Theft in London in the Eighteenth Century

Theft in London in the Eighteenth Century

Name:

Course:

Professor:

Date:

Theft is defined as the act of taking some property that belongs to someone else in a manner that is dishonest and keeping it for oneself. It is categorized as a crime that is punishable by different methods depending on the different classes of theft. These include petty thieves who might steal minor items such as a pen or a bottle of water without any violence. The extreme end is robbery with violence where for example robbers enter a bank or other premise, takes hostages and make away with property of considerable worth and cause bodily harm or even death to some innocent people in the process.

There are many different reasons why thieves begin stealing. Some of these include poverty where people lack the necessities in life such as food and clothing. Such dire situations may lead one to take food and clothes to sustain them. Another cause of theft is greed. Some people may desire a life that they cannot afford and may steal vast amounts of money or property so that they can buy fancy cars and houses that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. Bitterness or jealousy towards other people that may be wealthy or successful through either lawful or unlawful means may motivate thieves to target them. They do this either as a means of revenge towards those who gained wealth unlawfully; or to only get a piece of the pie from those who they think have too much.

Theft often begins with little things such as kids stealing stationery from each other in school at a young age or even stealing money from their parents at home. If this behavior is ignored and expected to pass, it will most likely fester, and before long, a chronic thief is born. It is a habit that is hard to get rid of and must be addressed as early as possible before it escalates to full on violent robbery. Some measures of solving the problem include counseling in case of compulsive behavior, stern warnings and punishment such as suspension from school for minors, juvenile detention, fines, and community service for petty offenders. Harsher measures like long jail terms need to be implemented in cases of seasoned thieves. This paper seeks to address the issue of theft in the city of London between 1750 and 1770, some of the causes, effects, and methods of punishment of the vice.

The city of London in the eighteenth century was undergoing the Industrial Revolution. It was a bustling metropolitan, characterized by two extremes of poverty and wealth. This was the main reason as to why many resorted to crime. Most of the criminals and thieves were drawn from the poorest of the city who saw stealing property as the only way that they could alleviate their poverty. During social functions when the rich and the poor would come together, the thieves saw the opportunity to steal from those more fortunate than themselves.

Crime was organized and was exacerbated by the lack of an organized police force in the city. Most watchmen in the city were ordinary citizens, and theirs was a dangerous job. The wealthy people in the town thus fell prey to the organized criminals many times. The town did not also have a recognized administration; hence the process of apprehending the criminals such as thieves was quite tricky. These conditions led to theft becoming a growing enterprise in the city. Thieves often worked in cahoots with prostitutes in brothels.

Alcoholism was recognized as a significant cause of theft in addition to poverty. Under the influence, men were found to do things that were uncharacteristic of them. Corruption was a widespread vice at the time, and even those who had been convicted with overwhelming evidence against them could walk away from the court free by making bribes. The Old Bailey was the court that was tasked with handling the many crimes in the city, theft included. The court prescribed many forms of punishment, some of which had a questionable level of effectiveness. It is also important to note that some of those convicted of crimes often ended up not serving their sentences at all. The prescribed punishments, therefore, may not have been an effective deterrent of future crimes, theft included.

The Old Bailey was the London court in which various crimes were tried between 1584 and 1835 when it was renamed the Central Criminal Court and expanded its jurisdiction to include other areas outside London. How the court proceedings were entirely different from that of today. There weren’t any lawyers to represent the criminals and hence the judgment of judges and prosecutors were mainly relied on often without many questions asked. Punishment by death was a typical sentence until the nineteenth century.

There was the presence of a grand jury which was made up of wealthy men. Their job was to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to try the accused before a jury and most cases were thrown out at this point for lack of evidence. The problem with the grand jury was that they had no legal training or background and hence their judgment was often biased. Addition of a clerk to advise the grand jury ensured that more cases proceeded to trial.

