The Double Standard of Seattle Justice
An editorial challenges the public sympathy afforded to a female slayer, arguing that the law must remain blind to gender in cases of homicide.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The killing of Thomas Henderson Boyd has given rise to a good deal of loose talk. When a human life has been taken, a terrible crime has been committed, for which the perpetrator, if legally sane, is responsible. Whether the victim was a useful citizen or not has nothing to do with the punishment that is the just due of his slayer. The law does not allow women to kill men with impunity any more than we allow men to kill women. If Mr. Boyd were the self-confessed slayer of his wife, there would be no sympathy for him. We must ask: if this woman gets more consideration from the court than Mr. Boyd would have received, she will get more than her legal rights, and sentimentalism will override justice. Society cannot afford to have one law for a murderer and another for a murderess.
“There can be no such thing as sex in murder or theft or crime of any sort; society knows that if sex be considered as a reason for impunity... we shall offer a premium for female criminals.”
This editorial reflects the intense 19th-century public obsession with 'unwritten law' and gender-based sentimentality in homicide cases. It highlights an era where legal equality was argued for through the lens of strict, often harsh, punishment—a stark contrast to modern dialogues surrounding domestic violence and the nuances of self-defense.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.