Bizarre example of ‘slut shaming’ in a death penalty decision

April 2025

This is an extraordinary case of ‘slut shaming’ where what a woman was wearing featured as a key part in the evidence against her. The prosecutors even produced into the court proceedings a suitcase of provocative clothing as part of their case. We are asking you to write to the state governor to protest at her sentence.

Please express your delight at the good news that her case has been referred back to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, but raise your concerns that she has spent time on death row following a conviction following prejudicial evidence which clearly violated her rights under the 14^th Amendment, and which has been and continues to be only too common in the trials of women accused of capital crimes in the United States.   Stress your hope that she will be granted a new trial which meets the requisite standards of fairness. Please write to Governor J Kevin Stitt about the case of Brenda Andrew, the only woman on death row in Oklahoma:

Background Information

Brenda Andrew (pictured, the Oklahoman), the only woman on death row in Oklahoma, was sentenced to death in 2004 following her conviction for the murder of her husband.  Ms Andrew did not kill her husband – she was said to have lured her husband into the garage under the pretence of starting the pilot light of the furnace – where he was shot by her boyfriend, James Pavatt, who admitted his guilt but said he had acted alone.  The Jury, however, concluded that the couple had conspired to collect on a life insurance policy, and both were found guilty.

On 21^st January 2025, the US Supreme Court referred Ms Andrew’s case back to the Appellate Court, requesting it to take another look at how the evidence of the Prosecution might have prevented a Jury from giving proper consideration to her arguments of innocence.

Her Defence Lawyers, who did not argue against the evidence presented at her trial, said at the time they were too stunned to do so.  This evidence took the form of an attack with accusations of immoral conduct – what has been termed ‘sex’ or ‘slut shaming’.  Not only did they call witnesses to give evidence of Ms Andrew’s sexual relationships over the past 20 years, but they also spoke of her ‘provocative clothing’, called her a ‘hoochie*’ and a ‘slut puppy’, and – in his closing evidence, the Prosecutor opened a suitcase and showed the Jury Ms Andrew’s underwear – a thong and a lace bra – saying, ‘The grieving widow packs this in her appropriate act of grief? … a grieving widow doesn’t pack her thong underwear and run off with her boyfriend!’

Elizabeth Bruenig of The Atlantic says attacking women on trial for criminal offences with accusations of immoral conduct has been, and continues to be, common.  As recent examples, she cites the cases of Mary Ellen Samuels who was convicted of murder in California in 1994 following the introduction of pornographic letters and a nude photograph, and of Amanda Knox whose demeanour and behaviour were deemed inappropriate following the murder of her fellow student.  Men are rarely sentenced to death based on deviation from masculine gender norms, but many female defendants facing capital trials are derided by prosecutors for failures of femininity.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court held that Ms Andrew had properly relied on an earlier Supreme Court case, (Payne v Tennessee – 1991) arguing that the State’s evidence was so prejudicial that it violated her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals now has to determine whether the Prosecutor’s evidence about Ms Andrew’s sexual behaviour and clothing was so prejudicial that it warrants a new trial.  They are to re-examine her prosecution to determine if Judges ‘reviewing this record could disagree with Andrew that the trial court’s mistaken admission of irrelevant evidence was so ‘unduly prejudicial’ as to render her trial ‘fundamentally unfair’. 

Statement by Jessica Sutton, Attorney for MS Andrew:

“The pros­e­cu­tion invit­ed the jury to con­vict and con­demn Ms. Andrew to death because she was not a ​‘stereo­typ­i­cal’ woman — her cloth­ing was not mod­est enough, her demeanour was not emo­tion­al enough, and she was not chaste enough,”

Statement by Sandra Babcock, Cornell Law Professor and member of the Defence Team:

‘Wielding these gen­dered tropes to jus­ti­fy a con­vic­tion and pun­ish­ment of death is intol­er­a­ble and pos­es a threat to every­one who does not fol­low rigid gen­der norms….  With this deci­sion, the U.S. Supreme Court has for the first time sig­nalled that pros­e­cu­tors may not use, and courts may not admit, prej­u­di­cial evi­dence attack­ing women’s abil­i­ties as moth­ers and their pri­vate sex lives with­out vio­lat­ing women’s constitutional rights.” 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Arlene Johnson said the tri­al was ​“rife with error” which, ​“at its most egre­gious, includes a pat­tern of intro­duc­ing evi­dence that has no pur­pose oth­er than to ham­mer home that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, a bad moth­er, and a bad woman.”

