Crime and Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England PDF

Tab 1  4/9/24 introduction to crime and punishment 5/9/24 6/9/24 Who decided what was a crime in Anglo-Saxon Englang was it violent an… 11/9/24 How far did the Normans change justice 12/9/24 How far did justive ch...

Tab 1  4/9/24 introduction to crime and punishment 5/9/24 6/9/24 Who decided what was a crime in Anglo-Saxon Englang was it violent an… 11/9/24 How far did the Normans change justice 12/9/24 How far did justive change in the later middle ages? 18/9/24 what influence did the Church have on crime and punishment How far had justice changed in the later middle ages Medieval Murder Story 19/9/24 Tony Rhobinson's cirme and punishment fued glorious fued 2/10/24 how did religios and social changes affect crime and pinishment 2/10/24 religous changes timeline 3/10/24 the gun powder ploters (guy fawkes) 4/10/24 was matthew hopkins the main reason for the witch hunt of 1645 - 1647 4/10/24 was matthew hopkins the main reason for the witch hunt of 1645 - 1647 9/10/24 was Matthew Hopkins the main reason for the witch hunt of 1645-1647 9/10/24 10/10/24 vagabonds 17/10/24 how effective was law enforcemnt between 1500 -1700 18/10/24 law enforcment in towns 23/10/24 was the bloody code too harsh 6/11/24 why was highway robbery a short lived crime 7/11/24 why was the 1723 black act introduced 8/11/24 13/11/24 why was smuggling a long term crime 13/11/24 essay question 21/11/24 why were the Tolpuddle Martyrs punished so harshly 22/11/24 how did society change in the industrial period 27/11/24 how did policing and law enforcement change in 1700-1900 28/11/24 why was the bloody code abolished in the 1820 s- 1830s 4/12/24 why did punishment change in 1700 - 1900 5/12/24 prisons 1000 - 1500 4/9/24 introduction to crime and punishment 1. In the last ten years crime has risen dramatically fallen 2. Violent crime is 3% 10% 3. Burglary is increasing a little decreasing dramatically 4. Car crime is increasing a little dramatically decreasing 5. How many fatal shootings in 2007? 1564 59 6. Are men or women more likely to be attacked by a stranger? women men 7. Who is most likely to be mugged? Male pensioner male under 29 3 important aspects are crime, punishment and law enforcement Crime 1. Shoplifting 2. Vandalism 3. Kidnaping 4. Manslaughter 5. Muder 6. Identity theft 7. Exploitation 8. Breaking and entering 9. Aggravated assault 10. Rape 11. Drunk driving 12. Sexual assault 13. Sexual harassment 14. War crime 15. Discrimination 16. Witchcraft 17. Stealing 18. Poaching 19. Unlawful possession of a deadly weapon 20. Tax evasion 21. Mass murder 22. Arson 23. Criminal attempt 24. Speeding 25. Fraud 26. Forgery 27. Piracy 28. Heresy - crime against religion (god) your country or its rulers 29. Treason - betraying 30. Conspiracy - plot to assassinate Kinds of crime Crime against property. Crime against people, crime against authority Punishment 1. Imprisonment 2. Forced labour 3. Hanging 4. Fine 5. Identifying mark 6. Community service 7. Death 8. Loss of freedoms 9. Probation 10. Not able to do certain jobs 11. Not able to go to certain places 12. mutilation Capital punishment - death Corporal punishment - physical harm ( eg mutilation, wiping) Imprisonment Transportation Fines Kinds of punishments Retribution - gives public satisfaction Deterrence - to stop others vomiting the same crime Restiton - Removal - takes criminal away from society for a while or permanently Rehabilitation - reforms the criminal 5/9/24 6/9/24 Who decided what was a crime in Anglo-Saxon England was it violent and superstitious Anglo-Saxon - before 1066 (the normans) 4000 - 1000 Had no police force Had a court Collective responsibility - everyone in a community is responsible for each other What I think What kinds of crimes Conspiracy Heresy treachery Who decided what crimes were The king The rich/nobles Religious leaders monks Crimes against people Assault Murder Crime against property theft Robbery Crimes against authority Treason Divided into many different kingdoms ruled by a warrior king Different laws in each kingdom Laws are just remembered but as time past the monks often recorded the laws  The king consulted with the leading nobles and bishops (witan - royal court) for making kea decisions but didn't have to listen The religious leaders wrote the laws Blood feuds were when a person harmed or killed a family member you could hunt them down in return however than a member of there family can kill you and this could decimate entire families After the blood feud a compensation system was developed (different payment for who you killed a king being very hight and a welsh person being the lowest) King - the king was the main law maker and laws were issued in his name. He had responsibility over the entire kingdom and its safety. He had to make sure that the nobles were looked after and the at violence was reduced. He also held the witan meetings Nobles - the nobles controlled the kingdoms of England and had complete authority within them. They were given this land by the king in return for their cooperation and assistance in times of war. They held their own shire courts and privat courts. Bishops - the bishops controlled the church and it was in the church that people were taught about what was right and wrong through sermons. Bishops were also landowners and needed protection. They were members of the witan and helped to create the laws too. Monks - monks were under the control of the church and took their orders from the bishops. As saxon law became more sophisticated it needed to be written down and this was the role of the monks. They were one of the few groups who could create documents. Bishops and king were both part of the witan and this shows the church's power. The king was divinely appointed so it is important that the bishop is there The monks take orders from the bishops so the bishop's interpretation of the law is what is recorded. I believe the people who have the most power are the bishops as they could lie about what the laws decided are to the monks and they likely would not be checked as very few people can read. Also the king is divinely appointed but the bishops are representatives of god so if they do not agree with him he may lose favour. Superstition - a widely healed irrational belief in supernatural influenced especially leading to good or bad luck (don't open an umbrella indoors) Law enforcement Hue and cry If you saw someone commit a crime, you had to raise the alarm, and join in the chase to catch the criminal. If you didn't immediately help you may be fined Tithings The tithing was a group of 10 people over the age of 12. Everyone had to be a member of a tithing and each had to take responsibility for the others. Thus if any one member of the tying broke the law the others had to take responsibility for getting the accused to court. If they failed everyone was punished Courts The 12 person jury, still used today, was a Danish practice adopted by the saxons. Trial by jury was an important part of the legal system. Cases would be heard with the victim and the accused each presenting their own case. The jury was usually made up of local villagers who would know both people (called folk moots) would have to decide who was telling the truth. The accused could bring in “compugators” to talk about their good character. They had to swear an oath first so they were known as oath helpers; juries did listen to their evidence, especially if they were important people. Trial by ordeal trial by ordeal was the perfect way of allowing God to decide someone's guilt. Trial by ordeal could only be used after all other avenues when the court decided that the best way to progress was to handle the matter over god. These public trials were controlled by the church. Preparation was very thorough. The person involved had to fast for 3 days and hear mass in the local church. Most of the trials took place in the church. Trial by bread - pray over bread and accused eat if if they don't choke at all they are innocent (taken by priests) Trial by hot iron - accused (usually women) holds a red hot iron weight and walks 3 paces then bandages the wound without any treatment and after 3 days the hands are unwrapped if they are healed you are innocent. Trial by hot water - the accused (usually a man) picks up an object in boiling water then bandages the burn if 3 days later it is healed cleanly the accused is innocent. Trial by cold water - the accused (usually men) lowered into water by a rope if they sank the holy water of god accepted them and they are innocent if they floated the water rejects them and they are guilty. Blood feuds were replaced by wergild (a system of fines) witch is a system of retribution and discourages further violence and will not cause future violence The wergild had different prices for different people because the society valued different people higher and lower. The difference between capital and corporal punishment is that capital punishment is death of some kind and corporal punishment is some kind of physical pain or mutilation. Stocks (legs in a wooden device) and pillories (head and arms in a device) was likely both retribution and deterrent however for victimless crimes eg blasphemy it would only be a deterrent. Stocks - a bit violent and very rational Pillories - a bit violent and very rational Trial by ordeal - very violent and mostly superstition Tithings - close to the middle of violent and peaceful and a bit rational Hue and cry - a bit violent and a bit rational Trial by local jury - mostly rational and very peaceful Social 11/9/24 How far did the Normans change justice 1. Tithings - in a group of 10 where if one person did something wrong and everyone was healed responsible unless the criminal confused  2. If someone was a crime they had to shout out and everyone in earshot would chase the criminal and catch them or risk a fine 3. Trial by ordeal - doing something to try and have god decide whether people were guilty or not 4. Capital punishment - where death was the punishment for a crime Bishops often joined in battles but couldn't shed blood so used clubs. Introduced forest laws meaning common land previously anyone could go on now privately owned by the king and you had to pay to go on the land. This caused problems as people used that land for grazing animals and collecting food and wood. He introduced a new crime of poaching which previously did not exist. Probably to make a big change to show how in charge and powerful he was. Punishment were fingers or hands chopped off. change continuity 1. The Normans built many castles to help control the land. Sometimes anglo saxon homes were destroyed to make room. There was much anger and some saxons fought back, killing Norman soldiers. William made a law that if a norman was murdered, all the people of that region had to join together and pay an expensive Murdrum fine. 2. William decided to keep the majority of anglo saxon laws as they were. The traditional laws of previous saxon kings were retained 3. Local communities were already effective at policing themselves therefore the normans kept the tighings and hue and cry. 4. William introduced the much hated forest laws. This changed the definition of crime and made previously legal activities into serious offences. Trees could no longer be cut down for fuel or for building and people in forests were forbidden to own dogs or bows and arrows. Anyone caught hunting deer was punished by having their first 2 fingers chopped off. Repeat offenders were blinded. 