What would have been the legal fallout from having Lizzie declared insane in 1892 Massachusetts? Anyone up on legal history for the place and time?
Would she have been committed to an asylum for an indefinite period, and avoided trial altogether? Or, would a certification of insanity have given her a defense at trial, and/or a “get out of the gallows free” ticket? That is, even if she were found guilty, would the State have been unable to execute her, owing to a legal certification of insanity?
Now, why would the State’s chief prosecutor suggest this? Did he fear Lizzie seemed so absolutely, thoroughly guilty that he anticipated such a verdict? If so, did he want to spare a wealthy member of “society” the ignominy of a hanging? No doubt, he did not want such horrible publicity for his State– that is, the execution of a female, much less a female of social bearing, wealth, and “temperate” lifestyle.
Let us pause, too, for a minute, and consider how Lizzie was “coming across” in all these judicial hearings. Not very well, given such reports. Not very well at all. What were witnesses describing?
This is a view through the prism of her times, through Victoriana, when it would have been almost unthinkable just to SUSPECT someone on the order of Miss Lizzie Borden, much less put her before a grand jury, seeking an indictment for murdering her father and stepmother. With a hatchet, no less!!!
How very, very guilty she must have SEEMED.
In addition, no bail! Perhaps the prosecution thought she would “break” while in prison, and confess. Or, admit the guilty party. I’m thinking that the prosecutorial forces were thinking what most of us continue to think– how could Lizzie NOT have known that the murders were being committed, and by whom, if she didn’t actually commit them herself?
A woman from a fine Massachusetts family in jail??? Damn!!! How very, very guilty she must have seemed.
Search
Archives
What I am Reading
About Us
LizzieAndrewBorden.com
Westport, MA
lizzieandrewborden (at) mac.com
September 8, 2006 at 1:55 pm
What would have been the legal fallout from having Lizzie declared insane in 1892 Massachusetts? Anyone up on legal history for the place and time?
Would she have been committed to an asylum for an indefinite period, and avoided trial altogether? Or, would a certification of insanity have given her a defense at trial, and/or a “get out of the gallows free” ticket? That is, even if she were found guilty, would the State have been unable to execute her, owing to a legal certification of insanity?
Now, why would the State’s chief prosecutor suggest this? Did he fear Lizzie seemed so absolutely, thoroughly guilty that he anticipated such a verdict? If so, did he want to spare a wealthy member of “society” the ignominy of a hanging? No doubt, he did not want such horrible publicity for his State– that is, the execution of a female, much less a female of social bearing, wealth, and “temperate” lifestyle.
Let us pause, too, for a minute, and consider how Lizzie was “coming across” in all these judicial hearings. Not very well, given such reports. Not very well at all. What were witnesses describing?
This is a view through the prism of her times, through Victoriana, when it would have been almost unthinkable just to SUSPECT someone on the order of Miss Lizzie Borden, much less put her before a grand jury, seeking an indictment for murdering her father and stepmother. With a hatchet, no less!!!
How very, very guilty she must have SEEMED.
In addition, no bail! Perhaps the prosecution thought she would “break” while in prison, and confess. Or, admit the guilty party. I’m thinking that the prosecutorial forces were thinking what most of us continue to think– how could Lizzie NOT have known that the murders were being committed, and by whom, if she didn’t actually commit them herself?
A woman from a fine Massachusetts family in jail??? Damn!!! How very, very guilty she must have seemed.