History of Crime and Punishment – Discussions P2

Discussion 6 History of Crime and Punishment

Discussion 6

The number of crimes punishable by death in Britain increased significantly during the 18th century. The so-called “Bloody Code” was a defining feature of the age, and many historians interpret the Code as a critical element in maintaining law and order as well as social control. Executions were public spectacles, often tinted as much by the gruesome performances of hangings as they were by a festival-style unruliness of the crowd.

Yet, as the readings for this week show, the “Bloody Code” was a far more complex and paradoxical phenomenon than some historians have interpreted.

• According to King & Ward, why was the application of the “Bloody Code” uneven throughout Britain?

King and Ward explain the differences in the bloody code’s regimes throughout England through demonstration of its effect throughout various regions. In the late 17^th century to the early 19^th century, saw a mass number of executions amongst the populations, especially towards the lower classes. Through enforcing these strict punishments throughout England, we saw crime rates decrease alongside social and political power in government, therefore as King and Ward mention “a vital role both within the criminal law and in 18^th century social relations” (King & Ward, 2015, p.159).

Interestingly though King and Ward mention that the peripheries of England witnessed an exceptionally small number of executions and the bloody code far less implemented into their judicial system. Central England and its eastern peripheries witnessed “national hanging rates peaking at 25 and 30 per 100,000 in the crisis period around 1600” (King & Ward, 2015, p.164). Although the bloody code was severe in central and eastern England, it was often “ignored on the periphery in North, Northwest as well as Scotland and Wales” (King & Ward, 2015, p.164). This is likely to due to separate public perspectives, lenient judges, and disparities in the application of capital punishment which is explored by King and Ward.

King and Ward also delve into the bloody code and why it was so detrimental. This is demonstrated with King and Wards explanation of the clear disparity of the bloody codes influence in Northern peripheries in comparison to central and eastern England, the reinforcement of the social hierarchy and capital punishment introduced by the bloody code was a form of social control manifested out of fear, obedience, symbolic power, and the control via political oppression. The threat of severe punishment instilled fear into the public population, reducing crimes and the public spectacles of these executions were a social demonstration of power.

King and Ward then demonstrate the bloody code as an era of political oppression in Georgian England which used capital punishment to control its state. As we look back on the bloody code and the implementation of public spectacles of executions, we can also understand in peripheries of central England, the lack of implementation of the bloody code did not result in a higher crime rate. The social control of the bloody code was one of fear, political oppression, and capital punishment, to maintain the social hierarchy and to punishment the lower classes. King and Wards demonstration of the severity of the bloody code in central England which I’ve explained above is also paralleled to the separate case of Northern, Northeastern, Wales and Scotland differed and likely due to variations in law enforcement, social  and economic factors, political considerations amongst judges and the preference of leniency instead of capital punishment, hangings and the public demonstrations which the bloody code entailed.  

References

King, P. and Ward, R. (2015). Rethinking the Bloody Code in Eighteenth-Century Britain: Capital Punishment at the Centre and on the Periphery. Past & Present, [online] 228(1), pp.159–205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtv026.

Week 7 Discussion

Transportation was a key part of the British criminal justice system from the early 17th century through to the mid-19th century. For the convicts, it was a profound experience of dislocation and dispossession which started with the American colonies and ended in 1868 with the last convict ship arriving in Australia. For the colonies that received convicts, transportation would have an enduring legacy that shaped their social, cultural and political identities.

1. What did you find most interesting or surprising from the Maxwell-Stewart article?
2. What were the key points about convict transportation being made by Maxwell-Stewart?

The most interesting part of Maxwell – Stewart’s article was the historical context and the statistics which were involved. It is especially interesting regarding English penal colonies in America, the number of convicts transported but also the timeline of when these shipments would stop. When we think of penal colonies we often think of Australia, but prior to the Revolutionary War, America was that colony. Due to the aftermath of the Revolutionary war, England settled on Australia. Maxwell – Stewart’s enlightenment on these ideas, were particularly interesting to me. Maxwell – Stewart also demonstrates the influx of convicts to the America’s by stating “37,000 convicts estimated to have been sentenced by English and Scottish to America between 1718-1776” (Maxwell – Stewart, (2010, para.10). To me this demonstrates how differently the history of Australia could have been if the revolutionary war did not exist.

