Societal values, norms and mores have always been an influencing factor when defining crime and deviancy. However, the definitions of certain crimes have stayed more or less constant. For example, murder has always been considered unlawful and wrong but in the late 20th century, certain types of murder that were once considered justifiable, gained inexcusable status. The question is why? What had changed? Why was it that if someone killed a rapist in the late 19th century, others could justify his or her actions? Whereas now, that would be unimaginable. To examine this question further, this paper would like to make use of a spousal homicide case that took place in Brant Country, Ontario in 1896. The evidence presented at the coroner’s inquest
…show more content…
Carpenter, this paper attempts to construe how the influence of unwritten law, written law and customs ultimately led a jury panel to convict a man of manslaughter even though there was arguably no concrete evidence of foul play on his …show more content…
Carpenter’s neighbour, William Johnston was called to the stand first, in which he stated that when he passed the Carpenter house that morning, he had heard some “loud talking” about 25 to 30 yards away. This suggested that the “loud talking” Johnston was referring to could, arguably, have more accurately been described as shouting. Another similar testimony was made by Jacob Baptiste, in which he testified to hearing somebody “scold, mad or something” around one o’clock that day, also about 25 to 30 yards away. When asked about the content of what had been said, Baptiste had said he could not make out what was being said ; however, Johnston had heard Carpenter yell “Jesus Christ, get up, or I will roll you right into it” followed by a noise that resembled furniture being knocked or kicked around. James Henry, who was meeting Johnston that morning had testified confirming the story that Johnston had told and added that he heard him say “get up off of there you ain’t that sick” to Lillie that morning. When questioned further about what had happened following that comment, Henry had said that he believed someone had jerked Lillie out of the chair she was sitting on. These testimonies suggested that there had been foul play several times throughout the day of the alleged murder as he was heard yelling both in the
Carpenter, this paper attempts to construe how the influence of unwritten law, written law and customs ultimately led a jury panel to convict a man of manslaughter even though there was arguably no concrete evidence of foul play on his …show more content…
Carpenter’s neighbour, William Johnston was called to the stand first, in which he stated that when he passed the Carpenter house that morning, he had heard some “loud talking” about 25 to 30 yards away. This suggested that the “loud talking” Johnston was referring to could, arguably, have more accurately been described as shouting. Another similar testimony was made by Jacob Baptiste, in which he testified to hearing somebody “scold, mad or something” around one o’clock that day, also about 25 to 30 yards away. When asked about the content of what had been said, Baptiste had said he could not make out what was being said ; however, Johnston had heard Carpenter yell “Jesus Christ, get up, or I will roll you right into it” followed by a noise that resembled furniture being knocked or kicked around. James Henry, who was meeting Johnston that morning had testified confirming the story that Johnston had told and added that he heard him say “get up off of there you ain’t that sick” to Lillie that morning. When questioned further about what had happened following that comment, Henry had said that he believed someone had jerked Lillie out of the chair she was sitting on. These testimonies suggested that there had been foul play several times throughout the day of the alleged murder as he was heard yelling both in the