5. The Normans kept the religious ritual of trial by ordeal, but also introduced trial by combat. The accused fought with the accuser until one was killed or unable to fight on. The loser was then hanged, as God had judged him to be guilty. 6. William used capital punishment for serious crimes and for re-offenders. 7. Norman French became the official language used in court procedures and all court records were kept in latin. Most English people understood neither. 8. William used fines for lesser crimes. However, the normans ended wergild, instead William ordered that fines should no longer be paid to the victim or their family, but the king’s officials. 9. The anglo saxons gave women almost equal rights in law with men. Norman law was much harsher on women. A Norman legal test said, “women’s authority nil. Let her in all things be subject to the rule of men.” 10. The Normans introduced church courts(not trial by bread). These were separate courts used for churchmen and tended to be more lenient. 11. Mediaeval chronicles say England was a safer and more law-abiding place after the Norman conquest. However, many ordinary people were prepared to break the forest laws. This is what historians call a social crime, the local community were willing to  turn a blind eye to people hunting or collecting firewood from the king’s forests as they regarded the laws as unfair. Factors for change Poverty and wealth Attitudes in society The church (or main religion) Science and technology The government Travel Towns (bigger communities) Influential individuals 12/9/24 How far did justice change in the later middle ages? Medieval Murder Story How far had justice changed in the later middle ages Murder in a mediaeval village 1300s policing, crime, courts/trials, punishments John the shepherd’s house looked empty. Roger Ryet had already walked past it once, glancing in through the shutter, just out of curiosity. There wasn’t much to see – a well-swept floor, a couple of benches, a table. Hanging over the benches was a piece of cloth. ‘Nice piece of cloth,’ thought Roger, ‘it’ll make a nice tunic’. He carried on hoping that today he would get work on the lord of the manor’s land and then be able to buy a new tunic. Roger didn’t find work. In the village and those all around, there were many men clamouring for work. By the time he arrived, others were already turning away disappointed. Roger cursed, knowing how desperately he needed money. His own scrap of land did not produce enough food to live on. Now Roger was walking back past John the Shepherd’s house again. The shutter still stood open, the cloth still lay on the bench. There was no one nearby. The cloth was within arm’s reach through the shutter. Roger reached in, grabbed the cloth and started running. ‘Thief!’ shouted a man’s voice [hue and cry]. Roger reeled with shock. Where had the man come from? He had been sure there was no one about. The man blocked Roger’s path, and he could hear a woman running up behind him. Roger hesitated, gripping the cloth tightly. He had to move. He had to run away. On the other hand he held his knife. He moved forward, desperate to escape… Seconds later, John the Shepherd lay dead. His wife Isobel, knelt screaming by his side. Escape ‘Keep running, don’t stop, can’t breathe…must breathe, got to keep on running,’ thought Roger. He ran. He didn’t know how long for. It seemed like a very long time. His legs should have been aching by now, but surprisingly they felt fine. Looking down he saw the cloth, still tightly gripped in his hand. It was now stained red with John the Shepherd’s blood. He stopped to catch his breath in the wood. How had it come to this? Hue and cry Roger already knew what would be happening back in the village. Isobel’s screams would have raised the hue and cry. Every villager would have downed tools immediately to join in the hunt. No one would risk the fine for not doing so. And they all knew Roger, so it would be easy for them to recognise him. The constable Out in the woods Roger stopped for breath, leaning against a large oak tree. He could hear the villagers now. One voice could be heard above the rest. It was Jethro, the constable. Jethro was a blacksmith by trade, but he had volunteered to be constable for that year. He had respect in the village and people looked up to him. He was just the man for the job. He had to keep the peace in his spare time: keep one eye out for any crime that took place in the night; lead the hue and cry when it was needed. He took his job seriously even though it was unpaid. Roger shivered. His spirits sank. With Jethro leading the hue and cry he felt it was only a matter of time before he was caught. But Roger was lucky. The hue and cry went the wrong way. He could hear the shouts disappearing in the opposite direction. As Roger relaxed a little he sensed a deep hunger in his belly. If only he hadn’t acted in haste, he would be sitting down to his evening meal now. The coroner and the sheriff Back in the village, food was not a priority for Jethro. He had not found Roger so now he had to tell the coroner about John the Shepherd’s death. (Since 1190 all unnatural deaths had to be reported to the coroner.) In this case it was clear what had happened – and the coroner would confirm this with Isobel. The coroner would then have to inform another royal official, the sheriff of the county, that a man had been murdered. And if the hue and cry had still not found Roger then the sheriff’s men would send a posse to track down and imprison Roger. Sanctuary Out in the woods Roger had a plan. His best hope of escape was to get to the church in nearby Duntown. He would reach the church and bang on the sanctuary door knocker. Once a criminal had reached sanctuary, even the sheriff could not take him by force from a church. Roger would then have the choice of whether to stand trial for his crime or leave the country within 40 days. He’d go to France. Yes, that is what he’d do. Sleep Roger moved slowly so no one could hear him – avoiding the country paths; crossing ditches and fields. But this was unfamiliar land now. In the moonless night Roger was well and truly lost. He was back in woodland again, hungry and tired, with regrets flooding his mind. If only…he’d had enough land to grow food. If only…he hadn’t seen the cloth. If only…he hadn’t used his knife. And there in the wood Roger slowly drifted off to sleep. Morning  ‘He’s over here! Get up! On your feet!’ Roger woke up with a start. Looking up he saw a finely dressed man, who must be the sheriff, towering over him. There were several men from a nearby village. They had been summoned as part of the sheriff’s posse to track down Roger. He recognised one of them as his cousin, a boy of fifteen. Roger didn’t blame him; all men of that age could be summoned to join the posse. It was getting light as they took him away bound with a rope. Roger cursed his luck as he saw the Duntown church on the horizon. It looked so close. He’d have been safe there. The Royal Court Roger was accused of the murder. After a week in the local gaol [jail spelt in the old way, used in the time between court and trials mostly] he was taken, by his tithing, before the royal court. The royal court dealt with the most serious crimes. As he walked in he saw a row of five judges sitting high up. They were dressed in fine red robes. Just below them were some important people writing everything down on large scrolls of paper. To his left Roger could see the jury – he knew them all because they were from his local village. Many of them had heard Isobel’s screams as Roger had stabbed John the Shepherd. Isobel stood and gave evidence as an eye witness. Her painful tale lasted less than a minute. The jury trusted her version of events and swore an oath that Roger was guilty. If only she hadn’t seen him do it, he might have got away with it! Roger was well liked and trusted by the villagers. Without any evidence they might have sworn an oath of innocence based on his good character. But he had been seen and the judges quickly declared their sentence… The noose ‘At least I didn’t have to go through trial by ordeal,’ though Roger. That had been abolished in 1215. This thought cheered him up for a split second before he remembered his fate. Serious crimes and even some minor crimes like theft were now punished by death. Of course, there were ways of avoiding the death penalty. But Roger could not afford to buy a pardon from the king and he wasn’t needed to go into the army. He couldn’t read, so there was little point in claiming benefit of the clergy. This would have involved him reading a verse from the Bible and being tried by the church courts – they never executed people. But Roger’s fate was sealed. He twitched and convulsed and the end of the hangman’s rope. How far had justice changed in the later middle ages? Situation by 1100 Changes Continuities Policing No police force the constable - volunteered for which changed each year, a hue and cry respected job which involved watching out for crimes at night tithings Tithings were organised to and leading the hue and cry. it was unpaid so the person bring accused to court would have a job. Hue and Cry used to catch coroner - Since 1190 all unnatural deaths had to be reported criminals to the coroner sheriff - looked over a larger area, if the criminal couldn't be found would gather a posse of any men over 15 to hunt them down. payed  Trials Local juries decided guilt or benefit of the clergy - if a person read a bible verse they judges could be tried as if they were a church official which were less jury innocence harsh and never executed. (church court) royal court If jury could not decide then sanctuary door knocker - if you get to a church you cannot church court ordeal was used – God was be taken by force and after 40 days you can choose to either could be pardoned for your good judge leave the country or be tried as usual. character no more trial by ordeal Royal courts for serious cases. Manor courts for others Punishment The Normans ended wergild serious and some minor crimes could be punished by death fine for not answering the hue and cry and fines paid to king Serious crimes and re-offenders were punished by death. 