What Were the Different Types of Crimes against Homosexual Men Between 1715 and 1725 - Case Study Example

What Were the Different Types of Crimes against Homosexual Men between 1715 and 1725? Table of Contents What Were the Different Types of Crimes against Homosexual Men between 1715 and 1725? 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Case I: John Dicks, Sexual Offences > Assault with Sodomitical Intent, 4th April 1722 3 Case II: Thomas Rodin, Sexual Offences > Assault with Sodomitical Intent, 10th October 1722. 4 Case III: Charles Banner, Sexual Offences > Assault with Sodomitical Intent, 24th April 1723 5 Case IV: John Bowes, Hugh Ryly, Sexual Offences > Sodomy, 5th December 1718. 6 Case V: George Duffus, Sexual Offences Assault With Sodomitical Intent, 28th February 1722. 7 Case VI: William Mayly, Sexual Offences > Sodomy, 14th January 1715. 7 Case VII: Stephen Margrove, John Wood, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 14th May 1719. 8 Case VIII: James Tims, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 4th April 1722. 8 Case IX: Martin Mackowen, William Casey, William Casey, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 30th August 1721. 9 Case X: 7th December 1720 Thomas Elmes Violent Theft - Highway Robbery 10 Findings and Conclusion 11 11 References 12 Introduction The crimes against homosexual men are prevalent all over the world since long decades and thus these sections of the society are always deprived from leading a normal life as others. Discrimination against homosexual men is prominent within the different sections of the society and people think that this section of the people does not have the right to live in the society. However, it is very essential to understand that every people have their own choice of living and leading their life according to their choice. In the recent years, the relation between homosexual men has been legalized in certain nations and thus the rate of crime against these sections of the society has reduced largely. The situation was much worse during the first half of the 18th century or the era between 1715 and 1725 (Herek, 1991). As a result, of the sexual orientation of the homosexual men, they always faced discrimination in their schools, jobs, society and everywhere in the public that created a mere situation of difficulty for them to lead a normal life. Instances of various types of crimes and violence occurred with the homosexual men as the people used to think that having intercourse or relation between same-sex is not legal and it is against the ethics of the society. The government also did not show their urge in legalizing the homosexual relationships or take legal actions against the committers of crime. There are many cases of violence and hatred against the homosexual men during the first half of the 18th century that provides a broader vision of the prevailing crimes and violence against these sections of the society (The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 2015). Case I: John Dicks, Sexual Offences > Assault with Sodomitical Intent, 4th April 1722 In context to the given case, John Dick was being identified as the convict of committing an unnatural sin of sodomy with John Meeson. However, as per the case it can be understood that John Dick, the convict was in a pre-planned motive of committing the crime. This can be understood from the overall scenario of the case. The convict at first tried to take the victim to the Alehouse that was being refused by the victim on a repeated note. On the refusal of victim, the convict then planned to intoxicate the victim in some other way that would provide him the scope of committing the crime with him. Therefore, with this intention, the convict took the victim in a private room near Fetter Lane and intoxicated the convict with Ale and Geneva until the convict was fully drunk and lost his conscious and slept on a bench. Taking the advantage of the situation, the convict started the “unnatural enormities” with the victim without his consent. However, a man named William Roger, Ale-house boy and a woman were the witness of the incident. They saw the convict committing “unnatural enormities” with the boy and heard the sound of kissing as well as using intimate languages that the people of different sex use to express their love. Moreover, the convict tried sexually assault on the victim in a beastly manner that could even be life taking. However, investigating the convict, he stated that he feels comfort in having intercourse with the similar sex and as he was drunk therefore, he is not at all aware of what had happened that day. However, even though the convict put up several supports in his plea of innocence John Dicks has created a severe crime of sexually assaulting another person of the same sex without his consent, which is highly punishable and therefore the convict is considered guilty of the crime (1Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case II: Thomas Rodin, Sexual Offences > Assault with Sodomitical Intent, 10th October 1722. According to the given case, Thomas Rodin was found guilty of assaulting a person with the intention of committing unnatural sin of Sodomy. As per the case, Thomas Rodin and Henry Clayton together went to stay in a lodge locate in Moorfields. Clayton depicted that a stranger came into their lodge that night and went up together with Rodin around 10 or 11o’clock. The stranger was drunk and Thomas behaved with him in the way similar to which the genders of opposite sex behave with each other when they are in an intimate relationship. The prisoner commented that he feels gets more pleasure to sleep with a man rather than sleeping with the prettiest woman of the world. From the investigation, it was found that Henry Clayton was putting up wrong facts against the prisoner about his character. Rather evidences supported on the fact that the prisoner i.e. Rodin was an honest businessman, who usually goes to bed by 5 or 6 o’clock and thus there were hardly any chances of being up as late as stated by Clayton. Thus, Thomas Rodin was not found guilty of the crime and thus no punishment was being given to him (2Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case III: Charles Banner, Sexual Offences > Assault with Sodomitical Intent, 24th April 1723 In context to the given case scenario, it was found that Charles Banner was found guilty with the intention to commit the crime of sodomy with a 15 year old boy named Nicholas Burgess. The evidences put up views, which evidenced towards the fact that one night when the boy was going alone in some work of his father, Charles kissed the boy and forced him to go to an Ale-shop in the nearby locality. Moreover, Charles also did many indecent things with the boy, which can be termed in other words as sexual assault as it was against the consent of the boy. However, every night Charles targeted the boy in committing such indecent things with , as the boy had to go out every night for some work purpose in the post