What was the most influential period in the development of the criminal law and the associated institutions.

Authors Avatar

By 1850, Britain had a legal system that closely resembles that which is in place now. Parliament was in control setting the laws, the court system had established itself to execute these laws and a modern and organised police force existed. However, the process to achieve this had been a very long and arduous task and the reasons for these changes are not often clear, with the motivations of the parties concerned forming a whole debate in itself. As Brewer stated, most people only experience government through their contact with the law and its institutions and looking at the changes in the law can help us understand society at this time in all its forms. It is important to understand this due to the period of time that is being looked at. The main focus is on the century proceeding 1850 in which possibly the single biggest change to society as we know it took place – the industrial revolution. This revolution saw every aspect of people’s lives changing, including people’s beliefs and ideology, often referred to as the ‘Enlightenment’ period. Due to these many changes it is self explanatory that the law also changed, and also by some un-normal processes. However, it would be wrong to think of this and the ‘old’ system of law in the same light as that in which we view the system today. The ‘rule of law’, justice, equality and other such fundamental principles did not exist when change began to occur and these are products of this period. Due to this fact, change was problematic with many proposals not being adopted and many refusing to let grip on that which had been established for centuries. In this essay I will explain what processes drove this change in the law and the legal institutions despite a backdrop of unwillingness and often resentfulness.

One of the most important changes that occurred during, and partially due to, the industrial revolution was the concept of democracy and the development of a central government with greater powers. This increase in centralisation led to a shift of control from landowners and representatives of the monarch to an elected body able to pass and execute laws on a national basis, rather than the execution being done on a local scale, or as Foucault puts it, a shift from sovereignty to government. This coupled with the migration of people out of the countryside and small rural parishes into sprawling cities broke down the social pattern that had been well established. No longer were people tied to land and thus the land owner, but a free market where people could freely sell their labour to the highest bidder. This broke down the strong community spirit that existed in small villages, and also helped to break down the obedience to ones ‘betters’. No longer could small communities be easily policed and controlled using medieval principles of law and order as massive groups of people now lived together in a small area. This caused panic for many of those in control, and until 1832 this was purely those who owned land and thus the people whom the workers were tied to. This meant that the aristocracy could no longer use their powers as much in the fate of those who were once subordinate. This often included the local magistrates, who the aristocracy could (if desired) often influence the outcome of a trial.

Join now!

Late eighteenth and early nineteenth century law consisted of mostly medieval customs and beliefs that had been mixed with many amendments causing problems with clarity. Due to the societal changes and the incoherence of the law, rationalisation of the law was required. The ‘old’ system was based on a localised and personalised version of justice due to the communal nature of society at the time. In most cases the victim would know the person who had committed the crime, and it was left to the victim to investigate and prosecute the accused. Further complications came as it was also ...

This is a preview of the whole essay