18/9/24 what influence did the Church have on crime and punishment How does religion affect crime and punishment today - modesty standards, respected animals are protected by law Doom paintings - there to communicate with the common people as they could not understand the church services as they were in latin Everyone goes to church, the church is wealthy because of tithing, there was a church in every village, priests were very educated people, the church was a very big building. Churches were elaborately decorated before the 1500s but when England split from catholicism they were painted over. People couldn't read and write so doom painting told laws and stories. Everyone went to church. People were inspired by the idea of heaven and hell and this is a reason the church was so powerful and used the threat of hell to get power Tithing was paid to the church and was10% of your income You could buy forgiveness The church are involved in all kea moments (funerals, baptism, birth, marriage) Holy days were holidays Benefit of the clergy - religious leaders had more legal rights, the clergy would have less harsh punishments and never be executed, to get this you had to read a part of the bible and as almost all the people who could read were religious leaders. Preferential treatment. Church courts - dealt with moral cases (breaking religious law) and people with the benefit of the clergy. The church could punish people for purely religious matters enforcing the religion, presumably if you don't pay tithing you would go to church court and that means they would get more money and therefore power. Could give out punishments. Sanctuary - the church could have criminals in safety for a certain amount of time so they were encouraging people to have a good relationship with the church in case they committed a crime. Higher than the law/king. Trial by ordeal - they can decide who's innocent and guilty, church members had trial by blessed bread which was not painful and almost always the person was innocent. Decide punishments and preferential treatment. 18/9/24 9/9/24 Tony Rhobinson's crime and punishment feud glorious feud Romans were the first invaders of the uk. They didn't do much to the law. Dark ages - 600 year period after the romans left Many new invaders (grouped to be called the saxons) There weren't many official laws. They were mostly decided by the head of the family (not our standard family, like a tribe). There were blood feuds (only serious things). Later kings started. 597 ad st augustine brought christianity to england. Got laws to be written down. A lot of detail about compensation (eg breaking an arm would be 6 shillings) 1 shilling roughly £100. All the different kings had different written laws. Christianity brought the idea of hell and this bought extra moral pressure to tell the truth. Christianity had people swear oaths and a christianity made people tell the truth and this would settle most legal disputes. If this didn't work it would go to the church and do trial by ordeal. This worked for any crime no matter how serious. The trial by ordeal was different for how many crimes you were accused of, not the severity. If you failed a village elder would decide the punishment ( the death penalty was mostly hanging) Hundred court was a place of trial. Executed people were displayed as a deterrence. (left swinging from the gallows) having them at boundaries between hundred courts which people thought were liminal and full of evil spirits. Criminals were in unmarked graves and if decapitated had no head in the grave. People were buried differently depending on many things. If someone was buried face down they were often feared 780 ad the viking came. Dainlaw was the vikings' land. Wessex was one of the only kingdoms that was not taken over by the vikings. Alfred the Great was the king of wessex. He made a truce with the vikings and used the law to enforce his kingdom. He compared himself with mossis. He had very fair laws. He presented the English as god's people. He wanted to have his law be more attractive than the vikings. People could move up the court system as much as you want. Every man over 12 has to swear an oath to the king to unify his kingdom. One factor that changed crime and punishment between 1000 and 1500 was the government. An example is when the Normans came to power and made fines for crimes be paid to the government, not the family of the victim. This was to show the normans power. I think there was more change than continuity between 1000 and 1500 for example it gave the church more power through church courts. This happened because the Norman church was different and had more power in the new system of government. There was more change in punishment than in crime as there was only a few changes in crimes such as the forest laws. 1500 - 1700 2/10/24 how did religious and social changes affect crime and punishment Social change - a change in people's beliefs and attitudes towards something An example of social change is the attitude to climate change and people not being christian is more acceptable and race. Religious changes between 1500 and 1700 2/10/24 religous changes timeline I expect people felt uncertain and fearful for their salvation. Tha may have also been frustrated at all the changes. They would probably feel angry as there festivals are taken away Evidence we have suggests that in the early part of this period crimes went up but for most of it crimes went down however the printing press makes people think there is more crime so punishments become harsher. Copy of social changes worksheet.pptx Crime, punishment, law enforcement 4/10/24 why was there a wich craze in 1500 - 1700 Lesson 4a Witch craze.pptx The witch craze is a period in European history when a large number of people were persecuted, prosecuted and executed for being witches. Witches could be seen as good or bad but it is always using magic. The mediaeval catholic church wasn't responsible for the witch craze (everyone believed in witches) most trials took place in secular courts. 90000 witches are hanged in England during the witch craze. Malleus magnificarum (hammer of witches) 1486 by Heinrich Kramer, an Inquisitor of the Catholic Church Demonology (king james 1st) 1542 Henry VIII changed 1563 Elizabeth I changed the The Reformation of the the law and witchcraft law so that if a witch tried to Church created an became a serious crime that kill someone through their atmosphere of apocalyptic could be punished by death witchery, or to raise dead angst. People believed they spirits, they would receive were living through the end long the death penalty of days (end of the world) which made them think of long the Devil long 1486 Malleus Maleficarum 1484 a papal bull (decree 1597 King James I (The Hammer of the Witches) issued by the Pope, head of published a book called was published. This book, the Catholic Church) stated Demonologie. This book was written by a German Monk, that witches were heretics about the nature of Hell and was a manual for hunting who made a pact with called witches ‘detestable witches. It claimed they Satan. This papal bull was slaves of the devil’ and poisoned food, maimed and also published at the front of included instructions on how killed innocent people. the Malleus Maleficarum to run witch trials. long long long The English Civil Wars The population of England This period is known as the 1642-49 led to massive rose from 2.5 million in 1525 Little Ice Age, from 1560 disruption and uncertainty. to 4 million in 1600. The temperatures dropped Many families were divided, cost of food was increasing substantially. In 1607 the fighting for the king or at a rate people had not first Frost Fair was held on parliament. The economic experienced before. People the frozen Thames, the ice and political chaos caused a were getting poorer. was so thick people lit fires climate of fear and on it. superstition long short short  In 1594-7 it rained The plague hit England Land owners changed how incessantly across Europe, roughly once every sixteen they rented their land. destroying crops. If there years during this time. Instead of the medieval were two or more harvests Influenza was common, and customary low cost, fixed in a row which failed, then could kill. rent, the landowners began there would be starvation. to raise the cost of rent The harvests failed in 1593, long depending on the market, 1594, 1596 and 1597 these rents were significantly higher. long long Natural causes influence form the monarch religious influences influences of the elite Long term short term I think religious influences were the most important. Lower class people, partially women would have been accused and if they were widowed or outcast in some way that would also be likely. If someone was ill and didn't go to church and a bad thing like a death they would likely have been accused of witchcraft. Men and women could be accused but more women than men and high class people could be accused but they would probably not be executed. 