Why they stole: women in the Old Bailey, 1779-1789 - Old Bailey Sessions Papers

Journal of Social History, Spring, 1999 by Lynn MacKay

The second group of reasons consisted of variations of 'I had the stolen item, but not through theft'. Claims to have bought, found or borrowed the item in question were common as was the insistence that 'I was hired to deliver it', or that 'it was given or loaned to me', or again 'I did not intend to steal it.' The third group of reasons threw doubt on the upright character of the prosecutor or on the veracity of the prosecutor's story. Claims of malicious prosecution, lying witnesses or prosecutors being too drunk to recall the incident were other common explanations in this group. Fourth, were the claims of innocence with no further justifications added to them. Fifth, were the reasons the accused believed ought to excuse him or her from accepting responsibility for the theft. Most common was the claim that the accused had been too drunk to remember what had happened. The sixth group of reasons saw the accused trying to portray themselves as the victims of circumstance. There were innumerable variations on the claim 'I was just coming along and was taken up'. Some of those accused claimed that someone else took the item, or at least had the opportunity of doing so. Other defendants claimed to have been at the place where the theft occurred for a legitimate reason. Seventh, were those who admitted their guilt; some cited distress as the cause while others begged for mercy. Finally, there were usually a few cases which simply could not be classified or in which the meaning of the statement by the accused was unclear.

The defence statements have been analysed for the decade as a whole.(19) It is apparent (according to Table Three) that Group Two ('I had it, but not through theft') was the largest category for both males and females. For males, Groups Six (the victims of circumstance), One (those who said nothing concerning their guilt) and Four (those who claimed innocence) came next and were all fairly close to being about one-half the size of Group Two. For females, Groups Four, One, Six and Three (those who disparaged the prosecutor or his or her story) were ranked next.

Females were also more likely than males to plead guilty, although for both sexes the number doing so was quite small, no doubt in part because the court at times actively dissuaded defendants from doing so.(20) Even fewer people claimed that they should not be held responsible for their actions, though males clearly outnumbered females here. This was chiefly due to claims of being excessively drunk. Females may have been more willing to plead guilty in the hope that they would receive more lenient treatment by virtue of their being women - in effect, playing on the prejudices of the time. These women tried to present themselves as vulnerable - a few made a point of telling the court they were pregnant,(21) for instance, while others claimed responsibility for children.(22) Whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to manipulate gender prejudices, presenting oneself as vulnerable was a strategy which benefitted women far more than men. Women were almost twice as likely to be found not guilty or to have their sentence reduced as were men who pleaded distress or who asked for mercy. The figures for those who benefitted from pleading mercy in the decade were 39 per cent for females and 21 per cent for males. For distress, the figures were 44 per cent for women and 24 per cent for men.