Describe law and order in the late nineteenth century

Describe Law And Order In The Late Nineteenth Century?

In the late nineteenth century, Law and Order had improved due to the Justice system and Police force being introduced. The police were relatively new, but they were beneficial to the protection of the citizens. As beforehand, there were the Bow street runners and the Thames river police force. The Bow street runners were originally set up by Sir Thomas De Veil, then was taken over by Henry and John Fielding in 1749. They introduced a new tactic of employing thief-takers 'runners' who, when a crime was commited they would report back to the magistrates to detect the culprit. This was to increase the certainity for criminals to know that they will be detected and maybe even prosecuted. The Thames river police came about when criminals started to commit crimes nearer the docks and shipping in the 1800. However, these systems didn't seem to last long as the community was in great need of a professional police force, as law and order had been lacking in organisation. The Justice system was particulary exquisite with handling cases such as, crimes of murder and treason. Although, the public seemed to believe they favoured the rich and ignored the needs of the poor. This might be due to the fact the lower class were much more likely to commit crimes, as they were so poor they had no other option. By this, the number of punishments started to increase and the extremity of torture started to expand. This is due to different people commiting different crimes (e.g pickpocketing, murder), and if they are given the wrong punishment for something minor or very serious, then it could cause a serious riot among the people and they may as well commit that same crime time and time again.

There were many developments made in the late nineteenth century, until 1829 law and order had been lacking in organisation. As London's communitity expanded during the 18th-19th centuries, there was a major public concern whether London was maintaining law and order. It wasn't until 1829 when Sir Robert Peel made the decision to re-organise how London was policed. He did this by reinforcing the police, as they did not have a professional police force and one had to be created. They became known as 'Bobbies', originally known as 'Peelers' after there founder. There were many objections to the forming of the police force, as it was feared that the police force would stop protests and also destroy the ability of free speech. Also, they had a reputation of being incompetant.

Before 1829, the streets were patrolled by watchmen and parish constables who kept a sharp eye for any trouble or disturbances made. They were seen as particulary effective, because they knew the local area and troublemakers, so they could easily sort the problem before it even takes effect. Special constables could also be enrolled. However, they could not deal with huge disturbances such as riots, although these were very common. Beforehand in 1780, law and order shut down completely after the Gordon riots. These rioters broke through Newgate jail and attacked the Bank of England. Although, the bank was saved by the Lord Mayor who defended it with the Grenadier guards.

In 1829, there was a confusion between the poilce force and the army. This was due to the seeing of 'redcoats' walking among the streets of London, as both the army and police force wore red. The army struck fear into people by the way they used to destroy protests, which led to distrust. However, the colour blue gave a signal of being the defenders of Britain, which therefore was a much more acceptable colour. This colour was given to the Metropolitan police force, with a uniform of a top hat, tail-coat, and a truncheon as their only weapon.

A few years, in 1833 the police were provided with batons, which was used to hit people and would cause an amount of pain to drive them away from the scene. However, one constable P.C Culley was unable to withdraw himself and was killed within a riot. The attacker was 'acquitted' by the jury, and were all given medals. The jury came to verdict of believing it was justifiable homicide.

By 1835, other cities began to set up police forces after the Municipal council act came to the conclusion of undertaking improvements to Law and Order. This accessed towns/cities to be able to elect councils to run their affairs.

Three years later, Manchester set up a police force of 295 constables and 48 officers. There were many obligations to this, especially from the police commissioners who had run the towns police force since 1792. Also in other parts of Britain there were many other arguments as to whether one was actually needed, who exactly was going pay for it, and also who was going to control the police force.

In 1839 the Rural Constabulary Act gave the magistrates the decision on whether or not to set up a police force in each and every country. Twenty-two countries had not acted by the mid-1850s.

The first detectives were appointed by 1842. There were two inspectors and 6 sergants. People became resistant to the first use of detectives, as there was a major concern that the plain clothes policemen could not be identified. Also the Home Office believed that the detectives may become to 'friendly' with criminals and become morally depraved.

By 1878 a Detective branch established and the Criminal Intelligence Department (CID) was produced. This especially led to an astonishing improvement to the work of detectives. As beforehand, in 1877 three out of four detectives were found guilty of either not performing their duties or performing them in an improper way, otherwise known as corruption. This became noticed by a vast majority of people, so in 1878 the detective department was reorganised, which led to vast improvements, such as number of detectives in 1879 was 216 and in 1884 there was 294. This led to a vast increase in arrests as in 1879 13,128 criminals were arrested, and in 1884 18,344 criminals were arrested. This inparticular slowed down the amount of crimes, as a vast majority were convicted due to the increase of detectives.