4/10/24 was matthew hopkins the main reason for the witch hunt of 1645 - 1647 Lesson 4b Hopkins.pptx Witches mark - mark on the skin (eg mole) that was where the familia (communed with the devil) sucked blood. Pain cannot be felt in the area Exodus 22:18 thou shalt not suffer a witch to live Torture methods Keeped people walking and awake Trial by water (ducking) a witch Pricking Searching for a witches mark Matthew hopkins - witchfinder general, disappears after 1647  9/10/24 was Matthew Hopkins the main reason for the witch hunt of 1645-1647 Lesson 4b Hopkins.pptx Witches mark - mark on the skin (eg mole) that was where the familia (communed with the devil) sucked blood. Pain cannot be felt in the area Witchcraft was a crime punishable by hanging (in england) Exodus 22:18 thou shalt not suffer a witch to live Methods of finding a witch Keeped people walking and awake (exhaustion) Trial by water (ducking) a witch Pricking Searching for a witches mark Swimming a witch Matthew hopkins - witchfinder general, disappears after 1647 Matthew hopkins 25 An unsuccessful lawyer Hired by the king Targeted old poor women (outcasts) Had and assistant called John Stearne Named 36 women as witches Kept them awake, moving, standing to exhaust them (partially effective on the elderly) Claimed any animas (fly, rat that made there way into the cell) near the person as a familia Any scare, boil or sport was claimed as a devil's mark (the place the familia sucked blood) This spread fear so others called on him to help them Charged a price per witch £23 per town (£23000 today) towns would increase tax to afford him Had fake medical equipment (a pricking needle that would retract so it didn't pearce there skin and they didn't bleed on a witches mark) Swimming a witch (trial by cold water but tied up in a way that would probably flout) He got an estimated 100 people killed in east anglia (non necessarily from him), this could decimate communities Reasons for an accusation of witchcraft. If there is a tragedy a person who there was distrust or tension with will likely be accused. Law enforcement Crimes punishments  Matthew Hopkins was the main reason Matthew Hopkins was not the main for the witch hunts of 1645-7 reason for the witch hunts of 1645-7 He spread fear making others more weary He was only one person and there are of witches many other far reasons for the witch hunts like religious changes He used extreme methods perhaps making He was only in a small part of england so people think these methods are ok and use he would only have had an impact on them people who lived there He was appointed by the king so people The king wrote a book (demonology) which would have trusted his methods and trust would have been far more impactful as the him king is divinely appointed The printing press would have spread fear If the religion was different there would be of witches and Hopkins methods no fear of witches so hopkins wouldn't have encouraging people to hire him or use his anything to take advantage of methods There were still witches accused before and after hopkins so he couldn't have been the main reason His fees were very expensive so very few people would be able to afford his services Most accusations were nothing to do with hi and they would have a trile anyways 9/10/24 10/10/24 vagabonds Vagabonds - homeless or people who had to beg for money (would perform or steal for money) (same time as witches) Reasons people were worried about vagabonds 1. Good christians should work as the bible says “the devil makes work for idle hands” (if people don't work they will be tempted by the devil) 2. People want to help the genuinely old, sick and disabled but when lay see outsiders with no visible reason they can't be working they get suspicious 3. Vagrants (vagabonds) commit many crimes such as theft, assault and murder. People think they do this to get money without working (lazy) 4. The more fortunate already pay poor rates to support those who genuinely need it from their own parish. (the vagabonds should go back to where they live to receive the poor rate) Challenge - people thought they were just too lazy to work and were threatened as they had some kind of separate language (presumably only a few words) talks about vagabonds as if they were a profession for the lazy and selfish Why are people becoming vagabonds 1. A rise in population (not enough work) 2. People weren't aloud to move around in the past and now that they can they do 3. London has the highest number of vagabonds as if is a big growing city 4. Bad harvests (1570) 5. 1560 london reportedly had 69 but in 1600 there was a reported 555 vagabonds 1531 - unemployed people found begging or vagabonds were whipped until their bodies “be bloody” then returned to there place of birth 1547 - 1st offence 2 years slavery 2nd offence slavery for life or execution 1550 - the 1547 act was repealed as it was to harsh but the 1531 act was bought back 1572 - 1st offence whipping and burning through the gristle of the ear with an inch thick iron rod 2nd offence execution 1576 - houses of correction were built in every county to punish and employ persistent beggars 1593 - the 1572 act was repealed as it was too harsh. It went back to how it was in 1531 1598 - vagabonds were whipped and sent to their birthplace. If they did not mend their ways they could be sent to a house of correction, be banned from the country or executed 1547 was the harshest for vagabonds as they would be enslaved for 2 years and the 2nd chance to be executed or enslavement for life. Who are likely to become vagabonds 1. People looking for easy/undesirable work 2. People with no trade 3. Someone in debt (trying to stay out of debtor’s prison) 4. A skilled person who can’t find work 5. Previous soldiers 6. Criminals (pickpockets) This tells us that it was easy to become a vagabond (the rising population ment not enough jobs) and the majority were just people who were trying to find work. Vagabonds were a threat Vagabonds were not a threat The society was very religious and the bible The vast majority were just people unable demonises the unemployed to find work Some of the people were actual Most were people with no skills pickpockets The society telling people that There were very harsh rules so vagabonds would have a hard time existing let alone being dangerous  17/10/24 how effective was law enforcement between 1500 -1700 law enforcement top trumps law enforcement info sheets law enforcement changes aspects Gunpowder plot Witch trials Methods of torture The rack Ducking, pricking, exhaustion Reasons for punishment Terorism, heresy Heresy, witchcraft Societal attitudes People didn't like catholics Everyone feared witches however there were still and hated them for going catholics in england who against god would have been happy with the plot outcomes New laws, demonised The witchfinder general, catholics, perpetrators were spreading of fear, death of hung drawn and many innocents 1) Some similarities between the reasons for punishment are they both when agents god and the monarch and the difference is witches are against the monarch because there agent god and the gunpowder plotters were against god because they were agent the monarch The more people there are the more crimes there will be as there will be less of a village setting and it would be harder to find criminals and there will be more unemployment as there are more people. At this point there is no police force which works for villages but not cities. As well as the fact that growing cities have lots of hidden places. Wergilds Hue and cry Tithings Population 1500 - 2.5 million 1700 - 5.6 million London’s population is 50000 people Changes in law enforcement Justices of the Peace ○ were done by the rich and powerful (the job offered prestige). ○ Set up in the late middle ages ○ for minor crimes ○ could hand out fines, stocks and pillories, whipping ○ Moved around Role of citizens ○ Ordinary people had to deal with the crime themselves ○ If someone was robbed it was their responsibility to get an arrest warrant from a magistrate, track down the criminal themselves and deliver them to the constable. Rewards ○ Normally serious crimes had rewards ○ Could be as high as a yearly salary Changes in trials Most cases were dealt with locally as they used to Courts ○ Courts relied on local jury most of the time ○ Manor courts dealt with local minor crimes ○ Justices of the peace dealt with minor crimes and met with other JPs for more serious crimes ○ Royal judges (County Assizes) visited twice a year for serious crimes Benefit of the Clergy ○ Church courts remained in use ○ By 1600 the law was changed as people could read the verse (neck verse) it could only be claimed for not serious crimes Habeas Corpus (you have a body) ○ The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, prevented the authorities from locking a person up indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Anyone who was arrested had to appear in court within a certain time or be released. ○ Unfortunately people could make evidence up so it doesn't do much ○ Can't be imprisoned without evidence 18/10/24 law enforcement in towns law enforcement changes https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwhd8hv/revision/3#:~:text=Watchmen's%20presence %20was%20meant%20to,helping%20drunkards%20to%20get%20home. These are new roles. Previously constables were unpaid volunteers will limited power. Night watchmen Who appoints them - unpaid volunteers overseas by the town constable (just men) all house wonders were expected to do this  What do they do - ring a bell to warn people to go home or be seen as a criminal. They also ring a bell if they see a crime What powers do they have - non Other - take turns to partole local area from 10pm to dawn Town constable Who appoints them - employed (paid) by the town authorities and appointed by the local people with good standing in the community What do they do - stop suspected criminals, break up fights, round up “sturdy beggars” (vagabonds), help with local administrative issues eg collecting payments for road cleaning What powers do they have - can arrest suspects without a warrant 1000-1500 1500-1700 Change or continuity? Witnesses to crime must step in Witnesses to crime are still continuity to stop suspects or, if this isn’t expected to try and stop possible, report them to the suspects or report them to the authorities authorities Locals are expected to join the Locals are still expected to join continuity hue and cry to chase suspected the hue and cry criminals down and bring them to justice Town constables introduced Role of town