Course:History 344 Nasty Families/Calamities/Banditry

From UBC Wiki

Theft is defined as a crime in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). Theft was commonplace during the Stuart Age. It was generally tried at assize courts from the late 17th century to the early 20th century. [1] During that period, there was a striking predominance of offences against property over offences against the person. Offences such as larceny, burglary and robbery normally accounted for around two-thirds or three-quarters of appearances before judges. Between 1559 and 1625 crimes against property constituted 74 percent of offences prosecuted by the Sussex assizes. [2]

Theft and robbery were not very profitable for individuals of higher classes (such as gentry), and were more commonly committed by vagabonds and the poor or homeless. Capital punishment was the legal punishment for most felons convicted of any accounts of theft. The standard means of capital punishment was hanging. Corporal punishment was also issued to lesser offenders. [3] Under James I in 1603, some 50 different crimes were tried as capital offences, including stealing property worth one shilling. [4] Capital punishment was done publicly to deter people from committing crimes such as theft. Pickpocketing remained a capital offence punishable by death until 1808. [5]

Despite the large number of crimes punishable by death, "relatively few convicts were condemned to die and even fewer were actually executed" in seventeenth-century England. [6] The power to condemn a criminal to death did not rest in one judge or even in one decision. When a criminal was condemned to die, "as many as three dozen men ... participated in the decision-making process that sent him to the gallows." [7] One of the most serious property crimes was horse theft. Horse theft was seen as a purely malicious crime, since the perpetrators did not act out of hunger or necessity, as other thieves often did. Horse theft was also extremely profitable, so it was necessary for the law to punish it severely in order to deter other potential thieves. [8] 95% of those convicted of horse theft were executed, as compared to "67 per cent of known cutpurses, 62 per cent of the convicted burglars, 20 per cent of the highway robbers and only 8 per cent of those convicted of grand larceny." [9] Only 30% of those who stole food were executed. [10] In general, lesser criminals who confessed to or apologized for their crimes were not executed. [11] The legal system at the time placed an emphasis on reformation rather than harsh punishments, such as hanging, that allowed no opportunity for the offender to repent. [12]

Some convicted offenders could plead benefit of clergy in order to avoid a death sentence. Those who were successful in their plead were branded on the thumb with a "T" for theft, "F" for felon, or "M" for murder, so that they would be unable to receive this benefit more than once. [13] The branding took place in the courtroom at the end of the sessions in front of spectators. “For a short time, between 1699 and January 1707, convicted thieves were branded on the cheek in order to increase the deterrent effect of the punishment, but this rendered convicts unemployable and in 1707 the practice reverted to branding on the thumb.”[14] Horse thieves, cutpurses, highway robbers, and burglars were ineligible for benefit of clergy due to the seriousness of their crimes. [15]

BN: Could be divided into categories (not necessarily separate pages)

References:

  1. ↑ Curtis, Timothy, and J. A. Sharpe. "THE CRIMINAL PAST: CRIME IN TUDOR & STUART ENGLAND." History Today 38, no. 2 (February 1988): 23. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed January 30, 2012), 25.
  2. ↑ Curtis, 25.
  3. ↑ Curtis, 28.
  4. ↑ Curtis, 28.
  5. ↑ Clive Emsley, Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker, "Crime and Justice - Punishments at the Old Bailey", Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 30 January 2012 ).
  6. ↑ Cynthia B. Herrup, "Law and Morality in Seventeenth-Century England," Past & Present, no. 106 (Feb. 1985): 102.
  7. ↑ Herrup, 107.
  8. ↑ Herrup, 115.
  9. ↑ Herrup, 115.
  10. ↑ Herrup, 117.
  11. ↑ Herrup, 119.
  12. ↑ Herrup, 121-122.
  13. ↑ Emsley, Hitchcock, and Shoemaker.
  14. ↑ Emsley, Hitchcock, and Shoemaker.
  15. ↑ Herrup, 114.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:History_344_Nasty_Families/Calamities/Banditry&oldid=157364"