This is a preview of the whole essay

There were many tactics used by the metropolitan police in the late nineteenth century, however the most favoured was the baton charge. This obviously injured a vast majority of people, which led to unpopularity within the community. The metropolitan police wanted to change the British policing, but it seemed to be vastly failing as there was hardly any change until the mid-nineteenth century. They developed new methods, as they wanted to show the community that the Metropolitan police was there if they were needed. To do this they started to send officers on 'beats'. Beats was a favorite tactic used, and still used to this day. However, police usually walked round in two's or three's due to the danger of Whitechapel, they couldn't go on their own, but beats usually took 20 minutes to walk back to where you first started. This gave criminals enough time to commit their crimes and escape. Eventhough, this could of easily been resisted by making sure that at each point of where obvious crimes were going to be commited, two or three policemen could of been patrolling that particular place/area. This imparticular could of led to the culprit who was responsible for killing prostitutes, Jack the ripper.

The main duties within being in the Metropolitan police force were to deal with criminals such as drunkenness, beggars, vagrants, and prostitutes. However, it was not their job to solve crime. In fact, because of the 'beat' tactic and baton charge being present in the second half of the nineteenth century, the percentage of burglaries sored up also major other disturbances had to be dealt with. This gave the police a name of being 'heavy handness' and 'violent', it also caused a public controversy over police use of force. However, this could of easily been resisted by the police not using the baton charge so frequently. Also, keeping policeman/men at each point where robberies were mostly being commited, so they can be culprit can be prosecuted before he/she strikes again.

By 1887, some forensic progress was made. This was due to a man named John Toms who was convicted of murder, by insidentally using the torn paper used for his pistol wadding, seemed to match the paper found in the wound of the victims head. Beforehand, when detectives came upon a murder victim the only thing to solve the case was either the culprit admitted what he/she has done or the only other alternative was to see if there was any witnesses to be held when this was taking place. A few years later in 1892, the Alphonse Bertillon method sprung. The method involved measuring specific parts of the human body, on assumption that no two individuals would be exactly the same. This became extremely significant for detectives use, as it gave the detectives an idea of who the culprit of this murder just might be.

The first conviction of fingerprinting was in 1902. The first photographer was appointed in 1901. It was based upon Galton's observations and devised by Sir Henry. Henry produced a simple fingerprinting system, for the adapted needs of the police. His system is still used present to this day, however it was first used in Scotland Yard 1901 as the official 'Identification method'. This method was astonishly significant for finding the culprit quick and easy before he/she strikes again.

In 1880, constables throughout the country were very little trained in the late nineteenth century. Before they went on a beat, time was usually spent on learning military drill. Rather than police work, inspections were usually based on parades.Also, some forces required that the police wore their uniform at all times, even if they are off duty. Many others required for them not to be seen out with women as this could low their reputation or simply attend church every Sunday, to boost their reputation by causing the public to think they are trustworthy and honourable people.

Despite all the improvements made within the police force, the police were hit very hard with a number of serious incidents due to their reputation. Beforehand in 1868, there had only been a few major incidents, but by the mid 1880s the whole scenary changed. In 1884 the metropolitan police baton charged a group of orangemen in cumberland, and by 1885 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Birmingham charged an election demonstration in Nottingham. A report stated: 'The police disobeyed instructions as to the use of truncheons and behaved intemperately'.

On the 13th November 1887, the metropolitan police charged a demonstration by the Metropolitan Radical Federation. They were backed up by two squadrons of life guards and also two companies of foot guards. The reason for the polices actions were mainly up to the House of Commons, as they believed that the police were acting 'impartially'. This act became known as 'Bloody Sunday', which left the police to be seen as favouring the middle and upper classes and against the poorer and working classes. This caused the work in poorer areas way more difficult than it was in the first place. One of the most difficult areas was the East end of London.

In London in the 1870s and 1880s, police who worked on the 'beat' had extremely long hours. A duty could be as long as 14 hours a day seven days a week. A beat during the day was usually seven and a half miles, at night was two miles. This could suggest why crimes were so frequent, as the police patrolling will be exhausted, and will maybe taking long rests during there beat and missing the criminals. If the policemen were given less hours more criminals would of been prosecuted, which would lead to a decrease in crimes.

The work of the police was also not assisted by statistics by 1885. It proved the strength of the Metropolitan police in 1885 was 13,319 men, although the population at the time was 5,255,069. Surprisingly 1,383 of the 13,319 officers were avaliable for beat duty at any one time.

