Perceptions of Crime and Social Control in Early Modern England

In Early Modern England the main methods of reducing and punishing crime were through the clerical, civil and crown courts with the monarch through Parliament or by royal decree being able to change the law. The system had been that way for around four centuries although the Reformation would affect the roles of clerical courts and Parliament. The importance of an effective monarch had been demonstrated by the breakdown in law and order caused by the minority of Henry VI and the disruption caused by the War of the Roses. On some occasions juries were bribed or threatened into acquitting criminals that were supported by or connected to local nobility or merchants. The most powerful families maintained their own private armies and believed that they and their entourages were above the law. Henry VII succeeded in restoring royal authority and the criminal justice system (Elton, 1991 pp. 4-6).

Courts did keep records of those that were sentenced or acquitted yet there must have been crimes that were not reported and criminals that remained unpunished. If the crime figures are more accurate then Early Modern England saw higher levels of crime than in the preceding and succeeding periods despite social control been stronger than before (Gardiner & Wenborn, 1995 p.211).

Social control came via the religious and moral teachings of the church, the clerical, civil and crown courts plus the Justices of the Peace that carried out the royal will and punished criminals. The clerical courts could pass judgements could pass verdict on religious crimes and serious moral misconduct yet had to revert heresy cases to the crown if they wished to enforce the death penalty. The nobility believed that their rights were enshrined in the Magna Carta although they should not be regarded as being rights for ordinary people (Lockyer, 1989 p.39) Ultimately it was the monarch that decided the level of social control they considered necessary to ensure that England was secure. The church could provide the monarch with moral and spiritual guidance as well as a means of providing social control. The Tudor monarchs were great believers in using Parliament to recognise, enforce and increase their power. They also recognised that both the House of Lords and the House of Commons contained the people most concerned with maintaining social control, those that held property (Elton, 1991 pp. 19-20).

The punishments for crimes were often severe, with hundreds of different capital offences yet that did not seem to stop crimes being committed. Judges were often keen to pass capital sentences in order to deter further crime, although poverty as much as poor morals often pushed people towards committing crimes. The main crimes that would nearly always result in the death penalty were murder, rape, theft, serious assault, treason and heresy. The method of execution could depend on the nature of the crime and the social status of the criminal. For instance the wealthy tended to be beheaded, the poorest were hung, heretics got burnt at the stake and traitors were hung, drawn and quartered (Gardiner & Wenborn, 1995 p.130). In the Early Modern period there were concerns about declining morality even before the Reformation began. The English church and its clergy although not perfect had fewer problems with morality than its continental and Irish counterparts (Scarisbrick, 1984 pp. 49-50).