The State v. Rehberg trial gives a representation of the view of children and women in the 19th century. In this case, Edward Rehberg is on trial for beating his young daughter, Clara. Most of the evidence points toward Clara’s stepmother to have beat her to death; however, Clara’s deathbed testimony is the only strong evidence to this conclusion. The 19th and 20th century juries would have found Edward Rehberg guilty because of society’s views on children and women in these centuries.
The views of children in society during this time were untrustworthy and hard to comprehend. Upon Clara’s deathbed confession, she stated that her stepmother was the one who abused her, not her father. People thought that the views and opinions of children could be easily swayed toward a certain direction. Also, they thought that the mind of a young child would not take into account the actual rational truth instead of what is set forth to them. Therefore, the jury had a difficult time believing the words of Clara.
Child abuse was common in the 19th century where it was used as the main source of discipline. Edward admitted that he did whip his children on several occasions, claiming that it was never hard for him to do it. The doctors in their reports both deduct that the large wounds were dealt by a large instrument, a strap, or by kicking. There were also blows to the head and evidence showing that the child was strangled at the neck. By the amount of strength and aggression involved, most juries would agree that it was a man who abused the child, not a woman. By the 20th century, child abuse had become wrong socially and in the courts. More people became aware of what occurred and that both genders abuse children.
Women in the 19th century held a lower social role than men. “Women were long considered naturally weaker than men, squeamish, and unable to perform work requiring muscular or intellectual development.”[1] In short, women were considered inferior to men. “A man’s sexual infidelity, while hardly condoned, brought no lasting shame. But a woman who engaged in sexual relations before marriage or was unfaithful afterward was threatened with everlasting disgrace. Under this double standard, women were to be passive and submerge their identities in those of their husbands.”[2] The roles of women were simple, the work women did was strictly in the household and childbearing. Traditionally, girls were taught at a young age, by their mothers, the different tasks that would be expected of them as they got older. With the lack of women’s rights, their social standings in society could not rise. Men, on the other hand, were viewed as aggressive and more physical. On Saturday nights, men would drink and become violent, “it was never considered safe for a lady to go down on the streets on Saturdays.”[3] As time proceeded into the 20th century, women began to receive more legal rights from the federal government. Women were more respected in society as they began to work outside of the household and earn respectable levels of education.
In the courts, reverse discrimination caused men to be charged more than women for the same crime. In the 19th century, this was due mainly to all male juries and judges. The chivalry effect occurred, in which women would not be convicted for the death sentence just due to male sympathy toward women. Though females have been admitted into juries and few have become judges, there is still a striking amount of gender bias. “One study, published in Justice Quarterly in 1986, examined 181,197 felonies in California and found that, for the same crime, being male increased the chance of incarceration by 165 percent.”[4]
Though significant change occurred between the 19th and 20th centuries, certain biases cannot be erased. Both all male and mixed gender juries showed some sort of bias toward men in courts. Men are still simply seen as more aggressive and women as more passive. The views on deathbed confessions and of child abuse are the few aspects of this trial that have changed over the years. Though it is a horrible occurrence in American courts, juries will be swayed more by their own opinions than evidence; in effect, causing Edward to be found guilty in both centuries.
[1] Women’s History in America
http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm
[2] Nation of Nations, pg 320
[3] Nation of Nations, pg. 495
[4] Angeles Dailey Journal, Marc Angelucci
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-63.htm#sentances
Comments