In the late nineteenth century, 75% of all crime was up to petty theft (pickpockets), 10% was made up of violent crimes, however murder was rare and the victim and the murderer usually knew each other. Pickpocketers were the most common criminals, as it was the most easiest to succeed in. Although there was alot of minor theft, people were were much more worried about gruesome crimes. This could be due to the community not used to major crimes, it puts fear into them of it occuring.

By the mid-nineteenth century, a vast majority of middle class people living in the West End believed there was a crime wave that needed to be put to a stop. This imparticular was heightened by the press. Newspapers such as, 'Penny Dreadfuls' were filled with detailed descriptions of 'orrible crimes'. People were left to be astonishly interested in the murders and murderers.

Pickpockets in the overcrowed streets of Whitechapel were given great opportunites to strike. They did especially well in London as the rich mainly lived there, also many public executions were held there, which attracted crowds up to 200,000 people. This was a prime opportunity for pickpockets to achieve their crime. The rookeries, however, were homes to pickpockets, as they mainly stole purses and handerchiefs as they were the easiest thing to steal.

Garotting was put across in 1862, when Hugh Pilkington made all of Londons newspapers. A garotter, however, was somebody who half strangled their victim until their un-concious so their much more easy to rob. The press, just like to this present day, went overboard on these attacks and created a 'moral panic'. Eventhough this crime was extremely unusual, the police however still became involved.

Although these crimes were very common in the late nineteenth century, many of the people who committed these offences rarely got taken to court. This was mainly because the victim had to pay for their case to be heard, and in many circumstances the people were poor and could not afford it. Solictitors and lawyers were rarely used as the cost for them was exceedingly high. So in many cases the victim was to conduct their own case, which often became unwinable.

Before 1800, a vast majority of political protests had been commited by the middle and upper class. However, in the mid-nineteenth century the working class used riots and protests to show the government their unhappiness, as they had no vote. These protest groups include Chartists, the Luddites, Swing riots and Anti-corn law league. All the public unrest on the social and economic changes, followed the Industrial revolution.

Between 1810-1820 crimes rose rapidly, as it was the end of the French wars. This led to an increase in poverty and unemployment, which increased the rate of crimes as people were hungry and had no other option to turn to. This of course, led the criminal to a severe consequence they had to face up to, one was the large set of gallows known as the 'three legged mare'. This was where a number of criminals could be hanged at the same time. Public executions like this drew massive public attraction, as it was seen as entertainment of over 200,000 people, people even shut their businesses just to see innocent/guilty people die. This however, instead of decreasing crime it encouraged crime, as it was an ideal place for prostitutes, pickpockets and armed robbers. This could of easily been resisted by not having public executions but instead. still having the execution but without a public audience. However, capital punishment ended in 1868, but led to huge increase within prisons.

Although this was a very popular punishment used and known, the most famous punishment was known as 'The Bloody Code'. 'The Bloody Code' was used for even the most minor crimes, which in nowadays aren't even crimes (cutting down trees) carried the death penalty. It became known as 'The Bloody Code' because of the huge numbers of crimes commited minor or serious, innocent or guilty, you would still face the death penalty.If you look back on the statute books for the eighteenth century, you will think that every crime was punishable by death.

There were many reasons for it being so 'bloody', firstly was the English legal system felt that people who commited crimes were lazy, greedy or sinful and deserved mercy. Secondly, as the rich made the laws they made laws that would protect their interests, which was usually anything that threatened their wealth, property, or sense of law and order was made punishable. Lastly, it was thought that if people knew they could be sentenced to death, it would frighten them enough to not commit any sort of crime.

However, 'The Bloody Code' did not work all that well. For instance, trials would only last for a few minutes and there was often not enough time for the defence to present their case, this seems like it was like a sort agreement for the person to be accused as innocent or guilty to the modern eye. However, the main problem with 'The Bloody Code' was the juries were often unwilling to find the accused guilty, as they knew the only alternative was death. So in many circumstances, they would deliberatly under-value the stolen goods so that the accused wouldn't have to face the death penalty any longer. Much evidence suggests that fewer people were hanged in the eighteenth century than previously.

The 'Bloody Code' punishment was of course used against the poor as it was formed by the rich, although the rich still had punishments to face however it was more seen as a reward more than anything. Lesser punishments such as fines were used against the rich, this was because it resisted other forms of punishment as they could pay it off with money, which was a great deal of the government because it drew in money. This suggests to why there was an increase in crime, as the rich could afford to pay off the offence they commited and could act time and time again.

