Murderesses, monsters and madwomen: gender performance and the assessment of queer culpability in the Australian legal imagining

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Griffith Law Review Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10383441.2022.2076968
Tegan Evans
{"title":"Murderesses, monsters and madwomen: gender performance and the assessment of queer culpability in the Australian legal imagining","authors":"Tegan Evans","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2076968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The socio-legal tendency to categorise female killers as either ‘mad’, ‘sad’ ‘bad’ has been recognised as reflective of narrow notions of women’s capacity for violence. If women only kill due to insanity, or as the result of prior victimisation (the ‘mad’ and ‘sad’), then those who fall outside this narrative (the ‘bad’) risk legal and popular characterisation as non-women and even non-human. I consider the role of gender performance in which of these narratives are imposed upon a defendant and suggest that queer women are particularly susceptible to framing as monstrous due to their transgression of gender norms. This article will focus on the murders of Edward Baldock and Stacey Mitchell, both killed by lesbian couples in Australia in 1989 and 2006 respectively. Despite the intervening years, the defendants in both were characterised as vampiric in court and the news media, to the exclusion of relevant evidence of mental illness. I will examine this discursive and textual construction of the lesbian offender through Julie Kristeva’s theory of abjection and explore how the creation of a legal monster justifies, and indeed necessitates, its expulsion from society, leading to harsher punishment for lesbian defendants.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2076968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The socio-legal tendency to categorise female killers as either ‘mad’, ‘sad’ ‘bad’ has been recognised as reflective of narrow notions of women’s capacity for violence. If women only kill due to insanity, or as the result of prior victimisation (the ‘mad’ and ‘sad’), then those who fall outside this narrative (the ‘bad’) risk legal and popular characterisation as non-women and even non-human. I consider the role of gender performance in which of these narratives are imposed upon a defendant and suggest that queer women are particularly susceptible to framing as monstrous due to their transgression of gender norms. This article will focus on the murders of Edward Baldock and Stacey Mitchell, both killed by lesbian couples in Australia in 1989 and 2006 respectively. Despite the intervening years, the defendants in both were characterised as vampiric in court and the news media, to the exclusion of relevant evidence of mental illness. I will examine this discursive and textual construction of the lesbian offender through Julie Kristeva’s theory of abjection and explore how the creation of a legal monster justifies, and indeed necessitates, its expulsion from society, leading to harsher punishment for lesbian defendants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
杀人犯、怪物和疯女人:性别表现和澳大利亚法律想象中的酷儿罪责评估
社会法律倾向于将女性杀手归类为“疯狂”,“悲伤”,“坏”,这被认为是对女性暴力能力的狭隘观念的反映。如果女性杀人只是因为精神错乱,或者因为之前的受害者(“疯狂”和“悲伤”),那么那些不在这种叙述范围内的人(“坏人”)就有可能被法律和大众定性为非女性,甚至非人类。我考虑了性别表现的作用,在这些叙事中,这些叙事被强加在被告身上,我认为酷儿女性特别容易被诬陷为怪物,因为她们违反了性别规范。这篇文章将重点关注爱德华·巴尔多克和斯泰西·米切尔的谋杀案,他们分别于1989年和2006年在澳大利亚被女同性恋夫妇杀害。尽管相隔多年,两起案件的被告在法庭和新闻媒体上都被定性为吸血鬼,排除了精神疾病的相关证据。我将通过朱莉·克里斯特娃(Julie Kristeva)的堕落理论来研究这种对女同性恋罪犯的话语和文本建构,并探索一个法律怪物的创造如何证明,实际上是必要的,将其驱逐出社会,导致对女同性恋被告的更严厉惩罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualising the crimes of Big Tech The current legal regime of the Indonesian outer small islands Mainstreaming climate change in legal education Skeletons in the cupboard: reading settler anxiety in Mabo and Love Post-enlargement (free) movement in the EU: who really counts as EU CITIZEN? understanding Dano through the lens of Orientalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1