Mother, Monster, Mrs, I: A Critical Evaluation of Gendered Naming Strategies in English Sentencing Remarks of Women Who Kill
In this article, we take a novel approach to analysing English sentencing remarks in cases of women who kill. We apply computational, quantitative, and qualitative methods from corpus linguistics to analyse recurrent patterns in a collection of English Crown Court sentencing remarks from 2012 to 2015, where a female defendant was convicted of a homicide offence. We detail the ways in which women who kill are referred to by judges in the sentencing remarks, providing frequency information on pronominal, nominative, and categorising naming strategies. In discussion of the various patterns of preference both across and within these categories (e.g. pronoun vs. nomination, title + surname vs. forename + surname), we remark upon the identities constructed through the references provided. In so doing, we: (1) quantify the extent to which members of the judiciary invoke patriarchal values and gender stereotypes within their sentencing remarks to construct female defendants, and (2) identify particular identities and narratives that emerge within sentencing remarks for women who kill. We find that judges refer to women who kill in a number of ways that systematically create dichotomous narratives of degraded victims or dehumanised monsters. We also identify marked absences in naming strategies, notably: physical identification normally associated with narrativization of women’s experiences; and the first person pronoun, reflecting omissions of women’s own voices and narratives of their lived experiences in the courtroom.
KeywordsCorpus linguistics Forensic linguistics Language and law Feminist legal methodology Critical discourse analysis Women offenders Women who kill Interdisiplinary approaches Discourse analysis
We would like to thank our colleagues at Cardiff University School of English, Communication and Philosophy, and Lancaster University Law School for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.
- 1.Allen, Hilary. 1987. Justice Unbalanced: Gender, Psychiatry and Judicial Decisions. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Almog, Shulamit. 2001. As I Read, I Weep: in Praise of Judicial Narrative. Oklahoma City Law Review 26: 471.Google Scholar
- 3.Ashe, Marie. 1991. The ‘Bad Mother’ in Law and Literature: A Problem of Representation. Hastings Law Journal 43: 1017–1038.Google Scholar
- 6.Beauvoir, Simone de. 2010. The Second Sex (trans: Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier). London: Random House.Google Scholar
- 8.Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
- 9.Boshoff, Anel. 2007. Women as the Subject of (Family) Law. In Choice and Consent: Feminist Engagements with Law and Subjectivity, ed. Rosemary Hunter and Sharon Cowan, 41–57. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 11.Conley, John, and William M. O’Barr. 1998. Just Words: Law, Language, and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Coulthard, Malcolm, and Janet Cotterill. 2006. Introducing Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 14.Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Judgments. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/. Accessed 30 Dec 2016.
- 15.Cunningham, Clark. 1992. The Lawyer as Translator, Representation as Text: Towards an Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Cornell Law Review 77: 1298–1387.Google Scholar
- 17.Edwards, Susan. 1984. Women on Trial: A Study of the Female Suspect, Defendant and Offender in the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice System. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- 18.Edwards, Susan. 1996. Sex and Gender in the Legal Process. London: Blackstone Press Limited.Google Scholar
- 19.Habermas, Jürgen. 1977. Erkenntis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
- 20.Halliday, Michael. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. John Lyons, 140–165. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- 24.Hirsch, Susan. 1998. Pronouncing and Persevering: Gender and the Discourses of Disputing in an African Islamic Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 26.Hunter, Rosemary, Clare McGlynn, and Ericka Rackley. 2010. Feminist Judgments: An Introduction. In Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 3–29. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- 27.Jackson, Bernard. 1988. Law, Fact and Narrative Coherence. Merseyside: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
- 28.Lacey, Nicola. 1998. Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- 29.Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The Distribution and Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation. In Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, ed. Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
- 30.Lips, Hilary. 2007. Sex and Gender: An Introduction. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 31.Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 32.McCarthy, Michael, and Anne O’Keefe. 2003. ‘What’s in a Name?’: Vocatives in Casual Conversations and Radio Phone-in Calls. In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, ed. Pepi Leistyna and Charles F. Meyer, 153–185. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
- 34.Ministry of Justice. 2014. Freedom of Information Request: FOI 89214 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/306601/decision-criteria-to-publish-judgments-rulings-sentencing-remarks-on-websites-and-social-media.doc. Accessed 23 June 2017.
- 35.Morris, Allison, and Ania Wilczynski. 1994. Rocking the Cradle: Mothers Who Kill Their Children. In Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation, ed. Helen Birch, 198–217. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 38.Nicolson, Donald. 2000. Criminal Law and Feminism. In Feminist Perspectives on Criminal Law, ed. Donald Nicolson and Lois Bibbings, 1–28. London: Cavendish Publishing.Google Scholar
- 39.Office for National Statistics (ONS). 2016. Appendix tables: focus on violent crime and sexual offences. Appendix table 2.17a. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/bulletintablesfocusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffencesyearendingmarch2015 Accessed 23 June 2017.
- 40.Philips, Susan. 1998. Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics, and Courtroom Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 42.Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- 43.R v Dennehy, Stretch, Layton and Moore. 2014. Crown Court at Cambridge sitting at the Central Criminal Court. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/the-queen-v-dennehy-sentencing-remarks-28022014.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
- 44.R v Hutton and Khan. 2013. Bradford Crown Court. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-hutton-and-khan-sentencing-remarks+.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
- 45.R v Kunene and Kunene. 2014. Central Criminal Court. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-nkosiyapha-kunene-and-virginia-kunene-formatted-sentencing-remarks.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
- 46.R v Matthews and Hoare. 2015. Bristol Crown Court.Google Scholar
- 47.Rackley, Ericka. 2010. The Art and Craft Writing Judgments: Notes on the Feminist Judgments Project. In Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 44–58. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- 48.Roberts, Dorothy. 1993. Motherhood and Crime. Iowa Law Review 79: 99–123.Google Scholar
- 50.Seal, Lizzie. 2010. Women, Murder and Femininity—Gender Representations of Women Who Kill. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- 51.Sentencing Guidelines Council. 2004. Overarching Principles: Seriousness. Guidelines. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_seriousness_guideline.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2017.