“In the case of Amy Matthews VS. the State,” the judge begins.
A hush rolls over the crowd gathered in court. Amy’s mother and siblings grasp each other’s hands as the judge gathers his papers in order. They glance over at the victim’s family: a family mourning and torn apart by Amy’s vicious actions. Their devastated family huddles together, praying for justice. Amy sits surrounded by her attorneys, as the entire court process flashes through her memory. She reflects on the secrets- her personal secrets- and her sexual history that were thrown onto the table for jurors and her family alike to bear witness to. More than anything, she broods over the embarrassment she endured throughout the case, which seemed to focus more on her own personal history than the crime itself. She looks up, tears welling in her eyes, as the judge opens his mouth to speak.
“I find the defendant not guilty.”
Amy’s mother cries out and jumps up from her seat. Her little girl is now safe from prison, safe from the dangers it would have posed to her. Amy’s siblings gather in a tight hug, thankful that their sister will now be able to return to normal life. However, Amy knows differently. While she can return to normality, nothing will ever be the same. The humiliation and sexual shaming she publicly experienced will follow her for the rest of her life, rendering her never truly free.
Though this situation is fictionalized, it is far too common for female defendants in criminal cases. While female defendants are less likely to be deemed guilty than males, due to the perceived feminine or sexual characteristics of female defendants, they will face deeper public humiliation and shaming throughout their trial.
In investigating this notion of lessened culpability for female criminals, it is first important to note the stark discrepancy between male and female populations in prisons. As the following graphic denotes, as of January 2017, a mere 6.7% of prisoners are female, while a whopping 93.3% are male (Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017).
As a whole, women are “58 percent less likely to be sentenced to prison” (Kelsh 2017). If even convicted, women will be “twice as likely to avoid incarceration” and will receive a sentence 63% shorter than that of their male counterparts (University of Michigan Law 2012).
Among the many theories that explain this difference between male and female convictions, one of which is the Mad vs. Bad theory. This theory is based on the idea that, typically, women are seen as “inherently nurturing and feminine.” When a woman, even if an accused criminal, is seen as a “nurturing mother” and subservient wife, they are more likely to be “acquitted or given relatively light sentences” (Blanche, Jones, and Weatherby 2008).
Once a woman commits a crime, the media immediately takes action while the public is in a state of “anomie”, or confusion, and classifies the woman as either “mad” or “bad” (Blanche, Jones, and Weatherby 2008). When classified as mad, the public becomes compassionate toward the perpetrator, empathizing for her damaged state of mind. “While her actions are frowned upon, her state of mind is pitied more readily than that of the bad woman” (Blanche, Jones, and Weatherby 2008). However, when classified as bad, an accused woman is harshly criticized. Her past history- including sexual history- is intensely scrutinized, and because her actions were the “opposite of what is expected of her as a female,” she is deemed evil and unworthy of leniency (Blanche, Jones, and Weatherby 2008).
The second theory associated with lessened female culpability is the Chivalry Theory. This concept claims that female offenders are “treated in a more lenient and gentle manner simply because of her sex” (Blanche, Jones, and Weatherby 2008). The “chivalry” in the Chivalry Theory comes from the side of the judges, who are said to be acting “chivalrously” when sentencing women (Blanche, Jones, and Weatherby 2008). This feeds into the idea that women are less likely to be deemed guilty due to the feminine qualities that judges view in them.
More often than not, when thinking of female criminals in recent history, people will remember Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox, who both had cases extensively covered by the media. In 2011, Casey Anthony stood on trial defending herself against the accusations that she killed her two-and-a-half year old daughter, Caylee Anthony (Hopper and Banfield, 2011). After 31 days of Caylee’s disappearance, Casey’s mother finally called the police in a panic informing them of her granddaughter’s absence. Casey calmly claimed that “Zanny”, Caylee’s nanny, stole the child and refused to return her; this was later proven to be a lie, as no such nanny exists. Casey further lied to the police in stating that she spoke to the kidnapped Caylee on the phone. She also spun stories of imaginary friends, co-workers, and lovers who could corroborate her story (Hopper and Banfield, 2011).
When going on the defense in this case, Casey’s attorneys took advantage of the “mad” label for Anthony, claiming that the sexual abuse from her father that Casey suffered as a child led her to concoct such outrageous lies. This rendered Casey pitiful to the jury, perhaps leading her to the eventual non-guilty verdict she received on July 5, 2011.
However, even though Casey was free from prison, the humiliation she endured throughout the course of her case has followed her to this day, nine years later. During the case, journalists focused on Anthony’s “shopping and partying,” in an attempt to portray her as a “bad” girl (Barnett 2016). Reports showed that Casey had participated in a Hot Body contest at a Florida nightclub during the month that her daughter had been missing (Stevens 2011). The media’s focus at this time was on Casey’s clothing, personal actions, and presumed sexual behavior. She was far from free.
A similar course of events occurred for a young woman named Amanda Knox, whose name is now known around the world. In 2009, Amanda Knox stood trial for the “stabbing murder” of her roommate, Meredith Kercher, while on a study-abroad program in Italy (Garcia 2017). Although she was first deemed guilty in 2009, the Italian Supreme Court “completely absolved” Knox in 2015 due to “‘stunning flaws’” in the investigation (Garcia 2017).
While Knox is no longer in jail, like Anthony, she is not a fully free woman. Throughout the period of her investigation, Knox was interrogated about her sexual history, and recreational drug and alcohol use. In fact, at one point in the investigation, “a police official posing as a doctor informed Knox that she had HIV” (Edwards 2015). He then requested that she list all of her previous sexual partners to “[alert them] to the risk” (Edwards 2015). After Knox complied, she discovered that the police official had tricked her; not only did she not have HIV, but he only stated that she did in order to gain more information about her sexual past (Edwards 2015).
Nick Pisa, a Daily Mail reporter who covered Anthony’s case, had now admitted to “feeding the image of Knox as a ‘sex-crazed man-eater,’” by digging up old photographs of Knox’s outdated MySpace profile. This profile was the source of Knox’s old nickname “Foxy Knoxy,” which became the headline of countless news articles surrounding the case (Garcia 2017).
Amanda, who now works for the Innocence Project to help those who are wrongly convicted, still suffers panic attacks and receives death threats for a crime she has been “freed” from (Yan 2013).
In the cases of both Anthony and Knox, it is clear that a focus on the women’s sexual history, clothing, or personal recreational activities influenced the women’s futures after their non-guilty verdicts. For Knox, her private sexual history was “enough to villainize her in the press and seal her fate in the Italian criminal system” (Garcia 2017). For Anthony, reports on her clothing and sexual past only distracted the public from understanding the “maternal infanticide” at hand (Barnett 2016).
It is commonly proposed that, “at trials where women accuse men of rape”, “clothing and sexual history” be considered “irrelevant” (Barnett 2016). It can be argued that such aspects of a woman should also be irrelevant when women are accused in murder cases, as well (Barnett 2016). According to Barbara Barnett, “no doubt there are many women who have worn push-up bras and had more than one sexual partner, but this should not be considered evidence of moral failing.”
Overall, while evidence has shown that female defendants are indeed more likely to receive a verdict of not guilty than males, due to the perceived feminine or sexual characteristics of female defendants, they will never truly be free. The intense public humiliation and sexual shaming that occurs during their trials will follow women far into the future, making their walk out of the courtroom the biggest “Walk of Shame” of all.