"The grim expressions of the twelve men gave
little doubt as to how the circumstantial evidence stacked up for them. Roth
almost wished women were allowed to serve on juries, though he doubted even a
feminine presence would have earned the boy much compassion."
This quote from my novel Something So Divine illustrates one of those injustices afflicting
women throughout our history--they did not serve on juries in the 19th century
in the United States. In fact, it wasn't until late in the 20th century they
were finally accorded that right in all states of the union (And the rest of
the world wasn't more advanced).
In my novel, Ned Gebhardt, a mentally challenged
youth, has been accused in the murder of a 16-year-old girl in 1897. Though the
evidence against him is circumstantial, only Ellen Kauffman, village
storekeeper, and Iris, Ned's stepsister, believe him innocent. Influenced by
them, Simon Roth, the investigator, is inclined to give Ned benefit of the
doubt, pending discovery of more evidence.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave states authority to
set rules for jury service. As with suffrage, Wyoming was the first state to
permit women to serve on juries in 1870. Eliza Stewart Boyd, a Pennsylvania
native, was the first U.S. woman to serve when her name was drawn for that
Wyoming jury. Unfortunately, objection by lawyers and the
press put an end to the practice the following year.
Utah opened jury service to women in 1898 and more
states followed in the first decades of the 20th century. Women in
Pennsylvania--where my story takes place--didn't win the right to serve on
juries until 1921.
Many reasons were espoused over the years for
denying women this fundamental right. These included the old saws women lacked
the mental and emotional capacities to render a just decision. Another standard
argument was the belief jury duty would
take women away from their responsibilities as wives, mothers and
homemakers--this opinion was particularly strong in agricultural communities.
Even many women's organizations advocating female rights stood in the way of
jury service, contending it would expose women to unseemly and disgusting
situations.
By the 1960s most states permitted women to serve on
juries, though some made it a voluntary and not a mandatory issue. A few states
complied but with the added provision a judge could bar women from serving at
his discretion. It wasn't until 1975
when a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed that states must treat men and
women equally with respect to jury service.
Of course, by then it was way too late for my
character.
Love learning stuff like this, John. Including your great details about which states were first, and which lagged the longest, and the reasons why woman were thought to be incapable of serving. Have fun doing research for your next book!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jan. I love research, but it can be distracting if you're not careful.
DeleteVery interesting and informative, John! I didn't realize it took as long as it did for women to have the right to serve on juries. Wishing you much success with the new book.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Jacqui. When I began the research, I was surprised, too. I thought it would have been in tandem with the right to vote.
DeleteGood information, John. I didn't know any of that, and had never really thought about it. Another little nugget of history to squirrel away in my memory banks. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Kae.
ReplyDeletei6w75j6o32 o9q03t6t86 k9z03o2z56 c5o36r4q86 i7k96b3b10 f2d94l0i47
ReplyDelete