constables changes expanded Night watch introduced Role of night watch expanded change No thief takers (people whose Emergence of thief takers change job was to go around bringing in criminals and getting the reward. This was open to corruption and there were criminal gangs who operated as thief takers. (Jonathan wild)) The most significant change is the town constables as now there is a proper method of law enforcement that was a job not just volunteering. The most significant continuity is the hue and cry as citizens were still a large part of law enforcement. I believe these changes were effective because it would deter criminals to have a set up proper system of law enforcement Factors for change/continuity 1000 - 1500 1500 - 1700 Religion Religion (witches, church of england) Poverty and wealth ( Poverty and wealth more (vagabonds)  Government (normans introduced new laws Government influential individuals (in government) Influential individuals more (town constable) Towns (bigger towns are harder to police so there are new methods) Technology and science (printing press) 23/10/24 was the bloody code too harsh Bloody code worksheet information Crimes punishable by death Theft Shoplifting Stealing a rabbit Muder Cutting down a tree Stealing from a shipwreck Bloody code - many petty crimes (often about protecting the welthy’s property) were not punishable by death. It was called the Waltham Black Act What were the three main punishments in england before the bloody code Whipping, transportation, hanging What was the purpose of the bloody code A response to a feared gang called the Waltham Black Act (to deter people) How many offences were punishable by death 200+ What was the problem with the court system There were a lot of complex procedures and language. If accused of a crime they would have to defend themselves and didn't know how to defend themselves (judges would have to provide assistance to the defendant but this didn't really work) What was pious perjury The jury would find people not guilty or change the crime so it wouldn't be a capital offence. The jury didn't like killing people for petty crimes Reason Why did this cause the bloody code to be introduced Moral panic All crime was seen as a threat to the moral fabric of society and the government and upper classes thought that draconian (dramatic/over the top) punishments were necessary. urbanisation In the 1700s cities expanded rapidly due to industrial growth. This led to overcrowding and more property related crimes Protection of property Wealthy landowners and merchants pushed for harsher laws to protect their property Fear of rebellion After events like the civil war the ruling elite Poor harvests Food shortages led to desperation and people resorted to stealing food which was severely punished by the bloody code Weak law enforcement The weak police force ment judges and magistrates relied mainly on deterring criminals as catching and prosecuting them was difficult Social control The bloody code was harsh to maintain control over a growing population as people would be to scared to challenge them Urbanisation: In the 18th century, England's cities expanded rapidly due to industrial growth. This led to overcrowded urban areas where poverty was common, and crime rates, especially property-related crimes like theft, rose significantly. Protection of Property: Wealthy landowners and merchants pushed for harsher laws to protect their property. They feared that the growing number of property crimes would destabilize society and threaten their economic security. Fear of Rebellion: After events like the English Civil War, the ruling elite feared further uprisings from the lower classes. Harsh laws were introduced to control any potential threats of rebellion or civil unrest, especially during times of economic hardship. Poor Harvests: Poor harvests caused food shortages, leading to hunger and desperation. Many people, particularly in rural areas, resorted to stealing food or game to survive, and the Bloody Code was designed to punish such offences severely. Weak Law Enforcement: At the time, there was no organised police force. Magistrates and judges relied on severe punishments, like execution, to deter crime because catching and prosecuting criminals was difficult. Social Control: The ruling class used the Bloody Code to maintain control over the growing population, ensuring the poor and working-class citizens remained obedient and didn't challenge the existing social order. Moral Panic: Crime, even petty theft, was seen as a threat to the moral fabric of society. The government and upper classes believed that draconian punishments were necessary I think the most important is weak law enforcement as it is easier to make a show of criminals and deter crime than catch and prosecute criminals fairly. However the police force was always weak so perhaps it was the main reason it was so harsh but not the reason it started. Problems with the bloody code I do not think the bloody code was necessary. The bloody code did not make crime rates drop. Juries hesitated to convince Very biassed No rehabilitation 24/10/24 test improvements The norman conquest (1066) led to significant changes in law enforcement in mediaeval England I agree that the Norman conquest led to significant changes in law enforcement. One reason I agree is the wergilds. This was a significant change as it changed the punishment from restitution to deterrence which changes the very idea that this important and commonly used method of law enforcement was based on. This is important as wergilds were a vital part of law enforcement covering injuries and deaths, the money paid would help the family of the victim as well as discourage the crime in the first place. After the Normans it was paid to the king's officials which had a drastic impact on the system of law enforcement. This shows how the focus of law enforcement changes from being there to help compensate that victim to punishing the criminal and giving to the king no those who were affected. This shows that the law enforcement valued authority over victims and shows the power of the king. Another reason I agree that the Norman conquest led to significant changes in law enforcement is the introduction of the murdrum fine which was when a norman was killed the whole area had to come together to pay a fine to the king. This was a big change as it was the introduction of a completely new law not the adaptation of an old one. It would punish innocent people for the crime of one which whilst having a similar collective responsibility to the pre existing tithings they are only similar because they both involve some kind of collective responsibility with a very different outcome as with the murdrum fine getting the culprit to admit would not make the punishment only for them. This kind of punishment would create conflict within communities as many people who are completely innocent and could do nothing to avoid the fine so they would blame the person who killed the Norman and possibly drive innocent people into poverty. It also ensures that people do not fight against authority and have too much conflict between themselves to rebel against the king. Some may argue that the Norman conquest did not lead to significant changes in law enforcement because the trial by ordeal was keeped. An example of this is the trial by hot iron where a person would hold a hot iron rod and bandage it. After 3 days this was removed and if it was healed cleanly the person was seen as innocent and if not they were seen as guilty This is important as it could be used to find someone's guilt or innocence for any crime and also showed the normans unwillingness to change the church which is a vital part of everyone's life. However this is not a convincing argument as the trial by ordeal was often a last resort so keeping it would not affect law enforcement that much. And there was an introduction of trial by combat which shows that they were willing to change things to do with the church even if it is only slightly. In conclusion I agree that the Norman conquest led to significant changes in law enforcement, whilst trial by ordeal was important it was a last resort so not very convincing compared to the changing of wergilds and the murdrum fine. WWW - really good detailed knowledge, with a good structure and focus on the question throughout. EBI - Remember to always come back to the specific words of the question, and fully develop your explanations 1700 - 1900 6/11/24 why was highway robbery a short lived crime Highway robbers are remembered as fashionable, interesting, fun people (romanticised) Highway robbers - dangerous partially in the countryside, robbed on horseback, used violence and intimidation Highway robbers were seen as men of the people as they were poor and mostly stole from the rich Handguns were easier to Horses became cheaper to There were many open, obtain and use. buy. lonely areas outside towns where travellers could be held up.  Stage coaches were Mounted patrols were set up More people were travelling introduced to carry around London and high in their own coaches. passengers around the rewards encouraged country. informers. Highwaymen had more chances of being caught. Coaches became more Open land around London Travellers no longer carried frequent as roads improved, was large amounts of money as reducing a highwayman’s built on as the population the chances of stopping a coach grew. This cut down the number of banks increased for a long. chances to ambush a coach and the banking system got more sophisticated There was no police force JPs refused to licence After wars ended, some and local constables did not taverns that were known to demobilised soldiers try to track highwaymen harbour highwaymen became highway robbers across counties. because they could not find other jobs Highwaymen could hide and sell their loot in taverns Colour code key: Reasons for highway robbery getting worse: Reasons for highway robbery stopping: Both: 1. Highway robbery was a short lived crime as it was quite easy to stop with some precautions that the rich victims could easily take. 2. The rich would be most affected as they were the ones targeted. 