The trial itself began with the charges being brought against the accused either by the prosecutor or victim and witnesses to the crime would then be called. The defendants would also be given the chance to defend themselves and even call their witnesses. Witnesses who could testify that the accused had a good reputation lightened their sentence or even led to the acquittal of the accused person. At this time, many of those who were charged were encouraged to plead not guilty to their crimes as it would lessen the severity of their punishment whereas if they pleaded guilty. It was difficult to change their sentence. Defendants often lost their cases as they were unable to defend themselves in the short time that the trials lasted.

The appearance and increasing frequency of lawyers for the defendants as from the 1820s helped their case considerably. The accused persons recognized that lawyers significantly reduced the severity of punishment. The lawyers did this often by questioning the prosecution witnesses on their motives, especially if they were accomplices with the accused but testified for immunity. This placed the burden of proof on the prosecution who had to go to greater lengths to acquire solid witnesses whose testimonies could stand up to the defense lawyers in court. A lawyer for the defense was mandated from 1903.

Judges then had the same weighty responsibility they bore then; determining whether the accused was guilty or not. Before the increase of lawyers in the courtroom; however, they played significant roles in cross-examining witnesses and maintaining order in the courtrooms. The juries were an integral part of the ruling given by the judge. They delivered their verdict and could ask the judge to be merciful in their sentencing. Many of those who were sentenced to death were often pardoned. Others sentences included fines, imprisonment, whipping among others. It is important to note that some of the punishments given were not given as prescribed; the accused often received a different penalty from those they had been sentenced to. The provision for an appeal was quite limited during the nineteenth century; the accused could only apply for a pardon.

The death penalty was the most prescribed method of punishment in the eighteenth century, meaning that even petty thieves could be sentenced to die for stealing a handkerchief. The judges could, however, give partial verdicts and the accused given more than one form of punishment such as imprisonment coupled with whipping. The charges could, however, be lessened by the intervention of the clergy and pardons. Lesser sentences such as flogging and fines were often given instead of hanging, and some of those sentenced ended up serving no punishment at all.

The benefit of clergy was one of the alternative forms of punishment. This meant that the church would be allowed to punish its members who were found guilty of a crime. This meant that the judge handed over church members to the clergy to mete out suitable punishment to the offender. After a while, it was realized that some severe offenses were receiving far too light sentences by the actions of the clergy. Some crimes were then exempted from the benefit of the clergy, and this included pickpocketing and stealing from the church. Stealing an amount of over forty shillings was also exempted. This meant that most crimes of theft were taken by the judges themselves.

Branding was another mode of punishment for thieves who either received the benefit of the clergy or even sentenced by the courts. The accused were branded on the thumb by a hot iron at the end of the court proceedings. It was claimed however that petty thieves often bribed the prosecutor so that they could have the branding iron employed on their thumbs while it was still cold. The branding identified which kind of crime such as F for felon and T for Theft.

Pickpocketing was a minor stealing offense but was punishable by death as were more serious crimes such as violent theft. It has been mentioned however that many of the death sentences passed did not go through but were replaced by other penalties. Minor offenses such as pickpocketing were later removed from being punishable by death.

The death penalty was also dropped for women who pleaded pregnancy at their time of sentencing. Women from among the jurors would examine the woman, and if pregnant, their punishment would be postponed until after the baby was born. Upon the birth of the baby, the death sentence or other penalty was often done away with mostly due to sympathy on the newborn child and the substantial cost of raising the child without its mother.

The death penalty was executed mainly by the act of hanging the convict in public. The public spectacle was meant to be a deterrent to others from committing the same crime. The body of those who had been strangled to death was often fought for by teachers of anatomy and the relatives of the deceased who wanted to bury it. Other methods of execution were even more brutal. Such techniques included the convicts being burned at the stake or being drawn and quartered.

Imprisonment was the most preferred form of punishing thieves. Imprisonment took many ways such as imprisonment with hard labor. The hard labor was meant to teach the thieves to work hard to earn their living while at the same deterring others from becoming thieves themselves. Prisons were also built to keep the public safe from repeat offenders. Transportation was also another form of punishment. The convicts were sent to far lands such as Australia. This was a deterrent for committing crimes, and no one wanted to be thrown away from their hometowns to distant lands where they did not know anyone.