office where his father used to work. One day Charles was caught red handed by the people of the locality along with the boy’s parents. On interrogating upon him, Charles denied the acquisition and due to lack of suitable evidences, the court even could not prove his crime. Moreover, on interrogating one of the evidences that were presented from the prisoners’ side it was known that the convict had a good character and was an honest person. Rather the evidence even affirmed that the prisoner was a schoolmaster and none of the parents as well as he himself never faced problem with leaving his child alone with him. Therefore, even though there were eyewitnesses against Charles and his actions of sexual assault against the boy he could not be punished. This was majorly because of improper evidence that the court of law did not find him guilty of any crime (3Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case IV: John Bowes, Hugh Ryly, Sexual Offences > Sodomy, 5th December 1718. According to the given case scenario, John Bowes and Hugh Ryley has been found accused of committing the crime of sexual intercourse with each other in a garden that was being witnessed by a women who was passing by. Both of them were found in an intimate position with each other. However, in that era homosexual relationship was considered as a crime and thus the person being found of such guilty was being considered as punishable offence. However, when the case was brought in the court both the person tried to save each other by various means. The court carried out various investigations in which various known personnel of the verdicts were interrogated. However, through investigation, it was found that both of them are normal person having their partners who were from opposite gender following the natural norms and they have not committed any immodest activities throughout their life. Based upon these evidences, the court of law did not accuse them of the crime (5Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case V: George Duffus, Sexual Offences Assault With Sodomitical Intent, 28th February 1722. In context to the given case scenario, it was found that George Duffus was being found guilty of committing the unnatural sin of Sodomy upon the body of Nicholas Leader as well as sexually assaulting him. When the case presented before the law, it was found that there were evidences of the crime being committed by Duffus. The court further put up verdicts that the crime thus committed was of high criminal offence and thus it is considered as a wrongdoing that is against the law. The court conducted investigation and thus Nicholas was being thoroughly interrogated regarding the incident that happened on that fatal day. From the investigation, it was found that both of them were sleeping in a same bed when suddenly Duffus seized forcibly caught him by his throat and turned him on the face committing the heinous sin with Leader. Since there were plenty of evidence against Duffus, therefore the jury found him guilty of the crime (6Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case VI: William Mayly, Sexual Offences > Sodomy, 14th January 1715. According to the given case William Mayly alias Mayberry was being found guilty of attempting to commit sexual assault and the crime of sodomy on David Thomas without his consent to do so. When the case was brought up to the court, thorough investigations were being carried out in order to find whether the crime was actually committed by Mayly. Thus, both Mayly and David were interrogated through which it was revealed that Mayly forcefully tried to commit the sin and David through tremendous effort was able to prevent himself from being the victim of the crime. The court also conducted medical examination of David but no such evidence was found that proved that he was sexually being assaulted. Moreover, David was also unable to provide evidence to the court against the commitment of crime by Mayly. Even though, the crime has not been committed by an attempt was made by Malay to commit the crime. However, due to lack of evidence Mayly was not declared guilty by the court (7Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case VII: Stephen Margrove, John Wood, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 14th May 1719. According to the given case scenario, it is found that John Wood and Stephen Margrove were being accused of assaulting and threatening George Smith in the highway. The case was brought to the court and thorough investigation was being carried out. From the investigation, it was found that both Stephen and John demanded huge amount of money from George and when he denied giving them money, both of them threatened George that he would be killed and suit sodomy against him. With this fear, George gave everything that he had in his pocket but both of them were still not satisfied with what they got. They took George too his house from where they looted guinea and silver coins. However, there was sufficient evidence regarding them in committing crime of threatening to sodomy as well as theft. Thus, both John Wood and Stephen Margrove were found guilty of the crimes and therefore they were sentenced to death (4Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case VIII: James Tims, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 4th April 1722. In context to the given case scenario, it was found that James Tims was found guilty of stealing valuable things from John Bonwick in the highway and thereafter committing the crime of sodomy with him. Through investigation, it was found that about 10 o’clock at night when John was in the churchyard, James forcefully snatched his costly watch, corneal seal and steel seal and thereafter committed the unnatural sin of sodomy with John without his consent. Through medical investigation being conducted by the court, it was found that rape has been conducted on John. Moreover, one of the eyewitnesses of the incident, Mr. Cousin stated that he saw James to commit the crime of sodomy. Therefore, all the evidences were against James that was sufficient to prove that he was guilty. However, in order to defend himself James deposed in front of the Jury that he was passing by the area that night when he saw that John and some other person were quarreling among themselves and suddenly one of them knocked James down. Moreover, they also charged him with sodomy and robbery, which was not true. However, the court believed on evidences and all the evidences affirmed that James had committed the crime. Thus, the court found James guilty of the crime of sodomy and robbery, for he was sentenced to death (8Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case IX: Martin Mackowen, William Casey, William Casey, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 30th August 1721. In context to the given case, William Casey and Martin Mackowen were being accused of sexually assaulting him and robbing valuable things from Joseph Stone from the highway. Through investigation