https://i.imgsafe.org/f007ae4e92.png
Old Bailey courthouse was London Central District Court from 1773 to 1913. The courtroom design was fit for the legal arena of its time. The Old Bailey was set up to have the accused on one side and the prosecutor on the other side with the jury split on each side of the two as they pose their arguments. Justice was handed out swiftly in these courtroom proceedings as cases were conducted in a timely and quick manner, with little time given to defendants in order to prove their innocence. In contrast, a great deal of time given to the prosecutor, while the judge, as well as the jury, quickly hashed out a verdict in early court cases in the Old Bailey before it was reformed in the future. Examining cases such as trials involving the offense of conspiracy, we can see patterns in social interactions, the implication of gender in a given case, or how conspiracy trials were treated in terms of the verdict. The pattern that is found in most of these trials is that individuals are found guilty of misdemeanors, and only charged with felonies if the conspiracy involves murder or other capital offenses.
https://i.imgsafe.org/efeb202711.png
While examining 10 cases that involve the offense of conspiracy, many of the suspects in question were males, and only one case involved one of the accused being a women. A small caveat about some of these cases is that the suspects were found to be drawing in the victims to the local tavern, or the suspects conspiring the criminal act in the tavern. This could suggest in 15th and 16th century much of England’s criminal activity was conducted at taverns. In terms of verdicts two people were acquitted out of 10 cases for insufficient evidence against them, another two people were found guilty and put to death, while the remainder cases were all found guilty and charged with fines and pillory. The reoccurring theme in all these cases seems to be the motive of obtaining money or valuables. These cases have instances of robbery of valuables or kidnapping of some kind. One of the cases involved a murder and kidnapping by Thomas Kelsey in 1690, which ended in a verdict of guilty and the suspect put to death.  
https://i.imgsafe.org/efdcd85e89.png
There are examples at the Old Bailey of an acquittal decisions in conspiracy offenses. In this example, William Williams, Thomas Pinner, and William Scurvil were indicted and charged with conspiracy to murder John Arrowsmith and Thomas Robin-son.  The gentleman that were charged held a governmental position and were asked to go rogue. He thought against it and shot the man who proposed it. This gesture was seen to stop the conspiratorial activity before it happened, it was seen by the court to be a good reason for grounds of acquittal. The second example of an acquittal in conspiracy cases was in a 1719 case against James Holliday for trespassing and conspiracy.  In the case against James Holliday, the original court documents stated very little in three sentences on the case. The verdict was an acquittal based on no evidence against Mr. Hol-liday. The pattern in acquittals versus guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases is quite simply if there is evidence against you then there is a likelihood you will be found guilty. There is no mention of Mr. Holiday’s social status in the community so this could not suggest if he was someone of high stature that was able to get himself an acquittal verdict.
https://i.imgsafe.org/f028f47a12.png
The conspiracy cases in the Old Bailey courthouse from 1683 to 1720 fluctuated in the occurrence over 37 years. Six out of 10 of these conspiracy cases occurred be-tween 1690 and 1698, all of which had guilty verdicts. Two very interesting facts develop during this timeline in regards to conspiracy offenses from the Old Bailey court-house. A conspiracy and kidnapping occurred in July 1697 involving Andrew Palmer, Ann Holford, and John Mitchell.  The suspects were involved in a kidnapping to conspire to take Susan Lovering who was an Heiress to a substantial fortune of land and wealth. The September 1, 1697, court case against Andrew Palmer did not involve his co-conspirators. Rather the Old Bailey Court decided to charge Ann Holford on the same charges of conspiracy but held her case separate from Palmers, having hers held on January 14, 1698.  The Old Bailey seems to have a preference in not trying women as codefendants in the same court case with someone else. In contrast, there is a pattern of codefendants that were both male being tried in the same court case within the 10 cases being examined. The other interesting observation is that after the Ann Holford case no one is tried for conspiracy again until 1719 until the case against James Holliday. 
https://i.imgsafe.org/f0386a8787.png
After a thorough examination of these 10 conspiracy offenses during the time period of 1683 to 1720, the eight of the verdicts in these cases were found to be guilty. In these eight guilty verdicts, the offense of conspiracy was a misdemeanor in six instances. The two felonies were one instance in 1685 involving William Davis, John Holland, and Agnes Wearing in their attempt of conspiracy with the attempt of burglary.  The suspects impersonated as captain of the King's guard which in today's standards would be impersonating a police officer. This must've been a capital offense at the time in which led to the three suspects being sentenced to death for their crime. After examining the only two conspiracy offenses that led to the outcome of execution, this case was different from the other because it did not involve a conspiracy to murder or bodily harm to the victims. The suspect’s involvement in impersonating the King's guard is what in all likelihood led to the execution. 
https://i.imgsafe.org/f03c61ac56.png
The Old Bailey of London England is a great measure of how 17th and 18th-century life was like in the country in regards to social order and legal cases. As we observe in this time period, the offense of conspiracy, for the most part, was dealt with as a misdemeanor offense, and more often than not its accusers were found guilty. In the two cases that there was a non-guilty verdict evidence was insufficient to prosecute. These cases do not show a distinct social advantage for those of wealth and stature to avoid a guilty verdict because the cases presented did not contain social status as an influence towards guilty and non-guilty verdicts. In the eight cases that had guilty verdicts, there was substantial evidence in finding against the accused that as they were presented in the official court record seem to be undisputable in finding a guilty verdict.

Source:  Old Bailey Reference Number  (t16900605-1)
  Old Bailey Reference Number  (t16830418-11)
  Old Bailey Reference Number (t17190514-40)
  Old Bailey Reference Number (t16970901-9)
  Old Bailey Reference Number (t16980114-57)
  Old Bailey Reference Number (t16851209-48)



https://i.imgsafe.org/f70fc448c9.png

If you enjoyed my work
https://i.imgsafe.org/9572dbcce4.gif

All proceeds from upvotes on this post are going to more Steem Power.
Also, if you're looking for a long-term investment try out cloud mining with Genesis-Mining.com and their Sha-256 bitcoin mining LIFETIME contract.

Use the promo code "1jibey" for 3% off your order. It's a great opportunity, check it out!