Showing posts with label oliver twist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oliver twist. Show all posts

Monday, 27 May 2013

Industrial Sprawl and Crime Rates

The social and industrial growth of England during the Victorian period is generally well known, cottage industry and small mercantile ventures were replaced with industrialisation and manufacturing on a massive, and previously unprecedented, scale. The growth in employment opportunities in towns and cities prompted a mass exodus from rural areas into the rapidly industrialising towns. 

The social problem novel permeates the literary output of the Victorian period, whether a literary scholar or not, most people are familiar with at least one novel of the period which can be said to fall into the category of 'social problem' -from Oliver Twist to North and South the social condition of England as a result of industrialisation and urban expansion was firmly on the fore front of public consciousness.

By 1851 half of the population of Britain lived in towns, and by 1901 this had risen to 3/4, and it was this rapid growth which was considered the major cause of crime, as population density in cities caused the over crowding of slum areas and a concentration of poverty and subsistence living.  The anonymity and isolationist nature of sprawling slums precipitated and facilitated the rise of crime levels within the jurisdiction.  Without the careful scrutiny of a smaller, and more intimately acquainted, society these masses of the poor were inclined towards lawlessness and illegal behaviour - they were free of what was termed 'natural policing.' 

In 1852, M.D Hill (1792-1872), brother of Rowland Hill, the postal reformer, who had been a judge in Birmingham for 30 years, was examined by a House of Commons Committee on Juvenile crime and reported that:

A century and a half ago...there was scarcely a large town in this island...[by a] large town I mean [one]  where an inhabitant of the humbler classes is unknown to the majority of inhabitants...by a small town, I mean a town where...every inhabitant is more or less known to the mass of the people of the town...in small towns there must be a sort of natural police...operating upon the conduct of each individual who lives, as it were, under the public eye; but in a large town, he lives...in absolute obscurity...which to a certain extent gives impunity.

When this is viewed in light of the content of the social problem novel, we see it all but born out.  For example in Oliver Twist, we see a young man who's very name implies the operation of social determinism which will make him a criminal, the name Twist, referring to the hangman's noose which his namers believe he will ultimately meet, and when he is exposed to the slums of London, and their many inhabitants, he is capable of disappearing from his former masters and later being hidden from those friends who would seek to protect him from the criminal masses which are presented as thriving in those impoverished parts of the city.  

The social determinism, which Oliver overcomes with the revelation that his birth and parentage are not as abject as he had been led to believe, was considered a major motivation factor behind crime in urban London.  The poor, and ill educated, by virtue of their class of birth or parentage were more inclined than the wealthy towards acts of criminal behaviour because of the operation of biology and that it slum areas it was almost impossible to keep the honest poor from being exposed to the criminal poor, who were already acting upon their inborn, and here to fore, latent criminal proclivities, which their entire class possessed.  Andrew Mearns (1837- 1925) the chief author of The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Inquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor(1883) wrote:

Few who will read these pages have any conception of what these pestilential human rookeries [the worst housing districts] are, where tens of thousands are crowded together amidst horrors which call to mind what we have learned...of the slave ship...One of the saddest results of this over-crowding is the inevitable association of honest people with criminals...Who can wonder that every evil flourishes in such hotbeds of vice and disease. 

As already mentioned, Contemporary analysts did not believe that it was poverty alone that caused crime, rather it was a motivating factor which allowed latent criminal tendencies to surface.  In the Report of the Royal Commission on a Constabulary Force [1839] the social reformer Edwin Chadwick wrote:

We have investigated the origin of the great mass of crime committed for the sake of property, and we find the whole ascribable to one common cause, namely, the temptations of the profit of a career of depredation [theft], as compared with the profits of honest and even well paid industry...the notion that any considerable proportion of the crimes against property are cased by blameless poverty...we find disproved at every step. 


A narrow view, certainly, and an almost echoing, in tone, of Scrooge's interrogation of the charity workers demanding 'Are there no prisons, no poorhouses?' Assured in the expectation that the poor should voluntarily enter such places, but it was well known to Dickens, and his socially minded contemporaries, that these placed were often worse than the streets; with living conditions and hygiene so poor that death and
disease were rampant.  While these social institutions were in place to 'care' for the poor and prevent them from having to turn to crime as a means of survival, it should be noted that they might have been more honest, but they were certainly no safer.

Friday, 23 September 2011

Not Quiet Nancy: Modern Prostitution

Crime and the law are not stable entities; rather they are constantly in flux, evolving with and around a society, for example in times of economic crisis, when employment goes down the prison population goes up.  This is not necessarily because there are more criminals but rather because there is an ‘ideologically motivated response to a growing number of financially marginalised people.’(Hale et al. in McLaughlin and Muncie P96) Society fears the actions of the potentially desperate and so issues a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against crime by increasing the severity of sentences. 

In most societies however, crime is something which is outlawed by the state, these laws are made by the most powerful people in any given society and seldom properly protect the weak.  Most notably, Prostitution laws are mostly made to stop prostitutes rather that those who solicit them or to address the factors which have caused these women to turn to prostitution.  The critic Barbara Hudson points out ‘that crimes against the weak seldom get as far the criminal justice system, they are undiscovered, unreported, un-investigated, unresolved, unprosecuted and in the end forgotten.’  (Hudson 2009 lecture) 

One area of feminine crime which has not changed that much with the passage of time is prostitution.  It has strongly resisted any and all attempts at reform in the UK and Ireland on the basis that while society’s general make up may alter Christian values still hold sway and religion itself tends towards a patriarchal stand point.  I have not the space here to do justice to the topic nor to give sufficient depth of analysis but it is true that in many patriarchal societies the only thing of value that a woman had to sell was her physical form.  From Irish Brehon law, which saw prostitutes as less than people and void of an honour price, to the Victorian period were prostitution itself was illegal, but generally overlooked.  It was only when these outcast and despised members of society were accused of being disorderly or ‘nuisance prostitutes’ that they felt the force of the legislation or criminal proceedings. 

                Little or none of the legislation which was introduced to govern prostitution was made to deal with those who utilised prostitutes, which were mostly men.  Pat Carlen argues that this was largely due to the fact that male sexual acts had few visible results, the man bore no outward sign of the ‘disgrace’ associated with the using prostitutes while ‘[w]omen’s sexual misdemeanours’ often resulted in pregnancy (Carlen, 1983 P28)

In much the same way in which the Contagious Diseases Act 1864-1869 made women bear the blame for the spread of sexual disease but did nothing to deter the men that used prostitutes.  Women could be harassed and imprisoned in hospitals on suspicion of having a sexually transmitted disease while the men who through the use of multiple prostitutes and sexual partners bore none of the responsibility.  Indeed there were critics at the time who claimed that the Act did nothing but encourage the use of prostitutes as it ensured that the women who did sell their bodies were ‘safer’ as they were more likely to be free of infection.  The nurse Florence Nightingale was one of many women who signed the ‘Women’s Protest’, which was eventually resulted in the repeal of the Act in 1886. 



Bibliography Available