Mother, Monster, Mrs, I: A Critical Evaluation of Gendered Naming Strategies in English Sentencing Remarks of Women Who Kill

Abstract

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 col-lection 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 vs. surname vs. fore-name ? 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 nar-ratives 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.

Punishment as text

“…Typically, SR synthesises arguments, facts and considerations into one judicial narrative justifying the sentence. SR typically consist of a narrative of the crime and the harm caused; the criminalised individual's character; sentencing considerations and their balance; and the sentence imposed (Bouhours and Daly 2007;Campos-Pardillos 2022;Potts and Weare 2018).…”

“…Whilst SR may address several audiences, they primarily focus upon and serve as operative texts for criminalised people, communicating the specific punishment that these individuals will serve (Bouhours and Daly 2007;Campos-Pardillos 2022). The exact nature of SR varies according to judicial style, ideology and socio-cultural context, the crime's severity, or the criminalised individual's identity (see Potts and Weare 2018). However, according to the law in many sentencing systems, either discretionary or guidelinesbased, SR should involve two separate and distinct parts of the judicial narrative: the crime's severity and the convicted person's individual factors and needs (Bouhours and Daly 2007;Campos-Pardillos 2022;Padfield 2013;Roberts and Gazal-Ayal 2013;Tata 2007).…”

Sentencing remarks as a legal subgenre: 'R v Darren Osborne'

“…However, in our opinion, the most likely explanation is that sentencing remarks are an "after-the-fact" subgenre, which has no impact on the offender being found guilty or not guilty (whereas closing arguments or jury directions, for instance, may influence a verdict). Those few studies dealing with sentencing remarks tend to focus on the treatment given to specific offender profiles, such as youth offenders (Bouhours & Daly 2007), persons with disabilities (Sullivan 2017), gender (Hall et al 2015) or women convicted of murder (Potts & Weare 2017). In some studies, the issue of value judgments (which will be part of our analysis) is barely mentioned in passing, for instance, when women are given a harsher treatment than men (Hall et al 2015).…”

Identifying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders and victims in judicial sentencing remarks

“…Judicial sentencing remarks (JSRs) have been used as a data source to investigate both judicial practise and offender characteristics (Bouhours & Daly, 2007; Hall et al, 2016; Jackson et al, 2021; Lawler et al, 2020; Lowenstein, 2016; Potts & Weare, 2018; Sullivan, 2017; Tutton, 2017; Whittle & Hall, 2018). JSRs are a rich data source, generally including extensive detail about the offence and the offender.…”

“…As noted above, several academic analyses of JSRs to investigate both judicial practices and offender characteristics have been undertaken (Bouhours & Daly, 2007; Hall et al, 2016; Jackson et al, 2021; Lawler et al, 2020; Lowenstein, 2016; Potts & Weare, 2018; Sullivan, 2017; Tutton, 2017; Whittle & Hall, 2018). While some literature does identify Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander offenders and/or victims in JSRs, some are unclear regarding their methodology of identification (Hall et al, 2016; Lawler et al, 2020; Whittle & Hall, 2018).…”