Gender, Mitigation and Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Case of Ruth Ellis

By Claire Butler, Amicus Trustee

This week, the King, on the advice of the Deputy Prime Minister, granted a posthumous conditional pardon to Ruth Ellis - the last woman to be executed in the UK. This pardon means that Ruth's sentence is commuted from death to life imprisonment. The Government said it is “an act of mercy”, that the decision “reflects the exceptional circumstances of the case, including evidence of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that may have been understood differently today” and that it “recognises that under modern law and understanding, the outcome may have been different”.

The King’s pardon is the result of an application made by Ruth’s grandchildren which highlighted that the domestic abuse, trauma and other circumstances suffered by Ruth in the lead up to the shooting of her partner, David Blakely, were never properly recognised at her trial. It was in April 1955 that Ruth shot and killed David Blakely and she was executed by hanging three months later. Ruth was 28 at the time of her execution, a mother of two and a victim of domestic violence. She had been abused by her father from 11 years old and became a nightclub hostess in her teens. No appeal was lodged and her case caused widespread controversy, raising significant issues about gender-based violence in the death penalty - still prevalent today.

The reaction of the public at the time to Ruth’s execution ultimately helped to strengthen opposition to the death penalty in the UK. The Homicide Act of 1957 distinguished between capital and non-capital murder and set out the (only) six categories of murder which were then punishable by execution. 1964 saw the last execution, and the formal abolition of capital punishment for murder took the form of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 which replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment. In 2004, the UK ratified Protocol 13 to the European Convention and Human Rights, which permanently prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances.

Globally, however, the death penalty remains very much prevalent. Ruth’s case and the discussions it has reinvigorated issues which still impact death sentences today including gender-based violence and the essential requirement for thorough mitigation work to be undertaken in every case. The Death Penalty Information Center reported two years ago that the number of incarcerated women and girls has risen by nearly 60% since 2000. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty also published a report in 2023 estimating 500 to 1000 women were on death row in over 42 countries. The report highlighted the majority of women sentenced to death for murder committed their crimes in the context of gender-based violence - often killing in self-defence or having experienced severe abuse. Countries which do not recognise gender-based violence or those with mandatory death sentences for murder are more likely to have higher numbers of women on death row.

The death penalty systematically discriminates against women. Research undertaken by the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide shows that at least 96% of women on death row have experienced prior gender-based violence or intimate partner violence. However, despite this, women’s backgrounds, trauma and coercion they have faced are given little or no weight at trial. Women are also frequently judged on whether they conform to societal expectations and prosecutors often utilise gendered narratives to justify the imposition of a death sentence.

In countries continuing to impose death sentences - and regardless of the gender of a defendant - the failure to raise mitigation on behalf of a defendant, or for mitigation not to be given the weight it requires, has dire consequences. This is as true today as it was in Ruth’s trial in 1955. In the US, the penalty phase of a trial (once a defendant has been found guilty) should raise all mitigating circumstances in support of the defendant. This can be anything which argues for reduced moral culpability, for mercy or humanity and should tell the ‘story’ of the defendant and their family. If done properly, this should cover all aspects such as the defendant’s childhood, trauma and abuse, foster care and group homes, their struggles at school or integrating into society, and so on. It should also cover multiple generations of the defendant’s family, looking at aspects such as mental health issues and poverty. It is during this that a defence lawyer must put forward their strongest argument as to why their client deserves to live; the effectiveness of a lawyer here can make the difference between death and life. Without a jury hearing a thorough explanation for why the defendant is who they have become, a jury is unlikely to vote for a life sentence.

The UK-based charity Amicus ALJ and its volunteers regularly cover mitigation work on behalf of capital offices throughout the USA - whether that be remote work by volunteers outside the US, or on the ground in person. All of their clients rely on the investigation and presentation of mitigation in their cases. The Ruth Ellis case showed the importance of this type of work, and the lack in her case caused an outcry at the time and for the past 70 years.