3. Highway robbers were seen as men of the people as they were poor and mostly stole from the rich. This means when looking back people see it as people fighting back against the bourgeoisie to survive. Swift nick (real name john nevison) 1639 - 4th may 1684 Nicknamed swift nick by king charles the 2nd Born near sheffield from a good family Worked as brewers clerk in lined when left to holland with debt and became a soldier then returned to england to live with his father until he died Escaped arrest many times and became a folk hero after riding to kent from york to have an alibi for a crime Killed a constable called fletcher who died trying to arrest him and was hanged and buried at st mary church york in an unmarked grave 7/11/24 why was the 1723 black act introduced Poaching is the illegal hunting or taking of animals partially endangered ones or on someone else's property A social crime is a crime that is thought to be unreasonable so while technically a crime it is not often seen as a crime and not often prosecuted. Modern day poaching is wrong because it is killing endangered animals for profit and endangering the species. The Waltham blacks were a group that acted on social injustices and poached and raided as a form of protest against the new forest laws. Black act - made it a ganging crime to go on the hunt in disguise, as well as a hanging crime to poach deer,rabbits, conies or fish. The black act was justified The black act was to hash Some poachers used violence Poaching is harmless as the land owner would likely not notice a few missing animals Black markets were created as peoples diet People need food to sell or eat so they can became more sophisticated so people did it live comfortably or at all. for profit non out of necessity Land was expensive so if a person had land People didn't take much anyway and the they would want to be able to utilise all of if rich don't need the food The law was only introduced to help the rich and persecute they poor Death an excessive punishment for anything partially something so justifiable Wealth being concentrated in the few landowners who were likely born into privilege and not had to work to get where they are is not a good system. Partially if the vast majority of people are at the level of poverty where they have to worry about whether they can afford to eat. The wealthy who are being stolen form likely had the land they the animals would go to waste so it is entirely unjustified that a law should be introduced that threatens death for the people trying to put food on the table. The introduction of this law shows the corruption of the government as it entirely exists to protect the people born into wealth and ensure they can have excessive privileges whilst the majority of the population that the government is supposed to be protecting has to risk hanging to feed themself food that would otherwise go to waste. People do not deserve vastly different treatment just based on who they are born to. This punishment only exists to control the lower class and protect the rich. The wealthy just needed an excuse to put fear into people and keep them in line. 8/11/24 why was smuggling a long term crime 1. Why did smuggling begin?  People depended on sardines which needed salt to preserve but when there was an increase in the tax on salt. In France salt was a lot cheaper so people bought salt in France and smuggled it back. (increased tax) 2. What was the tax on Salt? 40 times the value of the salt 3. Why had high taxes been introduced? There was a very bad financial crises due to the american war of independence (1775) 4. How much of government income was being lost through smuggling? 20% 5. What did the government do to try and stop smuggling? Revenew men policed the area (made cost paths) 6. Was this successful? Why? It was not as there was too much space to protrole 7. Where did the smuggled goods come from? france 8. How many people were involved in each ‘landing’ of goods? 400-500 9. Why did the French Revolution lead to an increase in smuggling? The new republic tried to overthrow the neighbouring kingdoms and declared war on England. This means England needed more money and increased tax so there was more demand for smuggled cheap goods. 10. How much money was this trade worth? £10000s in modern day money 11. Why were so few people found guilty of smuggling? It was a social crime and hard to police, the cornish jurys would claim that were not guilty 12. Why might smuggling have been considered a social crime? People needed to in order to survive and people could get cheaper goods form the smugglers 13. What did the government do to try and crack down on smuggling in the 1800s? They were trading with the country at war with England describing the government's tax money and helping the French economy. They had a ship that went out to catch or kill smugglers (run by infamous captain grey, he was very successful, after he retired and became an artist). Free ports were also closed 14. How did smugglers try to fool customs officers? Hide the goods and come up with elaborate methods (had barrels under water when close to shore, had goods under the floor of the boat) 15. Why were fewer people involved in smuggling in the 1800s? It was more risky and it was now frowned upon due to an increase in methodism 16. What did smuggling in 1815 look like compared to in the 1700s? It was more complex and risky with less people. It was also frowned upon due to the increasing popularity of methodism 17. What eventually put an end to smuggling by the 1830s? There was peace between england and france so the revenue men were switched for former soldiers (coast guard and custom force) and were well paid (this didn't stop people who changed to have small rowing boats that would meat ships in the chanel and cary high value items such as lace or tobacco as the boats were small) there was a policy of free trade where there would be no income tax as britain was exporting fare more than importing so a smuggled item would be the same price as a legal item. Smuggling was partially common and even a way of life in cornwall. This is because it historically was a different country to England and so has a culture and identity so don't feel connected to england. High duties - the tax to bring things into a port 13/11/24 essay question Social crime - Smuggling, increased tax, needed to survive. only does because of the strong cornish identity and they made a profit poaching, (bloody code), needed to survive, the black act. Could be for profit, highway robbery, targeted the wealthy. growth of trade so more movement of valuables) Inequality - favouring the rich/upper class (a lot of unemployment and poverty) Introduction - define social crime and inequality (define kea words) state your view Paragraph 1 and 2 - support your argument (Point Evidence Explain) Paragraph 3 - opposition (Point Evidence Explain Link (why is your argument correct)) Conclusion - sum up argument, don't have any new points The main reason social crime increased between 1700-1900 was because inequality in society increased. To what extent do you agree? I agree with the statement that the main reason social crime increased between 1700-1900 was because inequality in society increased. Social crime is a crime that is considered acceptable by a community but still punishable and a crime however people were rarely found guilty. Inequality is where there is a big difference between the upper and lower class partially how they are treated in terms of the law. One reason social crime increased between 1700 and 1900 is because inequality increased. This is shown with the example of poaching where the black act was made to protect the upper class and affected the poorer people who relied on poaching greatly. This was a social crime as people relied on poaching so others in their community agreed that it was acceptable. This shows how inequality was the main reason for social crime as people poached out of necessity as the black act only hurt the lower class meaning that it was exaggerating the inequality and creating a new social crime. Www: You have a good understanding of the black act. Ebi: You expand more on why the inequality increased the amount of poaching. Another reason I agree with the statement is the increased tax after the American war of independence when the British government was in desperate need of money. This led to many people not being able to afford the necessities as the tax ment that everything was more expensive (for example salt was taxed 40 times its value and the seller still needed to make a profit) so people resorted to smuggling goods from France to the UK as this could not be taxed and could be bought for a lot less. People could use the goods themselves or sell them for significantly less. This ment whole communities would benefit from smuggling and would not have to suffer so much under the unjust tax system. This ment people did not view smuggling in a negative light and so it is a social crime. The tax system only made the poor suffer significantly as whilst goods were more expensive for the rich as well they could afford them. This widend the divide between the rich and the poor and led to more social crime. One reason why someone may disagree with the statement is because of the increase in trade more valuable were being carted around in remote areas. This suggests that highwaymen who ambushed and stole from those who travelled in the countryside with goods were not restoring to stealing out of a necessity but instead being opportunistic as this ment theft was easier and gave more of a reward. There was no change that brought about the crime of highway robbery except the creation of an opportunity and the only reason this is viewed as a social crime is the lowerclasse’s resentment to the rich meaning that this social crime was not caused by an increase in inequality and was instead people taking an opportunity. However this argument is flawed as people with no other choice will take an opportunity and just because there was no event that could have caused a change in inequality doesn't mean that people were doing it out of desperation due to the existing inequality. In conclusion I agree with the statement that the main reason social crime increased between 1700-1900 was because inequality in society increased as there were many events that lead to inequality and more social crime like the black act and increase in tax leading to poaching and smuggling and whilst the catlist for highway robbery was the creation of an opportunity that does not mean it was still not due to inequality and desperation. 