Introducing the Women’s Execution Database: Revising the Narrative of Gender and Executions with Empirical Evidence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provides two major contributions to the literature on gender and executions 1) the provision and source verification of data suggesting that at least 698 women have been executed; 2) evidence of the Espy file’s misrepresentation of gender, race, and other important variables relevant to people’s executions. The paper argues that the data on women’s executions is inadequate, leading to the erasure of Black women’s experiences as an example.
Further the paper argues that gender theory and intersectionality, which may explain gender disparities in executions, are rarely utilized in death penalty research. The paper and author offer scholars a new database from which women’s executions can more accurately be studied.
The paper offers a comprehensive review of the chivalry hypothesis recording and its utility in maintaining patriarchal culture and social structure. Finally, the paper documents the archival and historical research employed to document executions since 1632.
For its evidence, the paper gives compelling documentation of previously excluded women in the execution documentation in the Espy file, noting that of the 310 excluded executions, nearly 63% were black. The paper further details the major discrepancies and undercounting of female executions.
The paper is well written and the documentation, including the creation of a new database focused on female executions is impressive and will be useful for scholars in this field.
The only critique I have for this commentary piece is that the author discusses gender theories and intersectionality but doesn’t offer further discussion or possible routes of inquiry using the newly created database to test theory. The paper discusses that there are still more data to collect to fully capture women's experiences in executions, but more information on this would be useful. More concrete recommendations on directions for future research and possibly policy implications would be useful for scholars in this field.
Author Response
Please see attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, this manuscript is well-written, clearly structured, and I believe it is suitable for publication. I offer the following three minor suggestions for improvement. These comments may stem from a misunderstanding on my part, in which case no response is necessary.
1. Implications beyond the United States
I strongly agree with the importance of verifying the reliability and validity of data sources, and I find the author’s efforts in this regard highly valuable. However, the study appears to focus almost exclusively on the American context, which may make it more difficult for scholars without an interest in the U.S. to fully appreciate its significance. It would enhance the manuscript to include some brief discussion of its implications for other legal systems or societies.
2. Table 1
If possible, I suggest including the original Espy file counts and percentages alongside the updated figures. This would allow readers to more easily see how the proportions change with the inclusion of Baker’s data, and would improve the table’s readability and usefulness.
3. Figure 1
Please clarify what the error bars represent (e.g., standard errors) in the figure caption or main text.
Author Response
Please see attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript tackles a significant and underexplored area, which is the historical undercounting and misrepresentation of women's executions in the United States, particularly critiquing the widely used Espy file. Its primary contribution lies in highlighting discrepancies, presenting preliminary revised counts based on existing scholarship (primarily Baker, 2016), and arguing for a gendered re-examination of historical execution data. The challenge to the Espy file and the call for a more accurate, publicly available dataset (WEB) are commendable and potentially impactful.
Major Concerns
- While the effort to verify data is commendable, the methodology section lacks sufficient detail on the specific verification procedures used beyond citing Baker (2016) and providing anecdotes. The process for resolving discrepancies between sources needs explanation. Furthermore, the rationale for the specific analytical choices, such as calculating proportions only for years with verified female executions (N=239), needs even stronger justification.
- The manuscript critiques the "chivalry hypothesis" but struggles to articulate a more robust theoretical framework for interpreting the revised data. The discussion needs to move beyond critiquing existing frameworks to more clearly demonstrate how a gender/intersectionality lens provides novel insights into the patterns revealed by the corrected data.
- The manuscript suffers from organizational issues. The literature review feels disjointed, mixing critique of theory with descriptions of datasets and historical details that belong more appropriately in Methods or Results. Transitions between sections are often abrupt, and the main argument (demonstrating the Espy file's inadequacy through revised data and calling for its replacement) could be more coherently developed throughout the paper.
Specific Comments and Recommendations:
Abstract
The statement "Simple analyses were conducted..." undersells the effort and potentially misleads. The method involves data collation, verification, and comparison, not just simple analysis. The goal of creating awareness for a database is important but perhaps secondary to the empirical findings presented within the paper itself for an abstract.
Introduction
- Role and limitations of the "chivalry hypothesis" are introduced early but could be integrated more smoothly with the data critique.
- Purpose statement mentioning the creation of the WEB database needs clearer articulation of the paper's specific analytical goals versus the project's broader goals.
Literature Review
- Critique of the chivalry hypothesis is present but isn't strongly woven into a broader theoretical argument about gender and executions beyond simply stating the hypothesis is flawed.
- Discussion of documenting executions (2.1) mixes history of the Espy file with critiques and mentions of other researchers without a clear narrative thread leading to the current study's specific approach.
Data Description and Methods
- The methodology is primarily data collation and source verification, but this isn't explicitly framed as the core method.
-The term "Simple analyses" in the abstract is contradicted by the detailed verification work described (re-stated for emphasis).
-How Baker's data itself was verified by the current author needs more detail beyond "careful verification". what types of sources were prioritized? How were discrepancies resolved?
- The rationale for focusing the quantitative analysis only on years with verified women's executions needs justification. Why not attempt proportions across all years, acknowledging limitations in the men's count from Espy?
Results
- The calculation explanation for the racial percentage shifts could be clearer.
- Figure 1's presentation is confusing. Using 20-year intervals selected because they contain at least one woman's execution makes the x-axis inconsistent chronologically and hard to interpret general trends from.
- Figure 2 is clearer but relies heavily on the potentially inflated Espy count for men. The text discussing Figure 2 needs more explicit interpretation of the pattern shown. The treason labels on Figure 2 are floating and unclear.
Discussion and Implications
The discussion sometimes reiterates points already made in the results without adding new interpretation.
The connection back to the chivalry hypothesis feels somewhat weak.
Conclusion
The "novelty" of focusing on women could be framed more strongly as correcting a long-standing bias
Author Response
Please see attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf