6. British society refused to accept the reality of women burglars and housebreakers
Between 1860 and 1939 1,184 women appeared in British and Welsh court dockets to be tried as burglars. Justices had some judicial leeway for those convicted of the crime, anywhere from a few months’ imprisonment to penal servitude in the colonies for the remainder of one’s natural life were the perils faced by burglars. Many, many men found themselves sentenced to the latter, though once in Australia certain reforms eventually allowed them to regain partial freedom. During that same period women, convicted of the same crime, received considerably lighter sentences. Neither the public nor the courts could accept women as burglars, unless of course they were forced into the practice by their amoral male partners. During that same eight decades, one woman received a sentence which exceeded just a few years. Lydia Lloyd, after four burglary convictions, received a sentence of ten years.
Women received far harsher sentences for other crimes, including theft, prostitution, lewd conduct, fighting, vandalism, drunken behavior, assault, shoplifting, indebtedness, and so forth. The public simply could not accept women as burglars. The image violated the very core of the Victorian view of womanhood. All of the other crimes could be seen as flaws of character, exacerbated by the persuasion of exploitive and amoral men. Burglary was a crime which required skills and characteristics of which women were incapable on their own. Women charged with burglary were all too ready to exploit the public morality to their advantage. One, on trial in 1882, informed the court, “All that I have done has been under my husband’s instructions”. She was sentenced to six months upon conviction. Her husband got five years.