few women involved in such offences put their victims under threat of
physical harm.
More men and women (in roughly equal numbers) were charged with what I
have labelled ‘less serious’ capital offences—principally picking pockets,
shoplifting, and theft from a house without breaking in, an offence for the most
part charged against servants. Juries were even more reluctant to convict defend-
ants on the full capital charge in these cases than in those involving theft with
violence—in part because of the pettiness of the losses involved, in part because,
in the case of women accused of pocket-picking, the charge often involved an al-
legation of theft brought against a prostitute for stealing from her client, and jur-
ies were as likely as not to take the view that a man who put himself at risk of
being fleeced in that way deserved to lose his money or his watch. Few outright
convictions were recorded against men and women charged with these ‘less se-
rious’ offences, though again, among those unlucky few, men were more likely
than women to be put in danger ofbeing hanged.
436 William Thomson and Transportation
Table9.1.Jury verdicts at the Old Bailey in property offences in the
City of London, 1714 – 1750Not guilty Guilty Guilty of a reduced charge Total
Grand Petty
larceny larceny‘Serious’ capital offencesa
Men 62 57 28 — 147
% 42.2 38.8 19.1 — 100.1%
Women 15 4 13 — 32
% 46.9 12.5 40.6 — 100.0%
‘Less-serious’ capital offencesb
Men 102 77 105 110 394
% 25.9 19.5 26.7 27.9 100.0
Women 128 24 99 43 294
% 43.5 8.2 33.7 14.6 100.0
All capital offences
Men 164 134 133 110 541
% 30.3 24.8 24.6 20.3 100.0
Women 143 28 112 43 326
% 43.9 8.6 34.4 13.2 100.1
Non-capital offences
Men 164 216 21 166 567
% 28.9 38.1 3.7 29.3 100.0
Women 106 96 12 102 316
% 33.5 30.4 3.8 32.3 100.0
Notes:
aRobbery, burglary, housebreaking, horse-theft
bPicking pockets, shoplifting, theft from a house or warehouse
Source: Sample