A Jury of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell - Research Paper Example

Glaspell’s story is pertinent as it had shown that women’s creative imagination is capable of looking at things from a new perspective and intuitively spotting the wrong either committed purposely or unintentionally. The ‘Doubt’ by Patrick Shanley also used women’s powerful intuition to raise doubts against a catholic priest who is suspected of child molestation. Both books posit the importance of women’s views and reveal their innate desire to expose the injustices of the society which thrives on a patriarchal social structure.
‘A Jury of Peers’ is a murder mystery where the wife of a murder victim is the main suspect. The Sheriff and County Attorney go to Mrs. Wright’s home to look for clues and evidence that could help solve the case. Sheriff’s wife and Mrs. Hale go with them to collect personal items for Mrs. Wright who is in the custody of a local authority. Both the women go to the kitchen and look for things that could give them inklings about how and why the murder had taken place. They interpret the event of murder by observing small things that may leave a jarring note or lacks coordination with the rest. They find that a block of the quilt was very different from the rest and looked as if done under duress or by a person who was distracted. They believe that Mrs. Wright could have been very upset. When they see a dead canary in the sewing box, they conclude Mrs. Wright might have been forced to commit the heinous crime. They hide the evidence of dead canaries and in their innocuous way facilitate social justice. Both the women knew that Mrs. Wright would be denied justice if the men found the ‘evidence’.
Glaspell has exposed a flawed social structure and the weakness of the legal system that relies inherently relies on ‘evidence’ which might not explain or define the human angles or the emotions that could have justified the act. It also emphasizes the different investigative techniques that are adopted by the two genders. Men just depend on the hard evidence of a crime but women uncover deeper meaning in the evidence and interpret the event in the wider context. Women show more understanding towards people’s emotional states and give them a wider berth to justify their actions or lack of actions. Hedge, (1986) says that women react to action and look for evidence to justify the ‘retribution they wish to enact’. They tend to use critical thinking and look at the pros and cons of the event to conclude. Men, on the other hand, discount any ambiguity and let the evidence become a tool to prove the guilt of the person who is suspected of the crime.

The two women believed that Mrs. Wright the main suspect was forced to commit the crime in self-defense. They had concluded because they tried to look at the life of Mrs. Wright and what had changed her from a lively, cheerful personality into a miserable and lonely person. The dead canary was crucial evidence that reflected the huge mental stress that Mrs. Wright must be constantly undergoing due to her husband’s cruelty. The killing of the canary by the husband could have been the last straw that could have led to the murder. The deep insight shown by the two women delineates any doubt or ambiguity and provides a very clear picture of a woman who was physically and mentally tortured daily by her dominant husband. The murder is therefore justified and can be construed as a self-defense act to fight injustice. This perspective would not be considered by the men and therefore, Mrs. Sheriff and Mrs. Hale destroy the evidence.
‘Doubt’ by Shanley gives credence to the scandals of the Churches and the abuse of children committed by the priests and other papal. Set against the background of a Catholic school in the Bronx, New York, the principal of St. Nicholas, Sister Aloysius accuses Father Flynn of an inappropriate relationship with a young black student, known as Donald. Her doubts are raised when Donald comes to the class, smelling of alcohol and feeling uncomfortable after meeting with Father Flynn. The play is tightly written and convincingly raises doubts about the integrity of the Catholic Church and the Father who is a symbol of morality and high moral values. The title is justified as Sister Aloysius has doubts about the behavior of father Flynn without actually any evidence. Her womanly intuition and the circumstantial evidence point toward Flynn’s inappropriate conduct with a young child. Father Flynn has also no proof of his innocence and therefore doubt becomes the powerful instigator of crime that cannot be proved with certainty.

In the play, all the women characters vis-à-vis Sister Aloysius, Sister James, and Mrs. Muller, the mother of Donald, all play an important role. Indeed, while Muller retains her faith in Father Muller against all odds, Aloysius and James have steadfastly maintained their stand that there is something not right. The teachers have a duty toward the welfare of their children and their accusation against Father Flynn cannon as anything but a just and honest effort to ensure that children are not harmed. Both stories highlight women’s powerful intuition and their inherent desire for social justice. At the same time, both stories raise ambiguity regarding circumstantial evidence and its effectiveness in proving the guilt of the accused. Read More