Punishment and Society - Essay Example

PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY Outline Case of Jack Martin VS Lord Master Man Case of Beth Williams Case of Mo Harris Conclusion Abstract It is a widely belief among sociolegal scholars that criminal and civil sanctions are developed and shaped by the prevailing social conditions in a society (Randall, 2007, p. 3). This link between punishment and the structure of the society is reflected in Durkheims views about punishment and types of solidarity in societies; Philip Nonet and Philip Selznicks analysis of transitional legal systems and the movement from repressive to responsive law; Donald Blacks work on the behavior of law; Michel Foucaults treatise on changes over time in states power to control the body, mind and "souls of its subjects; and Norbert Eliass argument about the growth of "civilized sensibilities in modern society that shape how punishment is dispensed (Wendy 2005, p. 108). According to Wendy (2005, p. 108), these authors vary in their focus on particular elements, there is a general agreement that the nature of punishment changes through the historical transition from primitive or early tribal law to the development of modern legal systems. Early tribal law is also called primitive legal systems is linked to small homogeneous and undifferentiated societies. This paper will assume a period in mid 19th century (1840s- 1860s) and look into how matters of theft, infanticide and rioting would be dealt with as at that time based on evidence from similar cases handled during this period. It is worthwhile to note that the period quoted in this question refers to a time in which the children and adults were treated the same in judgment (Centre on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2006, p. 6). Case of Jack Martin VS Lord Master Man In this case Jack Martin, a 10 year-old boy is convicted of the theft of two rabbits from Lord Master Mans land. According to law in the 19th century this case would have counted as Petty Larceny especially if the value of the rabbits did not exceed a shilling. Also, it might be expected that the value of rabbits would exceed one shilling and in that occasion, this case would be counted as Grand Larceny. Either way, Jack would have a case to answer especially if evidence is sufficient. However, based on the case of Cooper Vs Walker, 1851, another consideration may arise. This case of Cooper Vs Walker relates to a market gardener of Beeston, Robert Cooper, an agricultural laborer John Walker and the theft of some onions. The census statistics of 1851 for Girt-ford near Sandy shows John Walker then a boy of 10 years old living with his parents William and Mary. John was the youngest of the four children, Thomas (15) Daniel (13) and Sarah (12). Records shows John to had been laborer at this age opposed to what would have been expected of him being a pupil. In 1861 however John had been accused of assault but was released after two months of imprisonment. He seems to have been set fair for a life of crime and indeed between September 1861 and March 1874 he had 14 convictions for petty offences (Victorian Crime and Punishment 2006, p. 18) There was noticeable difference however between Robert Cooper and Johns family. The census statistics of 1871 for Beeston, also near Sandy, shows Robert to have been a young man of 27 years living with his 24 year old wife, Elizabeth and their three young children John (4), Charles (3) and Maud, a year old. The Coopers were rich enough to employ a living-in servant Jane Martin. They had wealth generated from their market gardening activities which were plasticized on a piece of 43 acres of land. On 13th September 1873 it is reported that as Cooper was sitting near the hedge bordering one of his fields where there were heaps of onions lying in the field, he watched as John Walker who, until the previous day had worked for him pick onions from these heaps. Walker picked about a peck from every heap and then smoothened out the heap so as to conceal the disturbance. He then used a sack to carry the stolen onions. This continued until Walker had gathered about two bushels of the product (a considerable amount), when he tied up the sack and carried it towards the direction of his house (Victorian Crime and Punishment 2006, p. 18). Cooper followed Walker, got back the onions from him and told him that he would prosecute. Walker requested to be forgiven. Cooper reported the matter to Police Constable Joseph Newton PC No.17 stationed at Northill, and was issued a warrant for the arrest of John Walker. The crime was the stealing of onions of a value between 4 and 5 shillings. Constable Newton arrived at Walkers house in the evening and met only his wife at home. The wife denied having seen John since the morning. However a search of the house by Constable Newton revealed onions "Like the same as Mr. Cooper s, the some sort the Brown Intermediom". Walker appeared before a local magistrate for a preliminary examination. The value of the onions was found to be between 4 and 5 shillings and thus the offence was one of Grand Larceny. On the evidence the magistrate decided that there was a case to answer and could have tried summarily since the offence was larceny. However, Walker was remanded to appear at the Bedford Easter Quarter Sessions. After a period of six months, possibly spent in custody, he was finally brought to trial. The case of "Regina on the Prosecution of Robert Cooper v John Walker" was one of larceny and evidence was sworn before Robert Henry Linsell and Richard Folliott Scott on 1st April 1874. They were satisfied that Cooper had a case against Walker. A warrant was issued and Walker was received into custody on 2nd April 1874. It was as expected important to make sure that both the private prosecutor and any witnesses attend the court; thus recognizances were asked for from both Robert Cooper who had preferred the Bill of Indictment and Constable Newton, who was to give evidence. This was despite Newtons status. The sums concerned were considerable being £20 and £10 respectively. The Bill of indictment was endorsed as a True Bill and Walker appeared for trial on 8th April 1874 before John