Theatre: A Jury of Her Peers (1916)

The play's new title is "Trifles". Barely six pages long, it depicts two detectives and their wives visiting the home of Mr. and Mrs. Wright in the early twentieth century. Mr. Wright has been recently strangled. Naturally his wife sits in prison as the prime suspect to murder.

But Minnie Wright, pleading innocent, has acted so apathetic toward the whole affair that the detectives have been called back to the scene to uncover a motive. Their wives accompany them out of respect for their old friend.

The first of the play shows the women sitting in the kitchen, discussing the sad, cold place Minnie's house had become--regretting that they had not visited more. Mr. Wright was a good man. Never had any debts. Did she really kill him? They look about the kitchen and her well-kept preserves, but notice that one of the jars was spoiled. Minnie would never have let her preserves spoil, the women say. The men, searching about the house. laugh off these comments, saying women will always have their trifles.

The women find an unfinished quilt on the table, sewn erratically and unfinished. An empty birdcage sits in a corner. It had once held a beautiful canary that sang just like her, Mrs. Hale remembers. She wonders if the cat had gotten it. That is, until they discover it wrapped in silk in Minnie's opulent sewing box. 'She was going to bury it in this box,' one says, clearly disturbed. Upon closer inspection, they find the bird's neck had been wrung. They stare at each other. Then, without a word, they put the bird back in the box, the preserves in the garbage, and the quilt into a closet. They men return grumpily, their own search fruitless. The women say nothing.

Our class was asked if the women did the right thing in hiding the evidence. Without it, Minnie Wiright could not have been convicted of her husband's murder. Those who thought it was right sat on the left side of the room, and those who thought it unethical sat on the right. I confess I sat proudly on the left side.

The debate was heated. All but two were female on our side; the men packed on the other side, sending horrified looks our way. Their argument was basically, "just because he was abusing her did not mean she could kill him" and "she could have left" and "it was murder! It was NOT okay, no matter what". Our group had a very different view. The 1910s had juries devoid of women serving, so all women's cases were decided by men, most of whom believed women to be flighty, ridiculous, prone to faints and spells and overall emotional hysteria; essentially, the word of the man trumped that of the woman every time. Because of this poor view of women, most received poor treatment in the courtroom.

My argument? If the men in those days were disinterested in protecting Minnie Wright from her Husband's violence, then why would the women be interested in protecting John Wright from his wife's violence?