Maxwell – Stewart also enlightens us mentioning that the English were not the first nation to introduce convict transfers and it was the “Portuguese of Ceuta in North Africa 1415” (Maxwell – Stewart, (2010), para. 4) and how it is likely it existed prior. Maxwell demonstrated the sheer numbers of convict transportation – +Stewart, where “between the end of the Napoleonic war and 1868, 160,000 convicts were sent to Australia” (Maxwell – Stewart, (2010), para. 9). To give an understanding on how impactful those numbers would become in modern day Australia where 20% of our populations share that lineage.

Maxwell – Stewart’s key points throughout this article demonstrate the scale, scope and the development of convict transport and its penal system. Maxwell – Stewart demonstrates the vast amount of people who would be settled, describing the America’s as England’s first choice, but due to the Revolutionary War, they needed to discover another region. This abrupt change in the judicial system and the convict transportation is also stressed in his article, demonstrating both Imperial power and the development of settlements, due to convict labour.

Ultimately Maxwell – Stuart was helping simplify the very complicated “history of transportation to Australia within the context of the wider flow of convict labour from the British Isles in the period 1615 to 1870” (Maxwell – Stewart, (2010), para 1) and largely explains the demise of the convict transport system, with the first anti-colonial parties being established in 1883. To conclude his article, he mentions that the last English colonial endeavour was in 1943. Stewart gave us an amazingly easy to read, concise and clear depiction of what the convict trade system was, from the downfall of the American colonies to the establishment of the Australian convict system.

References

Maxwell-Stewart, H. (2010). Convict Transportation from Britain and Ireland 1615-1870. History Compass, 8(11), pp.1221–1242.

Discussion 8

The 19th century was a period of fundamental and deep change in Britain as industrialization and urbanization altered the face of society and had an enduring impact on crime. The 19th century is also a story of two halves when it came to crime – the first half characterized by a rise in the crime rate and the second half witnessing a gradual decline in the rates of criminal activity. And, yet, what remained consistent throughout the century was the opportunism of all classes of criminals as well as widespread anxieties about and interests in crime.

How did newspaper reporting reinforce notions of class and criminality in Victorian Britain?

How do legal changes relating to white-collar crime inform our understanding of this type of criminal activity as the 19th century and the social attitude towards white-collar criminals?

During the early 19th century there were two core newspapers which delivered information to the public, these being ‘The Northen Star’ and ‘Illustrated London’. The newspapers principles were separate, the Northern Star was a prime promoter of the Chartist movements, promoting workers’ rights, universal suffrage and promoted anti-establishment. Ultimately “Reports reflected sharply contemporary concerns about modern society” (Rodrick, 1996, p.2)

On the contrary Illustrated London was a more conservative article, targeting the middle and upper classes. Comparably opposite from the Northern Star papers, Illustrated London supported conservative measures including patriotism, cultural enlightenment and values which include Monarch, Church, and the aristocracy.

Illustrated London in particular affected English society through sensationalism and bias, sharing criminal columns focused on the poor and would often ignore the upper-class crimes as an entirety. This selective reporting developed strong stereotypes amongst the lower class, that they were highly susceptible to crimes.

Northern Star and Illustrated London have also reported articles linking social inequalities, overcrowding and moral decay to larger issues in society, the reason why crimes are being committed. The Northern Star newspaper supports the workers chartist movement, equal rights and condemns inequality. They also support social justices amongst both the elite and the lower classes. The upper-class perceived that radical press “was presented as a threat to public order” (Rodrick, 1996, p.1).

Under analysis of both the Northern Star and Illustrated London, I can see core differences between their motives in 19th century Britain. Whilst Northern Star was quite radical, promoting chartist movements, anti-establishment amongst others, Illustrated London supports a conservative view, focusing their content to the middle and upper classes. As both the Northern Star and Illustrated London demonstrate separate views, we can therefore understand that news impacted society in multiple ways, yet the upper class always had more leniency whether it comes to crime or law.

Until the mid-19th century in England white collar crime was ignored and dismissed whilst the front pages of newspapers were filled with crime amongst the poor. The recognition of white-collar crime was marked by recognition of fraud, embezzlement, and corporate misconduct. Due to the recent boom of industrial capitalism and the drastic increase in urbanisation, the health and safety whilst working was incredibly dangerous, with poor wages and little recognition of the lower-class peoples working in businesses, sparking a new wave of white-collar crime.