21/11/24 why were the Tolpuddle Martyrs punished so harshly Industrial revolution - when machinery and factories became common and cities grew quickly, decrease in the primary sector Martyr - a person who dies (or sacrifices themself in some way) for a cause Who were the tolpuddle martyrs - (1834) 6 labradors (had no land of their own, worked on land for land owners, didn't get paid much, 9 shillings a week could just feed a family basic bread with nothing left over, then it would go down to 8 then 7), they tried to form a union but it didn't work as there were plenty of workers and he had the 6 people arrested, the only way they could go to court was because that swear an oath of secrecy which was against an old law against mutiny but there is no law against unions What happened to them - taken to australia to work for 7 years (there were mass protests and there was a retrile) Why were they punished - they swear an oath of secrecy This likely only happened because of the British fear of revolution after the french revolution as it was the same reason as the tolpuddle martyrs were protesting. They made an example out of them as a deterrence. source fair or unfair why A fair The men broke the law by swearing a secret oath, which is illegal and could lead to unrest. The punishment was intended to deter others from forming simile groups B unfair People should be able to try and get better wages to feed their families and a harsh response only deepens the suffering of working men who just want to have the money to live C fair Unrest is growing and the men’s actions could cause other workers to form unions forcing landowners to increase wages and threaten the stability of rural areas D unfair The justice system is a weapon against the poor and powerless and this is a perfect example of law being used to favour the rich and punish those who try to make a change (they were not dangerous) E fair The law must be applied evenly and it does not matter the circumstances otherwise the law will lose its effectiveness F unfair The punishment highlights flaws in the justice system and laws broken. It doesn't matter as they were desperate. The law only exists to help the wealthy not to be just G unfair They were peaceful and did not want to cause trouble, there arrest shocked everyone and it is unjust only trying t o keep people too afraid to speak up H fair Whilst the punishment was harsh secret oaths are prohibited for a reason and the punishment was necessary to keep society from falling into chaos I believe their punishment was unjust as desperate men need to be able to do anything to keep themselves and their family fed. They were not dangerous and were well liked by the community and they were only punished in the first place because of the law's tendency to protect the profits of wealthy men over the rights of the workers. They are eventually brought back to england 22/11/24 how did society change in the industrial period  At the time London was dirty with narrow and muddy streets and filthy air. The people were miserable and often drunk. The houses were closely packed and cramped. 27/11/24 how did policing and law enforcement change in 1700-1900 Policing sheet Some challenges to law enforcement in 1700 to 1900 was the lack of acceptance of government meddling and enforcement with matters of the law as this is mostly new. Another thing would be a lack of incentive for people to come to the police for help and lack of funding. Lack of funding  Lack of trust 1. The parish constables were meant to maintain law and order however they often worked part time, lacked sufficient pay and were untrained 2. Watchmen were often ineffective as they were often unfit for the role and lacked motivation 3. Thief takers were individuals that captured criminals for a reward however they often collaborated with gangs to maximise profit 4. Increasing population and urbanisation lead to increased desperation so more crime and it was harder to police 5. Before 1829 people didn't trust law enforcement because there wasn't centralised however this changed when a centralised police force was introduced with the Metropolitan Police Act by Robert Peel 6. The bow street runners were britain's first detective force in 1749 introduced by the Fielding Brothers however they had limited resources 7. The bow street runners would find out who did the crime after the fact but the night watchmen and town constables should try to stop crime from happening in the first place 8. The main limitation of the bow street runners was there limited resources and scope 9. A centralised police force was not created until 1829 because of lack of funding and lack of trust by the public. Also many previous people were corrupt Before 1829, policing in Britain was informal and often ineffective. Law enforcement relied on parish constables, who were unpaid or poorly paid and worked part-time. Their primary role was to maintain order in their local areas, but they often lacked authority and training. Watchmen were hired to patrol at night, but they were frequently elderly, unfit, or unmotivated. This made it difficult to prevent or respond to crimes effectively. In addition to constables and watchmen, thief-takers operated as private individuals who captured criminals in exchange for rewards. However, many thief-takers were corrupt, and some even collaborated with criminals to maximize their profits. The overall system was poorly organized, and there was no centralized authority overseeing law enforcement. The increase in population and urbanization during the 18th century led to a rise in crime, especially in rapidly growing cities like London. Communities struggled to keep up with the demands of maintaining order, and public trust in law enforcement was low. People began to call for reforms to create a more professional and effective system. By the late 18th century, some attempts were made to improve policing. For example, the Fielding Brothers established the Bow Street Runners in 1749, considered Britain’s first detective force. Despite their efforts, the Bow Street Runners were limited in scope and resources. It wasn’t until Robert Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Act in 1829 that a professional, centralized police force was created. Police force was improving Peel’s reforms introduced new ideas Challenges or resistance to Peel’s ideas Evidence Statement  Before 1829, policing relied on parish constables and watchmen who were untrained and only worked part-time. These individuals often lacked authority and professionalism, which led to ineffective law enforcement, especially in growing cities. The Metropolitan Police, established in 1829, was the first professional and organized police force in Britain. Unlike the informal systems before it, this force was centralized and accountable to the government. Police officers under the Metropolitan Police Act were paid full-time salaries. This marked a shift away from part-time, unpaid roles, ensuring that officers were dedicated to their work and less prone to corruption. The focus of the Metropolitan Police was to prevent crime rather than just react to it. This proactive approach was a key innovation, aiming to maintain order before crimes occurred, rather than simply punishing offenders afterward. Officers wore distinctive uniforms that made them easily visible and recognizable to the public. This was designed to build trust and deter crime by increasing police presence. One of Peel’s most important ideas was that the police needed public trust to succeed. He believed that the police should act as part of the community, serving and protecting the public rather than enforcing laws through fear. Many people resisted Peel’s reforms at first, calling the new officers 'Peelers' or 'Bobbies' as a mocking reference to Robert Peel. Some saw the police as an unnecessary interference in their lives. Critics feared that the Metropolitan Police would have too much power, potentially leading to government control over ordinary citizens and the loss of personal freedoms. The cost of maintaining a professional police force was a significant concern for some. Critics argued that the expense was unjustified and doubted whether the new system would be effective I think these reforms are more successful in building public trust, however crime prevention and public trust are closely linked as if they did not prevent crime there would be no trust in the police force and reforms that help crime also help public trust.  Feature Policing Before 1829 Metropolitan After 1829 Police (1829) Who enforced Parish constable and watchmen and thief A centralised professional police force the law? takers How were they poorly Well paid? Level of Low to no training High level of training training Focus of React to crime Preventing crime policing Public trust Low trust Higher trust Impact Small impact High impact 28/11/24 why was the bloody code abolished in the 1820s - 1830s Abolition of bloody code The bloody code was when there were death penalties for may crimes and a lot of minor or petty ones  It was introduced first with the waltham black act in 1723 to deter people from commiting crimes Poaching, stealing Public execution was a deterrent Some said it was to harsh and only there to protect the rich The rich benefited from the bloody code It was a social crime and juries often ignored evendene to say people were not guilty or to reduce the crime to something not punishable by death Why the bloody code isn't working anymore Industrialisation and urbanisation - more petty crimes so it is unjustifiable to kill so many people Judges and jurys - refuse to convict people for minor crimes as they feel bad MP Supporting Abolition (Speech in Parliament, 1820s) "The Bloody Code, with its long list of crimes punishable by death, has turned justice into a spectacle of cruelty. How can we, as lawmakers, believe that such a system deters crime when juries themselves refuse to convict? Cases abound where petty theft—sometimes as little as stealing a loaf of bread—ends with no punishment, not because the crime was excusable, but because no jury will condemn a person to death for it. This inconsistency has made the law a mockery and weakened the authority of