Do you think justice was done? 

Justice for a woman in the male dominant society of the time would not have been possible. “Most judges rule by common sense, but some by partiality.” No investigation per se or very limited investigation. Just a person’s denial of involvement. If there was no witness, there was no proof. “And to charge a man with a capital crime without any evidence is a difficult thing.” “Martha wept for every other woman who lives, suffers, and dies by the mercurial whims of men.” But, in the end, it is Martha who uses Revenge (Ephraim’s wicked, curved blade) to save herself from rape by North and provide a semblance of justice for Rebecca. Her intent “was to maim, not kill. To teach him a permanent lesson. To ensure that he had one less weapon with which to wound the woman of this world.” Biblical justice. An eye for an eye. Burgess’ death is like frontier justice. When Ephraim cleaned the mill, he put the severed penis in a box and took it to Rebecca Foster, telling her “it isn’t much as far as justice goes. But it’s better than nothing.”

The short answer is “No.” I found a visceral satisfaction in the results of Martha’s self defense and the knowledge that North could no longer impose himself on a woman, no longer violate her in the way he had Rebecca and fully intended to violate Martha. But that is not truly justice for all he inflicted on them.

I personally know women who have been the victims of rape. The experience stays with the woman, not always to the same degree but it is always present, always impacts her experience of herself and her relationships.

I don’t regard a sentence of death as the appropriate or commensurate punishment for rape either. I am not entirely sure what is commensurate with the harm done but it should require some substantial restitution.

Martha defended herself, effectively and strategically. I celebrated her success.

• This reply was modified 3 months ago by Jane Baechle.

From an “old testament” point of view, what Martha does is a form of justice (retribution, if you will). But I think her choice of action came about more as an immediate way to defend herself than it being premeditated. In terms of self-defence, it was effective, wasn’t it? That it also served as a form of justice for Rebecca is really accidental. But I think it does provide Rebecca at least some kind of closure because, in reality, her judgment that North would never pay for his crime is an accurate one, both in the book and in real life. On a side note, I was moved that Martha’s “severing” was inspired by the real-life story of a friend of Ariel Lawhown’s, who survived abuse.

As with others here, I don’t feel that justice was fully served, although I agree with Nancy that it wouldn’t have been possible at the time. North should have been imprisoned or hanged for his crimes as was the case at that time. Although he obviously suffered from “Revenge” (and I, too, celebrated that moment for Martha Jane), I’m with Libby in that I think public acknowledgement of wrongdoing is important. Not only does it bring shame and removes any social standing, but there is also a wider message to the community and society that crimes do not go unpunished. This can be a deterrent for others who lean toward committing the same acts. This, I feel, is how society learns and moves towards standards that benefit all.

Sadly, his status and authority in the town, as well as the fact that he is a man, provide him a shield. That there are still contemporary situations (as the MeToo movement has shown) like this hundreds of years later says a lot about how men in positions of authority get away with crimes. Sad that not much has changed for women.

I’m curious if anyone else anticipated something horrible would happen with “Revenge” after Martha named it early on in the book? I noted it but it wasn’t until Martha confronted North in the mill that I thought “uh oh.” Mind you, I was still shocked. Was justice done with the death of Joshua Burgess? Should Sam and Jonathan have paid for what they did to him? I actually liked Sam’s reasoning as to why he felt justified in killing Burgess. I’m not a supporter of capital punishment, yet at the same time the way Lawhon writes about the law and society of the times, it was highly imperfect, and she spells out that there weren’t jails or courts or laws like now. That Sam justifies it as “a duty” and that Burgess was like a predator with a taste for human blood was plausible in my eyes. I think given the fact that Burgess had victimized two women (who they knew of) as well as threatened Hannah, it was logical for the young men to assume he would carry on brutalizing the women in town, and therefore they would want to take justice into their own hands. 

Like everyone here, I don’t think there was true justice done with North. He can still do harm to others. He was not only a predator but a swindler too, so what’s to keep him from continuing to be a crook and trying to steal property again? The only thing that would prevent that would be there’s enough gossip and rumour mill going on in town to keep him in check. It’s an imperfect outcome, but I guess it’s better than the true life one where North was never punished in any way (at least not in any of the historical accounts).

I do feel that Martha was fully justified in what she did to North in self-defense; and the punishment fit the crime. If that situation had ever been exposed and brought to trial, I doubt she would have been exonerated; it would have been a “he said, she said” moment like most of the rape trials of that era, and Martha would have probably ended up a double victim, especially given North’s status. As it was, it was as good an outcome as could be expected, and there was a particular justice in him losing his “weapon of choice.” Good for her.

I don’t feel that Rebecca got justice, though. Some revenge, yes, but that would never erase the harm done to her. Like Jane said, the sort of trauma she endured will have scarred her for life, and no amount of revenge would eliminate that. But hopefully, it might have made it a little bit easier to move on, knowing that at least she never need fear him repeating his deed or perpetuating it on others.

Regarding Burgess’s killing– that’s a tough one. I have a problem with people who think they are above the law. If one puts it solely in the context of the frontier justice of the times, he got what he deserved, and it’s just that his executioners got away with the deed. In more modern times, they probably deserved to be charged with something like manslaughter (I’m not a lawyer, so am not certain what category this sort of thing would be classified under). They took the law into their own hands, and they beat and killed someone. That the person was a lowlife criminal who would probably do more harm in the future is emotionally pertinent, but they acted out of anger and a desire for revenge. Nowadays, that isn’t supposed to be justification for taking another’s life. One would wish that Burgess would have been imprisoned and punished for the multiple rapes and assaults he’d done; and in that era, if the punishment was death, he should have been executed legally. But seeing how imperfectly justice was served back then (and seriously, is it much better these days?), I found it emotionally satisfying to accept this fictionalized version of justice; and I don’t blame Martha for condoning it.