it was found that at the night of the incident when Joseph was walking around the park at about 11o’clock at night, someone suddenly came and knocked him down. The group consisted of four people in total. Among them, Joseph was able to identify Casey by his voice. They stole his expensive hat, wig, neck-cloth and money from Joseph and attempted to conduced sodomy with him without his consent. He tried to resist the convicts from committing the crime in which he broke his ribs and lost blood. Through thorough interrogation, it was found that Mackowen was not involved in the robbery and the crime of sodomy that was attempted to be committed on Joseph. Rather Casey, a shoe cleaner and one care foot were involved in the crime and they were found beating Joseph. From the previous records, it was found that Casey had previously tried to assault Joseph several times and thus it created an added strength to the evidence that he has high chances of committing the crime. The court therefore made William Casey guilty of the crime of sodomy and robbery as well as attempt to murder and thus he was sentenced to death for committing such crimes. However, Martin Mackowen was not found guilty as it was proved that he was not involved in the crime (9Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015). Case X: 7th December 1720 Thomas Elmes Violent Theft - Highway Robbery According to the given case scenario, it is seen that Thomas Elmes was being accused of committing the crime of sodomy as well as robbery with William Halliwell on 10th October on the Highway. Interrogating Tomas, it was found that he was walking by a Savoy that day when a person came and took hold of him asking for money. The convict also assured that if he denies in giving money William would be killed and will charged with sodomy. Being afraid, Thomas gave the convict half a crown but he wanted more money from Thomas. Thomas thus gave what he had with him and the convict threatened to kill him if William discloses his name to the police. However, Thomas was being caught and was prosecuted in the court. There were sufficient evidences to prove that he was the criminal. However, in defense he said that he saw William to engage in some unnatural activity of sodomy and seeing the convict he ran away. Afterwards when they met, William took Thomas to an Ale-house and gave him half a crown. As there was improper evidences, to support the convict, Thomas was being found guilty of attempt to sodomy, robbery and threatening William to take his life and thus he was sentenced to death by the court (London Lives, 2012). Findings and Conclusion Thus, it can be concluded that homosexual crime was highly prevalent during the era of 1715-1725 that can be seen through the above-mentioned cases. The laws and rules in that particular period are different as of the present generations. However, it was found that if the indulged in committing crime of sodomy without the consent of other it would be considered as rape and thus the convict would be severely punished. During the given period, there were no such laws established relating to the legalization of homosexuality and thus the people used it as a tool of committing various types of crimes. However, it can be seen in the cases that how brutal the crimes could be that could even be life taking. In many cases, it was found that the extent of crime reached up to manslaughter, robbery and even rape. It was very necessary to establish strict laws against the issue that would help to reduce the rate of crime and the homosexual men get the freedom to lead their life in their own way. References Herek, G. M., 1991. Stigma, Prejudice, and Violence against Lesbians and Gay Men. Journal. [Online] Available at: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/spssi_91_pre.PDF [Accessed April 19, 2015]. London Lives, 2012. Old Bailey Proceedings: Old Bailey Proceedings: Accounts of Criminal Trials. Article. [Online] Available at: http://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?id=t17201207-43-victim251&div=t17201207-43 [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 1Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. John Dicks, Sexual Offences > Assault With Sodomitical Intent, 4th April 1722. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17220404-29-off151&div=t17220404-29&terms=crimes|against|homosexual|men#highlight [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 2Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. Thomas Rodin, Sexual Offences > Assault With Sodomitical Intent, 10th October 1722. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17221010-2-off6&div=t17221010-2&terms=crimes|against|homosexual|men#highlight [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 3Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. Charles Banner, Sexual Offences > Assault With Sodomitical Intent, 24th April 1723. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17230424-41-off199&div=t17230424-41&terms=crimes|against|homosexual|men#highlight [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 4Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. Stephen Margrove, John Wood, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 14th May 1719. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/print.jsp?div=t17190514-42 [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 5Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. John Bowes, Hugh Ryly, Sexual Offences > Sodomy, 5th December 1718. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17181205-24-off128&div=t17181205-24&terms=crimes|against|homosexual|men#highlight [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 6Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. George Duffus, Sexual Offences > Assault With Sodomitical Intent, 28th February 1722. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17220228-18 [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 7Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. William Mayly, Sexual Offences > Sodomy, 14th January 1715. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17150114-14&div=t17150114-14&terms=sodomy [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 8Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. James Tims, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 4th April 1722. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17220404-18 [Accessed April 19, 2015]. 9Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 2015. Martin Mackowen, William Casey, William Casey, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, Violent Theft > Highway Robbery, 30th August 1721. Old Bailey. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17210830-48 [Accessed April 19, 2015]. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 2015. Hate Crimes against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals. The Leadership Conference. [Online] Available at: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/lgbt.html [Accessed April 19, 2015]. Read More