Corporal punishment such as whipping was also predominant among those convicted of theft. It was usually given in addition to other sentences such as imprisonment. Offenders would be stripped to the waist and flogged until their backs were bloody. This was carried out publicly as a deterrent measure to other would-be thieves. In the eighteenth century whipping of women was abolished and whipping was also categorized into either public or private whipping within the prisons or courthouse.

Fines were a punitive measure for thieves. The thief would be ordered to pay back what they had stolen and another punishment such as imprisonment added to the fine. This was related to discipline by forfeiture of goods where a convict would be ordered to surrender all their property to the government. Often the prosecution lied to the court that the convict owned no assets that they could forfeit.

Pardons, mostly for petty offenses were granted to the offenders. Most of those who had been sentenced to death either had their sentences reduced or had their crimes pardoned and did not serve any penalty at all. This made more sense since killing a person for stealing a handkerchief hardly did anything to reform the offender, but it did deter others from committing the same crime. Other forms of punishment included paying back to the victim what they stole, expulsion from the country especially in case of violent robbery or taking valuable property.

The death penalty that was in common practice in London during the eighteenth century can be said to be an overly harsh sentence. A petty offender deserved a much more appropriate form of punishment depending on their crime, be it picking pockets or robbery with violence. Imprisonment and fines were much more aptly suited to petty stealing offenses. The reason for stealing was also a matter that should have weighed heavily on the judge while he made his rulings. The justice system was still in the early stages of development in the eighteenth century and since then; many advances have been made towards reforms.

Theft is among the most common misdemeanors in society today. The unequal distribution of wealth means that the poor will always aim to steal from those who have more than them. Other reasons for theft include psychological problems, greed, corruption, revenge, intent to inflict pain, among many others. It is essential that the crime is punished suitably, borrowing from some of the methods that were used in the city of London in the eighteenth century. Imprisonment and fines would be the most suitable. It is also essential to look for ways of rehabilitating juvenile offenders as a means of preventing the growth of seasoned criminals in the future. The Old Bailey Proceedings and rulings certainly set a precedent and are the basis of many of the methods of punishing crimes such as theft to this day.

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Map of eighteenth century London

John Rocque’s Map of London, 1746

Figure 2 : Table showing number of executions of females by years

Period 1735 – 44 1745 – 54 1755 – 64 1765 – 74 1775 – 84 1785 – 94 1795 – 99 Totals

Sentenced to death 258 186 155 202 319 325 150 1596

Reprieved 190 132 98 164 253 276 129 1243

% reprieved 74% 71% 63% 81% 79% 85% 86% 78%

Hanged 60 49 53 33 59 46 21 323

Burned 8 5 5 5 6 3 0 32

Total executed 68 54 57 38 65 49 21 355

Source: http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/fem1735.html

Bibliography

Beattie, John Maurice. Crime and the Courts in England, 1660-1800. Vol. 404. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Clive Emsley, Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker, “Crime and Justice – Punishment Sentences at the Old Bailey”, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 21 February 2019 )https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/The_Old_Bailey_Criminal_TrialLinebaugh, Peter. The London hanged: Crime and civil society in the eighteenth century. Verso, 2003.May, Margaret. “Innocence and experience: the evolution of the concept of juvenile delinquency In the mid-nineteenth century.” Victorian Studies 17, no. 1 (1973): 7-29.

McLynn, Frank. Crime and punishment in eighteenth century England. Routledge, 2013.Ray, Gerda. “Albion’s fatal tree: crime and society in eighteenth century England.” (1976): 86-93.

Shoemaker, Robert, “The Old Bailey Criminal Trial,” Digital Panopticon, accessed February 15 2019, https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/The_Old_Bailey_Criminal_Trial