Judge Robert Bacharach of the Tenth Circuit wrote the prosecution focused ​“from start to fin­ish on Ms. Andrew’s sex life” and ​“por­trayed Ms. Andrew as a scar­let woman, a mod­ern Jezebel, spark­ing dis­trust based on her loose morals…plucking away any real­is­tic chance that the jury would seri­ous­ly con­sid­er her ver­sion of events.”

Note:  Ms Andrew’s Attorney, Jessica Sutton, has also argued that – as the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row, she may be experiencing disparate negative treatment compared to men and even ‘functional solitary confinement.’

Sources:  Death Penalty Information Center; The Atlantic; Oklahoma Watch; AP News 

We hope you find time to write to the governor.

Contact details:

The Honorable J Kevin Stitt

Governor of the State of Oklahoma

Oklahoma State Capitol

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd; Suite 212

Oklahoma City

OK 73105

USA.

Emails can be tried at:   https://oklahoma.gov/governor/contact/general-information/contact-the-governor.html which gives access to a form.

*Hoochie: derogative term for a woman who has several sexual partners.

Reform calls for return of death penalty for Southport murderer

January 2025

Following the horrific murder of three young girls in Southport last year and the attempted murder of others, the man who committed the murders, Axel Rudakubana, was sentenced this week to 52 years in custody before he can be considered for parole. He could not be sentenced to a whole life tariff because he was 17 at the time he committed the crime and such a sentence cannot be passed on someone below the age of 18.

As is normal in cases of crimes of this gravity which deeply shocked the nation, there are some who call

for the return of the death penalty. This was kicked off this week by the Reform party currently doing well in the polls. They have called for a debate on the issue although it is clear from the chief whip Lee Anderson MP, he is keen for the penalty to be restored. The Labour MP for Southport, Patrick Hurley, said the sentence ‘was not severe enough’.

“This animal has no right to breathe the same air as the rest of us” Lee Anderson MP [Daily Express]

This came up on today’s Any Questions (24 January) programme on BBC Radio 4 and Any Answers was substantially devoted to the topic. The answers were interesting and there did seem a majority in favour for its return. The presenter of the programme, Anita Anand asked several times about mistakes. If you have executed someone and discover a mistake some years later it is too late to undo it. Answers mostly seemed to base themselves on the availability now of DNA inferring that this provides some kind of guarantee of correctness. She also questioned the deterrent claims by pointing out that several North American states maintain the penalty but studies show no link to a reduction in violent crime as a result. One person tried to say that violent crime has increased since the death penalty was abolished in the ’60s. As Anand pointed out, it hasn’t and the murder rate has remained fairly consistent for many years. There did seem to be a touching faith in the justice system not making mistakes because we have DNA evidence now. Have they not heard of Andrew Malkinson, released after 17 years for a crime he did not commit?

One feature which came up was cost. Several people phoned in to say keeping him incarcerated for 52 years or more will be very expensive (someone had done a calculation). Whereas they argued, an execution would be over and done with. A few argued he would have time in prison to reflect on his crime.

A high degree of emotion and disgust at crimes as serious and heinous as this is to be expected. The moral argument did not make an appearance however and whether it is right for the state to take someone’s life. One thought it might make him a martyr.

A lot of the debate focused on how do you stop this kind of thing happening in the first place. Young men (it mostly is) sat in their rooms downloading violent material including the al Qaeda training manual. He bought his knife just days before from Amazon. It is reported today that he deleted his search history and if Google, Facebook, X et al decline to release details from their servers, it could take years through the American courts to retrieve the information. Finding out the source of his rage may take years.

Amnesty is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. It is not a deterrent.