Harvey and William Stuart. He pleaded guilty and this was accepted. However, evidence was still called. Among the evidence was the revelation that Walker had also been convicted under the alias of Mulls. Evidence was given by the Governor of Bedford Prison, Robert Evans Roberts, as to previous convictions and the apparent failure of punishment to deter Walker from further Crime. He was content that the society should be "delivered from his malpractices for some time"(Douglas & Francis 2001, p. 99). It is not therefore surprising, in light of these remarks, to find that a sentence of seven years penal servitude and seven years police supervision was passed upon John Walker. He was taken away to the prison to await disposal. On 19th May 1874 he was removed to Bentonville to begin his sentence. (Leo 2003, p. 83) From the above case it follows that a range of punishments would be considered especially depending whether the Jack Martin is a first time offender and also considering the value of the property stolen from Lord Master Mans. An imprisonment of 2 months would be applicable to Jack Martin, a first time offender, or the offender could be pardoned when the value exceeds one shilling and also when the value is less than one shilling respectively. The magnitude of the imprisonment is seen to be proportional to the number of times that a crime has been committed. Drawn from the excerpts of the Cooper Vs John, punishment could serve several purposes. In the first occasion, a punishment of two months was meant to warn John Walker, but the subsequent punishment of seven years was meant to relieve the society from the harm caused by John Walker and also to train John Walker how to be industrious. As such, the case of Jack Martin would be punished accordingly, few months of imprisonment if he be a first time offender to serve as a warning or a longer term of imprisonment if a sequential offender so that the society can be relieved from Jack Martins malpractices. Case of Beth Williams The case of Beth Williams, an 18-year-old single female, convicted of infanticide resembles that of Lucy Lowe alias Ellis of 19th century who was committed and tried for the Murder of her 21 day old baby girl. Lucy Lowes married Samuel Ellis in 1860, but after five months, Samuel died leaving Lucy as a single parent. Paul (1993, p. 207) provides that Lucy Lowe was tried at the Bedford summer assizes on 3rd July 1876. The events leading to the crime was exposed and duly discussed at great length. Evidence was provided that clothing found on the childs remains had been picked from Mrs. Kirkhams wardrobe by Lucy Lowe, and one piece of ticking found upon the babys body were similar to some found amongst Lowes personal possessions when she was arrested. (Bedfordshire Times and Independent 1876, p. 6) Mrs. Hull testified against Lowe. She told of the many lies the lady had spoken and of how when she left Greyfriars Walk she had not taken with her any of the childs clothing or its feeding bottle, as though she knew that the child would need these no more. The defense counsel quite simply provided that the charges were a gross misinterpretation of the facts. The unfortunate victim of this incident was Lucy Lowe herself, it was claimed; the baby having died of natural causes (Paul 1993, p. 207). In her panic she abandoned it in the undergrowth, the action of a frustrated and concerned mother! According to Paul (1993, p. 207), Lucy Lowe did not take the witness stand, however she made a specially prepared statement which was read out to the court: On the 14th day of March when I left Turvey station the weather was very cold. I wrapped the child in three shawls and carried it along until I got through Stagsden Side Gate when the child had a fit and died almost immediately. I was very frightened and I left it where it was afterwards found. The jury retired and within twelve minutes returned a verdict of guilty against Lowe. She was sentenced to death. This story does not end here, for the jury took mercy upon the child-killer and submitted a recommendation to the authorities that the death penalty should be commuted and that a term of imprisonment would be more appropriate. The appeal was granted and Lucy Lowe escaped the grip of the executioners noose. (Bedfordshire Times and Independent 1876, p. 6) The case in the question can also be argued out as the one above the only difference arising when the amount of evidence provided is sufficient. It is clear that during the 19th century, cases related to murder led to a death sentence. If Beth Williams lived then, it is obvious that the punishment would have been a death sentence as opposed to todays sentence that would have been life imprisonment. Punishment in 19th Century was mainly for revenge purposes and with the underdeveloped law structures; judges could only choose punishment from a limited list. As such, the case of Beth Williams would be sufficed by punishment of life imprisonment, but in the context of this period, a death sentence is appropriate since it almost attains revenge in line with what was expected then. Case of Mo Harris An insight of how to deal with the case of Mo Harris, a 40-year-old adult male, convicted of causing a riot in Birmingham following a demonstration calling for the vote for ordinary men can be drawn from the proceedings of the 1816 case against Ely and Littleport rioters and more specifically that against Aaron Layton, the riot leader from Ely. The Ely and Littleport rioters were mostly poor laborers who were hired to work on the farms at times of the year such as harvest. (Ely and Littleport riots 1816, p. 11) According to Victorian Crime and Punishment (2006, p. 13) the government had determination in holding a local trial where at least some of the rioters would be severely punished as an example to the rest. This was bound to include the death penalty for a few. Victorian Crime and Punishment (2006, p. 13) provides that the trials opened in Ely before three judges, three lawyers represented the prosecution and three lawyers represented the prisoners. Witnesses appeared in court to be examined and cross examined. The prisoners themselves were not allowed to be asked questions in court because