On January 15th, 1783, Sarah Pond, Ann Randall and Mary Dymacks were all sentenced to death for theft; shoplifting. They were ‘indicted for feloniously stealing on the 24th of December two pieces of printed cotton, value 39 s. the goods of Ruth Roberts, widow, privily in her shop.’ The verdict came out guilty, and they were sentenced to death. This is strange as the correct sentencing for shoplifting is serving up to 1-year imprisonment and a fine of £50.
There is a transcript available for the case which summarises what occurred on the day of the robbery. The victim was called Ruth Roberts, she lived in Poplar and kept a ‘linen-draper, haberdasher and hosiers shop’. The first thing that I noticed was the fact that the victim of the crime refers to the suspects as ‘prisoners’, this could perhaps subconsciously make the jurors see the suspects as guilty due to the victim already penalising them with her words.
Furthermore, another intriguing aspect of the transcript is the lack of evidence used to indict the convicts, the victim, Ruth states that ‘I am sure the prisoners were the three women’ this highlights the fact she had to identify them without providing any form of proof. This shows that the judicial system can perhaps fail to bring justice in certain cases. In this case, the fate of Sarah, Ann and Mary fall under Ruth’s hands. Moreover, Ruth seems to be constantly trying to reassure the people in the trial that she is sure of the convicts, for example, she says; ‘I was positive that I had the two bitts of cotton when these women came in’ ‘I was sure they had robbed me’. Ruth’s maid makes her statement, which backed up what Ruth had already said. The story doesn’t seem to include any loopholes, it is very straightforward thus this may explain the trial going in their favour.
After Ruth and other witnesses swore on their part before explaining what happened, the three ‘prisoners’ state their defence by denying their claims stating, ‘We know nothing of the robbery.’. These words, however, did not weigh in their favour, it seems that the decision was already made. After telling the story and the three convicts denying the statement, a question is asked; ‘What is the value of these things? Thirty-nine shillings, my Lord.’ This simple answer is enough to indict the women to death. They were all guilty.
It was quite unjust during the 1700s as crucial judicial laws were placed after cases such as this. For example, judges assigned a lawyer to prisoners charged with serious offences in the 1820s onwards, and legal aid was only introduced in the Poor Prisoner’s Defence Act (1903). This highlights the lack of fairness in crime and punishment.
voices from the inside 