Previously violent crimes were the focal point for law and newspaper, during the mid-18th century there was a shift and recognition of white-collar crimes including fraud, embezzlement, and corporate misconduct. Although these individuals were delivered to trial there was a perceived leniency towards white collar crimes and there was scepticism of the unfair nature of these legal battles, leading to ‘elite privilege’ and the alternate unfairness of the legal system, providing all the necessary reasons to develop public discourse.

We can see that although there were legal changes amongst white collar crimes, there was a perceived leniency. Often white-collar crimes were not violent they were business crimes such as embezzlement and fraud, alongside a terrible morality towards their lower-class workers. These crimes were opportunistic due to urbanisation, the steady advancement of industrialism and elite privileges.

References

Rodrick, A. B. (1996) ‘Only a newspaper metaphor: Crime reports, class conflict, and social criticism in two Victorian newspapers’.

Discussion 9

The prison system as we understand it today has its foundations in the 19th century. The number of prisons in Britain increased significantly during this period, as the main form of punishment shifted from execution and transportation to imprisonment. And, even though the foundations of the modern prison system are to be found the 19th century, it was a vastly different experience and regime to that in existence today. Hard labour and isolation were meant to punish the criminal but reformers envisaged the role of prisons to be rehabilitative. It was the blending of these two notions of imprisonment that paved the way for our modern-day understanding of the purpose of the prison.

1. What are the key differences between the prison and imprisonment in the 18th century and the 19th century?
2. What were the driving motivations for prison reform and how was such reform opposed?

There were major differences between 18^th and 19^th century England penal system. In the 18^th century punitive institutions focused on punishment, whilst 19^th century focused on rehabilitation and reintroducing convicts back into society. Another factor is in the 18^th century during the Bloody Code, prison sentences were often preludes to executions as the capital punishment was frequent form of punishment rather than the secondary form of punishment being imprisonment. Whilst the 18^th century witnessed punishment over rehabilitation, the 19^th century witnessed the demise of the Bloody Code and due to this rehabilitation was introduced as a punitive measure, focusing on instilling disciple, work values and reinforcement of religion.

Another factor of reform is the prison’s architecture, introducing more humane conditions including the introduction of toilets, larger cells and due to the increasing number of imprisonments measures such as the architecture of the prison was an introduction, making optimal situations for both guards and prisoners. Although transportation was another form of punishment, there was a drastic increase of imprisonments as punishment during the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

As the Bloody Code ceased and capital punishment was far less common, there was an influx of legal reforms with people being in favour of rehabilitation, using prison as a deterrence, a place to rehabilitate people and reintegrating offenders back into society, rather than solely punishing them.

Alike the above, there were factors in how the reform was opposed and supported. Humanitarian concerns developed as the prison system prior to the 19^th century was inhumane and focused on severe punishment. These degrading systems where a large reason for reform. Alongside this enlightenment in the form of social improvement, related to the introduction of rehabilitation instead of purely punishment. Social movements developed an influence for the punitive system to be a place of rehabilitation, a place to develop societal values, to reintroduce offenders back into society as moral citizens. As stated above, imprisonment was a form of crime prevention and a place of deterrence.

Although penal reform was supported by much of the public, there was opposition amongst the upper class, where they believed the reduced punishment methods and the introduction of a humane penal system would undermine deterrence and encourage criminal behaviour. The fear of increased crime rates due to reduced punishment was a large concern for conservative members of society and the upper classes. Lastly a factor of opposition was the introduction of taxes to build prisons such as Pentville, threatening the upper classes economic and political interests.

Discussion 10

Discussion 10 – History of Crime and Punishment

As the problem of crime continued to grow in the early decades of the 19th century, policing and the detection of crime went from a part-time and unpaid job performed by untrained citizens to a dedicated career undertaken by a police force. The modern concept and phenomenon of the police developed in the 19th century and, by the end of the century, police and detectives were investigating and solving crimes in a way that is remarkably familiar today.

1. To what extent was the ‘policeman-state’ socially biased and an ideological construction in the 19th century?
2. What impact did police have on crime and criminal convictions?

As population boomed during the 18^th and 19^th centuries due to the industrial revolution, the rate of crime amongst the middle and lower classes increased because of poverty and urbanisation. Due to the increase in crime the upper classes developed a growing concern of rioting, protests and increased crime rates developed the fears of an uprising. The concept of the ‘policeman-state’ was due to these issues, and the rapid expansion of law enforcement as a means for social regulation. The mid-18^th century witnessed the introduction of the “Bow Street Runners” in London who were the first law enforcement group, as crime rates grew in the early 19^th century, they were no longer sufficient to manage crime.

