On Trial: Mina Jury, a woman who was certainly used to the jury!

The United Kingdom saw two different criminal punishment systems in the nineteenth century: transportation (which ended in the 1857) and penal servitude (beginning in 1853). [1]

Whilst I was searching through the Old Bailey Online and the Digital Panopticon, Mina Jury’s journey through the criminal justice system stood out to me as she was a woman who experienced both transportation to Australia and penal servitude in England, highlighting her lengthy criminal life!

Mina was transported in 1847 for seven years after being found guilty at trial for stealing Mrs. Taylor’s jewellery (Mrs. Taylor was a merchant’s wife). She sailed on

the convict ship ‘John Calvin’ and arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in 1848. [2] In some ways, her transportation seemed an effective treatment for her criminal tendencies because she appeared to lead a law-abiding life following her ticket of leave in 1851, and she got married and had eleven children with financial stability. (Digital Panopticon)

However, after returning to the UK as a star witness for her acquaintance Arthur Orton, Mina Jury reappeared as a middle-aged recidivist, committing numerous crimes – mainly that of theft and fraud. Transportation obviously wasn’t effective in the long term and penal servitude seemed ineffective as it did not act as a deterrent in her consistent crimes. On 10th December 1883, she appeared in court for stealing a shawl, two brooches, and a candlestick (the goods of Ann Prior). The witness for the defence stated, “there are hundreds of previous convictions against her—you want to get her out of the country” [3] showing that she repeatedly offended without much effective action.

This leads to the question… Could there have been a more effective government policy for dealing with criminals? Or was her re-offending purely linked to her own personal life circumstances? After all, she had been widowed and had eleven children to provide for and had lived a law-abiding life for over twenty years after her first offence which points to the idea that she didn’t have criminal urges and was perhaps acting out of desperation. All of her crimes were either theft or fraud which points towards a financial difficulty.

It could be said that she was treated leniently throughout her criminal life. Despite being sent to the other side of the world at the age of seventeen for taking some jewellery (which obviously wasn’t very lenient!) she was given a ticket of leave in 1851. This may have been because 76% of convict women married upon arrival and this rehabilitation in family life was normally effective, as seen in low recidivism rates. [4] Adding to this, when penal servitude came about in 1853, Mina was often released early (for instance, she was released from Fulham prison four years into her seven year sentence for her 1876 offence) and she evidently wasn’t treated harshly enough because she consistently reoffended within a very short time period! (Digital Panopticon)

She desisted following one offence and persisted despite multiple punishments and convictions, making her a very inconsistent and exceptional convict with an even more interesting life.

 

Bibliography 

[1] ‘Crime and Punishment’, The National Archives, accessed on 19th November 2018. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/punishment/g09/g09cs1.htm

[2] Jury, Mina b.  c. 1828-1890, digital panopticon, August 2018. Accessed on 22nd November 2018. https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Jury,_Mina_b._c.1828-1890?fbclid=IwAR1gu9SMWX15SD42KzSwctikwtJ9ZiNNzlmVnqiIwYnNgt-3JVLsmnRBO-0

[3] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 13 December 2018), December 1883, trial of MINA JURY (46) (t18831210-145). Accessed on 23rd November 2018. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-145-18831210&div=t18831210-145#highlight

[4] ‘Marriage – Female Convicts Research Centre’, 27th September 1894. Accessed on 22nd November 2018. https://www.femaleconvicts.org.au/docs/seminars/AlisonAlexander_Marriage.pdf