Jack The Ripper - Law and Order in the late 19th century

Authors Avatar

        

Jack The Ripper –GCSE History Coursework

Law and Order in the late 19th century

  1. A regular police force was established in 1829 for a number of reasons. Before 1829 large disturbances could not be handled, such as riots. There were only special constables and watchmen, who knew the area well as they were locals. However, they had other jobs so only worked part time. The army would have to be sent in for large disturbances, which the public loathed, as they had ed coats. The Navy, seen as the national heroes, had blue coats, which the Metropolitan Police adopted. These new policemen were not sectioned out as the previous police so worked coherently. The new police were brought in to deter crime and drunkenness as well as control large demonstrations and riots.

  1. The new police force did not bring about radical changes in law and order as many of the new recruits were dismissed for drunkenness etc. The new police started to become unpopular due to their crowd control methods. The Bow Street Runners continued for years afterwards, so the force did not work together completely. Many areas in Britain did not have a Metropolitan Police Force. Many policemen were unskilled and earned less than skilled workers (95p a week). A policeman could not take time off, take in a lodger, sell vegetables from his garden, have a dog, chicken or more than two pigs. A policeman could not even vote. Class based prejudice emerged as policemen favoured the middle and upper class and discriminated against the lower classes. The Bow Street Runners refused to co-operate with the Manchester police force. This was common as people argued who was in charge, showing poor structure of the system. This, combined with their draconian actions, caused them to be viewed as people who “stalks along, an institution rather than a man.”

  1. The setup of the CID, or Criminal Intelligence Department made a considerable improvement to the police. This is shown by the number of detectives and arrests rising substantially. Previously, detectives could become too friendly with criminals and become corrupt. In 1877 it as discovered 3 out of 4 inspectors in the Detective Department were guilty of corruption. The CID also started to revamp procedures for dealing with murder cases and forensic science started to progress slowly.

  1. The reputation of the police during the 19th Century increased steadily in some ways, yet it could be argued that it did not. There is much evidence suggesting that the police force did improve, as a complete reform was made in 1829, and the introduction of blue ‘Navy’ uniform did indeed contrast with the hated Army redshirts. The introduction of the CID also helped in catching the criminals and hence improved the appearance of the police. The police were not as brutal as the army and to the middle class were seen as similar people. In this respect, there can be no doubt that with the reform the police force was given, there must have been an increase in the respect for the police from the abysmal situation around 1800. This is shown in Source 5, in punch as the police are “beginning to take that place in the affections of the people” and are “becoming national favourites”.

However, there is much evidence to suggest otherwise. Despite this situation, most of the police were incompetent drunkards, and were greatly prejudiced against the lower class, who made up the bulk of the population. Many saw them as “prowling” men and Sources 1 to 4 show them as incompetent, evil, draconian men. Many became corrupt and had little regard for what they did, and the type of people that were employed reflect their pittance of a wage at 95p. It is for this reason that the statement could be argued against.

In conclusion I believe that the reputation of the police did improve, but only because the original levels at the beginning of the 19th century were so low, and something desperately needed to be done. Many blunders were made, but in the century more was gained than lost.

Whitechapel

  1. The sort of evidence shown on the sheet regarding Whitechapel are not particularly reliable; the last two pieces are written after the Jack the Ripper killings, and hence are likely to be very biased and sensationalised. The third source tells us little about the condition of Whitechapel and concentrates on the public houses, while the first two sources are not given dates. The first two sources emphasise the squalid conditions, “evil collection of slums” and “rotten and reeking tenements”, which reiterate the stereotype of a grim, squalid region filled with lowlifes. This may be true to an extent, but we have little more evidence regarding the background of the two sources to substantiate this. However, since both sources tend to show the same view (and is supported by many other views) we can take the information given as relatively useful. The last source, written after the Whitechapel murders, shows similar views with more violent overtones, telling us “police used to make a point of going through this only in couples” and “fighting and screaming” in the area, which again is unreliable as, being a published source, could have been used to whip up hysteria. The weekly newspaper after the murders also shows signs of hyperbole, as it is described as “an apocalypse of evil” and that “there would be more mischief”.
Join now!

In conclusion, I believe that there are few very reliable sources here that talk of Whitechapel in detail, so we cannot come to a conclusion apart from the fact that Whitechapel was indeed very poor and dilapidated area in bad condition.

  1. The nature of Whitechapel suggests a number of things; since it was filled with prostitutes as it was a poor area. This meant that there were lots of potential victims for the Jack the Ripper as well as many potential suspects as they were the clients. There were many dark streets and alleyways that the Ripper ...

This is a preview of the whole essay