The Criminal Female

I have spent the time since the Viva pouring over a text from 1895,  The Female Offender, by Professor Caesar Lombroso, part of the Criminology Series published T. Fisher of London.  I stumbled upon it in the Library, I believe it’s an original and I am pretty sure it should be in short loan not full loan, since I now have it until October.

The introduction, written by W. Douglas Morrison, expresses the surety that Lombroso’s study of criminal anatomy will shed light on what creates and defines an offender and allow the penal system to better administer justice.  I find it incredibly interesting that in an introduction to a ‘scientific’ text about the physical deformities of female offenders, Morrison manages to make it through the entire introduction only mentioning female offenders once.

Morrison does however point out the rather interesting statistic that in the US, in 1850, 6,737 (1:3,442) people were housed in prison accommodation for a variety of reasons, by 1890 this number had swelled to 82,329, (1:757) and this increased was described contemporaneously as ‘a tide that has no ebb.’  A huge increase by anyone’s standards, although nothing to today’s US prison population.

Lombroso’s study examined a number of races and nationalities, with some measure of outsourcing of the post mortem examinations to various countries.   The monograph upon which the entire 620 page study is founded studied the anatomy of:

• 26 skulls and 5 skeletons in the possession of Signor Scarenzi  (All prostitutes)
• 60 subjects who died in a prison in Turin, examined by Messrs. Varaglia and Silva
• 17 in Rome, examined by Mingazzini and Ardú

Constituting

• 4 Prostitutes
• 20 Infantacides
• 2 Complicity in Rape
• 14 theft 
• 3 Arson
• 4 Wounding
• 10 Assassins 
• 1 Abortion

On a purely curiosity basis I want to know the measure of their definition of ‘assassin’.
Anyway!

For Lombroso physical deformity and criminality walk hand in hand, he identifies deformities in the face and skull and equates those with criminal behaviours, drawing connections between specific deformities, their prevalence in woman, as opposed to men, and the sorts of crimes committed by women with specific deformities.

Lombroso posits that the number of cranial anomalies present in a skull indicates a propensity towards criminal behaviours and that the number of anomalies can determine the type of crime that those women were predisposed to.  His observation that male criminals had a higher number of anomalies would seem to lead to the suggestion that it takes fewer abnormalities to turn a woman into a criminal than it does a man.

Lombroso’s work was, in effect, a method of using the physicality of women against them, women who suffered from genetic deformities, or who were simply unprepossessing were criminalised because of their appearance and any lack of feminine grace they might have possessed with hairy moles ‘marking degeneration in the female subject.’  It is hard to believe now that this was ever considered science, logic would dictate that when examining a woman in her 60’s that wrinkles would be a sign of ageing rather than her moral degeneration.  Taken in isolation, you could be forgiven for thinking they were describing a Disney witch rather than an attempt to 'scientifically' render the female criminal's features.  

He cites the case of Maria Köster who killed her mother with a hatchet – Lombroso posits that her facial asymmetry and asymmetrical pupil was indicative of her predisposition.  He identified a large number of ‘features’ of the female criminal, from projecting ears, flat nose, to ‘Mongolian features’ – an expression of casual racism which is hardly surprising when an examination of the plates provided in the book show several woman who bear obvious features of being mixed race.

However, while the work incites nothing short of horror in me, as a modern reader, the work makes the acceptances that ‘a man suffering from an attack of typhoid fever cannot be subjected to the same dietary, to the same exercise, as another person in the enjoyment of ordinary health.  The regime to which a patient is subjected must be suited to the anomalous condition in which he happens to be placed.  Criminal codes to be effective must act upon precisely the same principle,’ This is one of the first times, in my reading, that I have seen any sort of acknowledgement made of the adaptive nature of criminal penal administration. While it is not aimed at women, this acceptance would seem to be a first step towards the acceptance of the unique judicial position of criminal women.


Reading through the description of the degenerate female I was disconcerted to see that I fit the mould of more than one, I am of ‘unusual short stature’, ‘gigantic canine’,  deep set eyes’, with ‘prehensile feet’, and ‘very black hair’…so all in all…it’s a wonder I haven’t killed more than one person by now.

Five Daughters

I recently watched the BBC mini series ‘Five Daughters’.  I'd seen it before but while taking a well deserved disertation break I managed to catch it a second time when I could give it my full attention. 

‘Five Daughters’ is the stories of the Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell, Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol and Annette Nicholls, the victims of Steven Wright, dubbed in the media ‘The Suffolk Stranger.’  It follows the last few days of these women’s lives as they try to protect themselves and come to terms with the death of their friends. 

When the series originally aired, I like many people, was concerned and angry as to how the events and the people involved would be treated in the serial and I originally refused to watch.   The media in general place their emphasis on those who commit the crimes rather than the victims – most people can recognise the names or the faces of Myra Hindley, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, but few would recognise the names of Janice Ann Ott, John Kilbride, Elizabeth Stride, and Darrell Sampson as their victims.  We are presented with headlines and pictures of the criminals looking callous or insane, with scant mention of the victims unless it is to point out how their lifestyle got them into trouble, as with Peter Sutcliffe victims, or how their lifestyle or age makes them even more pitiable. 

I admit now that my reservations were merely presuppositions on my part and I was entirely incorrect in what the scope of the show actually was.  It wasn’t a slasher movie; it didn’t portray Wright as a mythic Jack the Ripper type killer, indeed the actor playing himself was only on screen for about three minutes at the end. 

It instead, focused on the human tragedy of the events of October to December 2006 and the relationships of these women with each other, their families, and the police.  It was impressive that director Phillipa Lowthorpe, writer Stephen Butchard, and the BBC did not give in to the temptation to create a CSI/Silent Witness style show which I think would have diminished the series. 

Instead, the approach was sensitive and Natalie Press, Eva Birthistle, Jaime Winstone, and Aisling Loftus portrayed the girls as real people with real problems not as preconceived stereotypes of the fallen woman or as pretty woman parodies of their lifestyle.  It seemed a candid view of the victims lives. 

The victim centric approach is such a change from the normal series of this genre and the emphasis on the human tragedy rather than the morbid fascination in their deaths helps to diminish the cult of notoriety that often attaches itself to people like Wright.  Well done BBC, in a genre where it is all too easy to forget the victims they’ve done a great job in focussing on the people who were really affected by the events of October – December 2006

EDIT!

I'd also like to add that the program that helped many of the street workers in Ipswich in the wake of the murders is on the brink of closure.  Help Save the ICENI - Sign the PETITION

If you've been affected by anything relating to the series please take a look at the BBC support site - HELP

ICENI Project Ipswich

BBC Five Daughters