Lizzie Borden acquittal due to gender?

Question

I'm currently in the process of putting together a research paper for my Victorian America course this semester. The professor is a real sucker for topics relating to feminism and civil rights, first of all. Not that I mind. It makes it easy to figure out what sorts of topics to consider.

However, I was considering for a topic for this particularly paper, the possibility that Lizzie Borden was acquitted because she was female. An all male jury might have trouble acknowledging that a woman, and one from such a respected family, would be capable of committing a crime, based on their prejudicial views that women were delicate and pious and pure (i.e. "Cult of Womanhood" values). I've found a few scholarly articles pertaining to this potential topic, but I wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Please, serious answers only.

Answer 1

No, it was an acquittal due to there not being enough evidence to convict her. Here's a good website to check out:

Answer 2

The fact that she was menstruating at the times of the murder was actually used by the defense. Basically it was an even if she did this, she was menstruating and thus could be deemed momentarily insane.

She was also considered a very average victorian girl.

Answer 3

Just a piece of advice. If your professor is into feminism and civil rights, you better pick a topic that shows the person as a victim v/s being the aggressor.

Answer 4

I'm not surprised that it happened, because at the time it was considered that women had a lower threshold for incarceration and, therefore, were less deserving. That's benevolent sexism. If we're capable of committing a crime, we're capable of getting punished for it.

Answer 5

I'm not too familiar with the case, but it was my understanding that her status in society played a large role in her acquittal.