As a relation to the ‘Bow Street Runners’ early success, the government implemented the ‘Metropolitan Police Act’ in 1829 increasing policing to a further seventeen districts consisting of 149 constables and four inspectors. This rapid expansion of policing throughout the 19^th century demonstrates the ideological construction of the upper class and their fears. The class bias regarding the working class was also met with the ideology that policing would take public order over individual rights, further alienating the middle and lower classes from their personal freedoms as the lower classes would be targeted and discriminated against under the new police acts.

Policing had a varied impact on crime, criminal convictions, and society. The introduction of policing functioned as a deterrence to crime and led to a decrease in street crimes such as thieving, prostitution and other petty crimes, and although the new professionalism of policing in the latter 19^th century was a benefit to crime rates, it also marginalised and disproportionately targeted middle, lower and marginalised groups. Policing therefore reflected the social biases amongst 19^th century England, highlighting conviction rates amongst the lower classes and its social inequalities.

Despite the negative consequences of policing amongst the lower classes and marginalised groups, the introduction of professional paid policing in the latter 19^th century demonstrated the effectiveness of England’s new method to tackle crime. Instead of a public judicial system, the installation of policing established a crucial development of criminal justice in England as paid police forces would grow into broader communities.

Discussion 11

Photographs of criminals – or mug shots – are an accepted and common part of police and penal record-keeping in the modern world. Its roots are to be found in the 19th century, when the modern technology of photography merged with the fascination and need to identify the criminal type.

Mug shots were as much about identifying criminals as they were about stereotyping and classifying people based on physical features. It was a system of criminal identification that was discriminatory as well as tinted with notions of class and the superiority of the observers, but it was also a system that was considered to be rational in the 19th century.

Importantly, the methods of criminal identification that emerged in the 19th century had an enduring impact on the investigation of crime long after the notions that informed those methods had been dismissed.

1. How does Julia Clark’s interpretation of colonial criminal photographs differ from the usual understanding of mug shots?
2. In what ways can phrenology be seen as the “disreputable ancestor” of criminology?

Julia Clark’s interpretations of colonial criminal photographs includes both colonial context and power dynamics. “Until the invention of photography in 1839 identification of criminals was made through exhaustive physical descriptions such as height, age, eyes etc” (Clark, 2011, p.25), this description by Clark demonstrates how progressive photography developed between its invention in 1839 and its implementation in 1870’s where photography would be included in policing. Clark also provides her opinion, demonstrating that colonial criminal photographs are a form of colonial control. As the photography developed, they eventually shifted towards a full body account, this dehumanised the individuals as they were stripped of their humanity, their pictures were shared around town reinforcing the criminals in Hobart Gaol but also as a social means of control, a visual threat to the public, The development of the mug shot from 1839 to the latter years of the 19^th century was extensive and topical, not only to create awareness of the populations for a security measure, but also a functional method of social control amongst the colonial population creating power dynamics in society.

Phrenology was a pseudo-science which dates to 500BC as a practicing method to assume someone’s personal character. Ancient Greek Pythagoras would accept and deny students as he believed intellect was dependant on how the individual looked e.g. Broad faced individuals were stupid. Physiognomy, a practice of phrenology gained traction in the 16^th century and would continue to the 19^th century. Phrenology and physiognomy were practiced in criminality, deciding if an individual was a criminal based on their structure. There were social and racial bias in phrenology and physiognomy as Asian and Africans were viewed by society as less beautiful and were often considered to have a criminal physical structure. Phrenology and physiognomy were clearly a flawed, there’s extensive scientific research which proves there is no correlation between intelligence and criminality due to an individual’s looks. Phrenology and physiognomy also contributed to stigmatization and discrimination, leading to biological determinism, and marginalizing much of the public that practiced phrenology or physiognomy. Through this analysis there’s a clear absurdity to this practice, and it’s also absurd how long it was practiced, between 500BC and 19^th century England. Phrenology is the “disreputable ancestor” of criminology as it was unfounded and affected individuals who weren’t criminals. The racial and social biases further eliminate phrenology and physiognomies practice, demonstrating characteristics akin to the bloody code, controlling the marginalised individuals in society.

References

Clark, J. (2011). “Rendering our criminal procedure more perfect”: 19th-century forensic photography at home and abroad. Tasmanian Historical Studies, 16, 25–36. https://search-informit-org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/doi/10.3316/ielapa.897228759954329