swords resonates differently when she later explains that in all or most of these sword-wielding episodes, the woman was a bystander. Readers might benefit from a more detailed description of the source base and its changes during the period studied (for example, the Proceedings became an “official” publication only after 1778). Reminders that what is being counted and described are not the actual court records but summaries of the trials mediated by print (and then by digitization) might also be useful.The book conveys much of interest, but it is likely to be of limited utility to specialists. It has greater value as an engaging introduction to the riches of the Old Bailey Proceedings and to the history of women’s homicidal violence. Even for specialists, however, the reminder that both the incidence and prosecution of homicides changed over time in ways inflected by cultural and social gender norms might be salutary.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Interdisciplinary HistorySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207