justice." "Moreover, public executions are no longer feared; instead, they have become a form of morbid entertainment. Crowds gather, not in solemn reflection, but in chaotic revelry, cheering or jeering at the condemned. This turns justice into theater, teaching neither deterrence nor morality. Gentlemen, if we wish to protect the dignity of our society and the effectiveness of our laws, we must act now to reform this barbaric system." Petition from a Victim of the Bloody Code (Signed Petition, 1827) "I, Mary Whitfield, humbly address this petition to you, honorable sirs, to plead for mercy and reform. My brother, a weaver who struggled to feed his children, was sentenced to death for stealing a bolt of cloth. The act was desperate, not malicious, and yet the law deemed it worthy of the ultimate punishment. Our family has been torn apart, not by his crime, but by the unforgiving hand of justice. Is it fair that the poor suffer so cruelly for their desperation while the wealthy go unpunished for far graver sins?" "The Bloody Code punishes the weak and the unfortunate more than it deters criminals. I ask you, how can a punishment that denies mercy teach others to act justly? Surely there is a better way—one that holds people accountable without destroying families and fostering resentment among the common folk. Please, I beg you, end this cruel system for the sake of fairness and humanity." Public executions began to lose their Key intended effect of deterring crime. Crowds Social often sympathized with the accused, Economic creating a sense of injustice and political undermining the system. Parliament began to respond to public The expenses of holding public executions dissatisfaction with the harshness of the and maintaining law enforcement under the Bloody Code, driven by reformist MPs and Bloody Code became increasingly  societal pressure. burdensome. Political reformers lobbied Parliament for Shifts in moral attitudes, influenced by changes, using public campaigns and religion, emphasized the importance of debates to argue against the Bloody Code. rehabilitation over punishment. The development of transportation to penal Authorities were concerned that large colonies provided a cheaper, more crowds at executions could spark unrest, manageable alternative to public especially in urban areas where social executions. tensions were high. Reformers like Sir Samuel Romilly and The nature of crime evolved with others argued that the Bloody Code was industrialization, as theft and fraud became inhumane and pushed for a reduction in the more common, rendering the Bloody Code use of capital punishment. outdated. I think the shifts in moral attitudes had one of the greatest effects on the abolishment of the bloody code as religion would be a part of everything including the government so it influences the public and politics. Another is public executions losing their effect as it is not a deterrent if no one cares. Reforments put pressure on the government forcing them to change 1. Madein Maiden 👍 2. Juce Juice 3. Heroic 👍 4. Trile Trial 5. Loaded 6. Allmighty Almighty 👍 7. Normaly Normally 👍 8. highlight 👍 9. refuse 👍 10. understandable 👍 11. Castle 12. Because Letter to parliament God will kill you all!!! Save youself!!! I cant spell becouse i never went to shchool! 4/12/24 why did punishment change in 1700 - 1900 Worksheet  Table For the crime of stealing tartan cloth, silk and trousers from a shop in 1880 he was 4 months in prison The bloody code - 1723 to 1820 to 30 1820s peel passed a series of reforms that ended the bloody code 1841 - only murder and treason are capital punishments 1860 - last public hanging Transportation - sent originally to America then after the American revolution to australia. It Reason the Bloody Code was ended Why did it encourage the end of the Bloody Code? Juries would not convict it means guilty people got no Juries would often find criminals not punishment at all guilty if they thought the punishment would be unfair or out of proportion to the crime. Public executions were not working such harsh punishments are no longer a During the 1700s crowds at executions deturnet grew larger. Some factories even closed on execution days so the workers could attend the cheap entertainment. Crowds began to become unruly, sometimes helping the criminal escape or even rioting. Ideas about punishment were changing people can't improve if dead In the 1700s many philosophers (enlightenment thinkers) started to argue punishments should allow a criminal a chance to change and reform their life. This idea began to spread to politicians  4/12/24 why did punishment change in 1700 - 1900 cant move over a table Time period Pros Cons Deterrent-o-meter 1700 – 1823 The wardens got a lot of money from fees. all prisoners together (murderer mugged charities existed with children and thieves) schools for crime. prison wardens are unpaid and charged more to deter people fees to prisoners for thinks like privat cell and visitors and doctors (could pay a fee to be released) the poor relied on charities to pay their fees prisons were overcrowded After 1823 men and women separated with women cant keep pets Gaols Act having women wardens (so less sexual abuse) separated into groups of different kinds of crimes (murderous not with first time offenders) very for reformation get to go to church magistrates must check up on prisons have proper food wardens now payed (no more relying on fees) must be healthy with good food and water 1830s couldnt interact with each other so they couldn't interact or even see each other so Separate couldnt influence each other no human interaction (bad for mental put to work so had things to do and were health, go mad) expensive as they need so system and productive and help them rehabilitation and many separate things for each people Pentonville get a job when they get out put to work like slavery (reason to lock people up) went to chaples trying to reform but in reality detur 1860s Silent couldn't speak (be silent) if broke this rule (because there is more high profile system be only fed bread and water or whipped. crimes (eg serial killers) crime levals deliberately uncomfortable hard wooden are decreasing but people feel as if bunks instead of hammocks (hard board) food was the same all the time (hard fare) they are increasing) had to do pointless hard work (hard labour) far to the deter side (hard board, hard labour, hard fare)  5/12/24 prisons Prison reformers Table Time period Pros Cons Deter of reform 1700 – 1823 The wardens got a lot of money all prisoners together (murderer mugged with from fees. children and thieves) schools for crime. charities existed prison wardens are unpaid and charged fees more to deter people to prisoners for thinks like privat cell and visitors and doctors (could pay a fee to be released) the poor relied on charities to pay their fees prisons were overcrowded After 1823 men and women separated with cant keep pets Gaols Act women having women wardens (so less sexual abuse) separated into groups of different kinds of crimes (murderous not very for reformation with first time offenders) get to go to church magistrates must check up on prisons have proper food wardens now payed (no more relying on fees) must be healthy with good food and water 1830s couldnt interact with each other couldn't interact or even see each other so no Separate so they couldnt influence each human interaction (bad for mental health, go trying to reform but in system and other mad) expensive as they need so many separate reality detur Pentonville put to work so had things to do things for each people and were productive and help put to work like slavery (reason to lock people them rehabilitation and get a job up) when they get out went to chaples 1860s Silent couldn't speak (be silent) if broke this rule be (because there is more high system only fed bread and water or whipped. profile crimes (eg serial deliberately uncomfortable hard wooden killers) crime levals are bunks instead of hammocks (hard board) decreasing but people feel food was the same all the time (hard fare) as if they are increasing) had to do pointless hard work (hard labour) far to the deter side (hard board, hard labour, hard fare) Tab 2 Punishments in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Britain - Timeline Punishments in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Britain - Summary In the 18th and 19th centuries, crime increased dramatically. In an attempt to deter crime, the government expanded the ‘Bloody Code. This backfired. Fewer people believed that the aims of punishment should be deterrence and retribution. More people thought that punishment should aim for rehabilitation.  After transportation to America ended, the government began sending convicts to Australia. This stopped when it became clear that crime was still increasing. Imprisonment then became a much more common form of punishment. Reformers like John Howard and Elizabeth Fry heavily criticised the poor conditions of prisons. Their work was highly influential, ultimately leading to further reforms under Robert Peel. Why did People's Opinion About Punishment Change in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Britain? In the 18th and 19th centuries, people’s opinions on punishments were changing This was largely due to the failure of the ‘Bloody Code’ The public felt that the government was not fulfilling the aims of punishment Why did People’s Attitudes Changed to the Aims of Punishment? Deterrence Retribution Rehabilitation Public executions no longer put The punishment no longer fits the crime. People began to think More and more people people off committing crimes. that corporal and capital punishments were inhumane for began to believe that Many started to see them as anything apart from very serious crimes, like murder. Juries punishment should aim to cheap entertainment and a were unwilling to convict people, so some guilty criminals were reform criminals. Corporal chance to get drunk. Others found innocent and escaped justice punishment was seen as a feared attending them because form of painful revenge, the large crowds created rather than a chance for opportunities for more crimes, criminals to reflect on their especially pickpocketing crimes. Capital punishment made rehabilitation impossible The public’s changing opinions had an i