juries were required to make their minds up on the evidence of witnesses who witnessed what happened. However prisoners were given a chance to make personal statements and ask questions of witnesses if they wanted to. Few did so (Victorian Crime and Punishment 2006, p. 13). There were several charges against the offenders. The particular charges that led to the death sentence were: burglary, direct robbery from a person and also stealing. In the summing up, one of the judges, Mr. Justice Abbott, provided that about three hundred people had been involved in the riots. Of these 300, about 80 were put on trial. Of these 80, 24 were found guilty of offences that carried the death penalty. In the end, 19 of the 24 were reprieved and either sent to prison or transported to Australia as punishment (Victorian Crime and Punishment 2006, p. 13). The five who were sentenced to death were William Beamiss, George Crow, John Dennis (the leader of the Littleport rioters), Isaac Harley and Thomas South. The prisoners were asked to sign a document accepting their guilt and recognizing how just their sentences were. After the execution, the bodies were placed in coffins and displayed in a cottage at Gaol Street in Ely, where many people came for viewing. After a day, the men were buried the churchyard of St Marys and an inscription serving as a warning to other was written on a stone slab and inserted into the church tower (Crime & Punishment 2003, p. 1). "Here are interred in one grave the bodies of William Beamiss, George Crow, John Dennis, Isaac Harley and Thomas South ; who were all executed at Ely on the 28th day of June 1816, having been convicted at the Special Assizes Holden there, of divers robberies during the riots of Ely & Littleport in the month of May in that year. May their awful fate be a warning to others". Some rioters were transferred to Australia and finally started new lives there. Others were sent in Ely gaol for a several days and, although they were expected to serve out their first twelve months imprisonment, they were then moved to other gaols (BBC Legacies 2000, p. 113). Although Aaron Layton had been convicted of robbery of William Cooper and George Stevens of Ely; he was among those imprisoned in a floating prison called a hulk in the Thames, probably with transportation to Australia in mind. Instead he was released in 1817 and survived to the age of 69, building up a respectable living for himself as a bricklayer and marrying twice. (Douglas 2001, p. 321) From these excerpts, some unfairness can be sensed almost immediately. Aaron Layton led the rioting and participated in robbery of property yet he only faces a one year imprisonment while others who had lesser crimes faced much intense punishments such as 14 years in jail and transportation to other places. With other strict measures available, it is obvious to assume that the punishments will be administered in accordance of responsibility during rioting. In our case, Mo Harris is our riot leader and this period can be seen to have offered several remedies including lifetime deportation, death sentence 14 years jail sentence and also one year at the gaols. Provided with these options, Mo Harris being the riot leader ought to suffer a punishment relatively significant and the most appropriate would be a term of 14 years in jail. This is chosen so as to avoid the rioting re-occurring and especially Mo Harris leading them. It will also establish a fair ground for other type of judgments as those against individuals who had rioted and had participated in robbery. Conclusion The punishment system of England in the 19th century creates a curious spectacle to an observer more familiar with modern institutions. The two most obvious anomalies are the institutions for prosecuting offenders and the range of punishments. Another one is how the judgment was unfair as observed in cases such as those against Aaron Layton and John Walker. However, the 19th century was a great century for crime and punishment, the metropolitan police force was developed, CID was also introduced, prisons were improved and punishments were reconsidered. All of these things modified law and order dramatically from a very small, basic organization to one of the most well run police forces in Europe, in absence of these changes and developments todays Britain would be in utter chaos. References 1. Paul, H 1993, Hertfordshire & Bedfordshire Murders, Countryside Books, Newbury Berkshire http://www.countrysidebooks.co.uk 2. BBC Legacies, The Little ports riots, viewed 5th April 2012 from 3. Victorian Crime and Punishment, 2006, Lucy Lowe alias Ellis - Child Murder, viewed on 5th April 2012 4. Bedfordshire Times and Independent, 1876, First part of the committal of Lucy Ellis (alias Lucy Lowe) pp. 6, 20th May 5. Crime & Punishment 2003, Returns at Dundee Jail, 1819, Local Studies Department, Central Library, Dundee viewed on 4th April 2012 from 6. Douglas, H & Francis, SE 2001, Policing and Prosecution in Britain: 1750-1859, 1989 7. Douglas, H 2000, Prosecution and Power: Malicious Prosecution in the English Courts, 1750-1850. 8. David, F, Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century, viewed on 5th April from 9. Leo, Z 2003, Punishment, Institutions, and Justifications, in Austin Sarat and Patricia Ewick (ed.) Punishment, Politics and Culture (Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Volume30, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 51-83 10. Wendy, C H 2005, The Paradox of Punishment, in Austin Sarat (ed.) Crime and Punishment : Perspectives from the Humanities Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Volume 37, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 87-108 11. Cambridge University Library, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, Henr y Law: vindication of his conduct in Ely and Littleport Riots, 1816, viewed on 5th April 2012, 12. Professor Randall, V R 2007, Crime and Punishment in American History 1994, Major Renn GW Books Review, University of Dayton School of Law, May 13. Ely and Littleport riots, 1816, viewed on 5th April 2012, 14. Centre on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2006, Juvenile Justice History Read More