By the 1850s crime rate began to fall. This was due to prisons were no longer schools for crime and improvements made in conditions of prisons, which gave more of a chance for the reforming of prisoners. However, beforehand prison conditions were astonishing. Prisons were filthy and overcrowed, which could lead to a spread in fatal diseases. They had to provide there own food, and they had only little access to fresh water. In many prisons they had to pay the gaoler for every service, even for putting then in irons as a punishment. Those who had no money were forced to beg from local people passing the prison. There was no protection against other prisoners. Those who caused trouble were put in irons or even whipped. Many prisoners were chained to the walls in order for them not to escape. This all stopped, however when a woman named Elizabeth Fry started to realise just how unpleasant the conditions were. Elizabeth Fry was born on the 21st May, 1780 and was the daughter of John and Catherine Gurney, John was a successful businessman and a member of the Society of Friends, Catherine was involved in charity work. When she was just 12 years old, she was expected to help bring up her fellow 11 brothers and sisters. By 1779 she met her to be husband, Joseph Fry, son of a successful merchant. A few years pressed on bringing us to 1813, which was the time where she discovered the conditions of women's and children's prison. She discovered that there was over 300 women and children huddled together in two wards and two cells. Women had to wash, cook and sleep in the same cell, which was extremely un-hygenic. They slept on the prison floors without any nightclothes or bedding. After this horrific experience she wrote that the "swearing, gaming, fighting, sing and dancing were too bad to be described".

She started to visit on a daily basis, and often brought them suppliments e.g clothes and cotton to be able to sew with and sell for money. She established a school for the children and chapel for everyone's advantage. In 1817 Fry and eleven other Quakers, formed a association for the Improvement of the Female Prisoners in Newgate. The following year, her brother-in-law, Thomas Fowell Buxton was elected MP which meant he was now able to promote Fry's work in the House of Commons. Elizabeth Fry pursued to the House of Commons giving them evidence on how women slept thirty to a room. Although the MP's were very impressed, they disapproved of some the comments she made, "capital punishment was evil and produced evil results". However, many MP's fully supported the system where some criminals could be executed for over 200 offences e.g stealing clothes. By 1823 'Goal Act' was passed by parliament and many changes were made. After this she continued to visit other prisons all over Britain and argued for a majority of improvements to be made, until she died on 12th October 1845.

Before the act of Elizabeth Fry, a man named John Howard attempted to improve the conditions within many prisons. Howard was a high sheriff and had great responsibilities to inspect the county prison. When he arrived at Bedford Gaol, he was deeply appalled on what he found. His first impression of the prison gave him a strong belief that the suffering of the prisoners was largely caused by the system, on where the gaoler claimed his money from the prisoner for his board and lodging. Howard suggested to Bedford that the gaoler should be paid a salary. However, they were unwilling to increase any cost of looking after the prisoners, and told him that the whole country used the same system.

Howard decided that a tour of many prisons was in order. He came to the terms of all the prisons he had visited, were even worse than Bedford Gaol. Over the next three to four years, Howard travelled over 10,000 miles collecting a majority of information on the conditions of prisons. By the 4th March 1774, all the evidence he had collected, he gave to the House of Commons. Parliament passed the '1774 Gaol Act', which abolished gaolers' fees and sanitary and health of prisons. Although many copies of the act were made to be delivered to every prison in England, many gaolers decided to ignore any new aligations made.

In 1775, Howard began touring foreign prisons such as, France; Belgium; Holland; Italy; Germany; Spain; Portugal; Denmark; Sweden; Russia; Switzerland; Malta; Asia Minor and Turkey. Although many of these country's prisons were just as bad as Englands, Howard did find one prison that was exceptable, Maison de Force in Ghent. He used this as an example to what other British prisons should be like. When he eventually arrived back to England, he began to take a second tour around the prisons, to see if any improvements had been made from the '1774 Gaol Act'.

In 1789 Howard set out, for the last time, to tour foreign prisons. He only accomplished visiting Holland and Germany, and by December he was in Russia. Howard developed typhus and died on the 20th January 1790.

Imprisonment was only used for a small majority in 1750. However, by 1840 government came to the conclusion of providing more prisons, due to amount of crime commited. The new prisons provided the ideas of Pentonville and included features such as a central hub, separate cells, punishment shed, and exercise yards.

