In Gender and Petty Crime in Late Medieval England: The Local Courts in Kent, 1460–1560, Karen Jones examines the different ways in which local courts handled men and women accused of crimes. She is particularly interested in changes over the late medieval and early modern divide and how they might have shaped the ways in which courts and local societies understood crime as gendered behavior. Most previous work on gender and crime has focused on royal courts and on felonies. Women were less commonly accused or convicted of felonies, and most scholars have focused on explaining why women were less prone to criminal activity than men. More recently, scholars such as Jones have looked at the lower courts, which tried less serious crimes. Jones argues that more men and women interacted with these lower courts, and consequently they provide more insight into the lives of ordinary men and women. Jones directs her analysis to the records generated by the views of frankpledge and the ecclesiastical courts from Fordwich, Canterbury, Sandwich, Queenborough, and New Romney, all in the county of Kent. In covering two centuries that are often separated by the conventions of historical periodization, Jones is able not only to look at attitudes toward men's and women's misconduct but to revisit and revise the debate about whether this is a period that underwent a crisis in gender.

In six chapters, Jones addresses a variety of crimes. Chapter 1 looks at the historiographical issues and the ways in which jurisdiction influenced the accusation of men and women. Chapter 2 looks at property crimes. In this chapter Jones finds that women's legal status vis-à-vis property came into play when they were accused of property crimes such as theft and hedge breaking. Moreover, women appear in greater numbers in local courts for property crimes than in assize or quarter sessions. Chapter 3 analyzes physical violence, a crime women commit less often than men. She argues that communities were more willing to overlook women's minor violence than men’s. Chapter 4 analyzed verbal crimes, such as scolding, defined as aggressive speech. As other studies of scolding have concluded, more women were accused and convicted than men. Jones argues that in situations with both verbal and physical violence, courts prosecuted women for scolding and men for assault. Chapter 5 looks at sexual misbehavior, such as adultery, fornication, and prostitution. Here Jones argues that although contemporary norms associated women with lust more than men, neither secular nor ecclesiastical courts appear to have acted on a double standard of sexual behavior for men and women. Courts found both men and women equally blameworthy and were especially eager to hold men responsible for children they had fathered. Moreover, church courts were somewhat less likely to punish women than men for their sexual misconduct. The exception was prostitution, where female prostitutes rather than their male clients were more typically prosecuted. Chapter 6 looks at so-called gendered crimes, such as witchcraft, Sabbath breaking, unlawful gaming, and vagabondage. In these crimes, the pattern of accusation and prosecution were highly gendered, with women accused more often of witchcraft even before the “witch craze,” while men committed or were prosecuted more often for the other crimes. Jones argues that these findings predict developments in the seventeenth century when they were of greater social concern.

Many of Jones's conclusions will not surprise scholars. Jones finds that there was an increase in concern over poverty and vagabondage in the 1530s and that age and social and marital status, to the degree that she can determine them, play a role in rates of conviction. What she does not find in her court records is evidence of a crisis in gender relations in the early modern period. While prosecutions for scolding peak in the period between 1511 and 1520, they decline steadily after that, as do those for prostitution. She also finds a high degree of convergence between secular and ecclesiastical courts, suggesting that officials in both courts shared many of the same expectations and assumptions. However, aware of the work of Laura Gowing and Garthine Walker, Jones is hesitant to draw too many firm conclusions about the inherent differences between men's and women's behavior. Both Gowing and Walker have cautioned scholars about interpreting court records as accurate reflections of behavior, without attending to the gendered assumptions behind them.

This is a well-researched book that adds considerably to our knowledge of crime and gender. By combining the late medieval and early modern period, Jones is able to draw out conclusions that would otherwise be less visible. Her consideration of how jurisdiction intersected with gender is especially appreciated. I would have liked to have seen more discussion of the moral basis for medieval and early modern gender assumptions. There is a rich didactic literature from this period, and it changed with the progress of the Reformation. Although aware of this material, Jones only minimally discussed the moralizing directed at men and women. More consideration of how this material shaped perceptions of men's and women's behavior would have enhanced Jones’ analysis, giving it deeper context and greater nuance. Nonetheless, this local study offers important insights on the ways that local society in the late medieval and early modern period treated men and women.