In 1850 two new systems were adopted within British prisons, the separate system and the silent system. The theory for the separate system was suggested by Jeremy Bentham and completed by Millbank Penitentiary. It was made to make the criminal think about the crimes he/she has commited and realise that he had to change his ways. Once inside the prison, they made to face up to their own faults by, for example, picking oakem (separating strands of rope) to make rugs, it was usually a useful task for the prisoner to achieve, depending on how much he/she was separated to recieve food. It was then usually expected for the prisoner to eventually breakdown and be willing to have his character reformed by the prison chaplain. The criminals who were reformed learned skills such as gardening and woodwork for when they leave prison. They believed that the prisoner should learn useful skills to reform the prisoner, but instead it led to many prisoners going insane and led to two suicides. It was then condemned to be cruel by the very late nineteenth century.

By the 1860s the silent system was developed as the opinion changed to believing that most criminals were habitual, by this they made a theory of forbidding the prisoners to communicate with one another, this was to stop criminals passing on criminals tendencies. For the criminals to recieve their food they were set useless tasks such as the treadmill and turning the crankhandle for as long as eight hours a day, it was believed that they didn't deserve useful skills for when they leave prison as it was believed they will never change. Instead, the development was made to stop the criminal from repeating or performing crimes once they leave prison, by making sure they were tortured and petrified them enough to never be able to commit another offensive crime again.

Sir Edmund Du Cane promised the public that prisoners will get "Hard labour, Hard fare and Hard board". Hard labour was the treadmill and picking oakum. Hard fare was a deliberate monotonous diet, with the exact same food every week and day. Hard board was wooden board beds, which replaced the hammocks the prisoners had beforehand.

Although it seems that only men and women were placed in prisons, children were too. The first prison made for 'juvenile delinquents' was set up in 1839, although many children were still being sent to adult prisons. Age was never a problem, children as young as 10 years old could be hung or transported. Th public were shocked when it came to a hearing of a child, eventually child crime became so bad the government set up a 'comittee for investigating metropolis'. By 1847, children wer treated differently under the 'juvenile offense act', it said that anyone under the age of sixteen were to be trailed by a new kind of court. However, the most dramatic change in child crime was the reformatory in schools. They were sent for a long period of time to drag the children away from bad habits. Women's crimes were treated very harshly, as theymainly because they were brutally hit and also mixed with the men which in many cases led to many rapes. The first prison for women opened in 1853. In 1861 it was illegal for women to have abortions.

During the eighteenth century prisoners were sent to America, at first, for a fixed period of up to seven years or life for that matter.Prisoners who recieved transportation were sent initially to the 'Hulk' in London, and served the first part of their sentence in solitary confinement before being assigned to a convict ship and leaving England. However, this stopped when the American war of Independance broke out in 1775. The government then began sending men and women to penal colonies in Australia. Over 160,000 were sent, children as young as nine were sometimes sent. Many died on the journey as they had to survive for four-six months in the most terrible conditions, not unlike those of the slaves taken from Africa to be sold in America. The people who survived were made servants or labourers for the settlers. Those who worked extremely hard were sometimes given money. Prisoners saved their money for their freedom and for their return to England. However, if the convicts continued to cause trouble in Australia, they were sent to penal settlements. They were forced to work from dawn to dusk at backbreaking tasks. If disobeyed, they were usually whipped, chained in ions or sometimeds even executed.

However, after a while transportations became to expensive for the government to persue. Government looked for cheaper solutions to the criminal problems at home. Also, legal settlers in Australia resented having the prisoners sent to them. The government remembered the rebellion of the American colonies and decided to end the system. The last transportation took place in 1868, but only a small proportion of prisoners had been sent to Australia since gold was discovered there in 1851.

They came to the decision of Australia because it was an unknown place at the edge of the world. This imparticular would frighten the public, as they wouldn't know were they were heading to. Another reason to consider for the decision of Australia, was that it would help Britain to claim Australia as part of there empire and to build up a control over the region. To stop France and other rivals gaining whatever resources Australia had.

In conclusion, law and order in the late nineteenth century needed alot of improvements, however there were many improvements compared to what it once was. The punishments grew to be alot harsher, which led people to stop committing crimes until prisons were introduced and crimes again increased as many people thought that prisons were nicer than their own homes. Also, law and order in the late nineteenth century led to regulating the Metropolitan police force due to one man named Sir Robert Peel making the decision to re-organising how London was policed. However, the police were seen as favouring the rich and ignoring the needs of the poor, which led to more petty crimes as the lower class wanted to seek revenge on the police force. The expected role of the police was to prevent not solve crime. Lack of training led to some crimes increasing. Their poor reputation led to bring little change to make law and order more successful.