Bloody Code Crimes List
Boots Burnside
The "Bloody Code" was a series of laws in England, Wales and Ireland in the 18th and early 19th centuries which mandated the death penalty for a wide range of crimes.[1][2][3][4] It was not referred to by this name in its own time; the name was given later owing to the sharply increased number of people given the death penalty, even for crimes considered minor by 21st century standards.
In 1689, there were 50 capital offences in England and Wales; this increased to 220 by the end of the 18th century. This period saw the introduction of new laws focused on property defence, which some viewed as class suppression. As convictions for capital crimes increased, penal transportation with indentured servitude became a more common punishment. In 1785, Australia was deemed suitable for transporting convicts, and over one-third of all criminals convicted between 1788 and 1867 were sent there. The Bloody Code listed 21 categories of capital crimes in the 18th century. By 1823, the Judgment of Death Act made the death penalty discretionary for most crimes, and by 1861, the number of capital offences had been reduced to five. The last execution in the United Kingdom took place in 1964, and the death penalty was abolished for various crimes in the following years.
In 1689 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death in England and Wales, but that number had almost quadrupled by 1776,[5] and it reached 220 by the end of the century.[6] Most of the new laws introduced during that period were concerned with the defence of property, which some commentators have interpreted as a form of class suppression of the poor by the rich.[7] George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, expressed a contemporary view when he said that "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen."[8] Grand larceny was one of the crimes that drew the death penalty; it was defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence, about one-twentieth of the weekly wage for a skilled worker at the time.[9] As the 18th century proceeded, jurors often deliberately under-assessed the value of stolen goods in order to avoid a mandatory death sentence.[9] In the Kingdom of Ireland, a subordinate but separate state, a similar "Bloody Code" existed, but there were not as many capital crimes.[10]
As the number of capital crimes increased, lawmakers sought a less harsh punishment that might still deter potential offenders, and penal transportation with a term of indentured servitude became a more common punishment. This trend was expanded by the Transportation Act 1717 (16 Geo. 3 c.43), which regulated and subsidised the practice, until its use was suspended by the Criminal Law Act 1776.[11] With the American Colonies already in active rebellion, parliament claimed its continuance was "found to be attended with various inconveniences, particularly by depriving this kingdom of many subjects whose labour might be useful to the community, and who, by proper care and correction, might be reclaimed from their evil course." This law would become known as the Hard Labour Act and the Hulks Act for both its purpose and its result. With the removal of the important transportation alternative to the death penalty, it would in part prompt the use of prisons for punishment and the start of prison building programmes.[12] In 1785 Australia was deemed a suitably desolate place to transport convicts; transportation resumed, now to a specifically planned penal colony, with the departure of the First Fleet in 1787. It has been estimated that over one-third of all criminals convicted between 1788 and 1867 were transported to Australia, including Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania). Some criminals could escape transportation if they agreed to join the British Army. Jurist William Blackstone said of the Bloody Code:
It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than a hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death.
In 1823, the Judgement of Death Act 1823 made the death penalty discretionary for all crimes except treason and murder. Gradually during the middle of the nineteenth century the number of capital offences was reduced, and by 1861 was down to five. The last execution in the UK took place in 1964, and the death penalty was legally abolished in the following years for the crimes of:
The Waltham Black Act 1723 was brought in as an emergency measure to deal with deer-stealing, and other activities in the royal forests, of men who disguised themselves by blacking their faces. It was sweeping in its scope, making more than fifty distinct offences capital for seven different group of offenders.
The death sentence was also given out for a broad range of other rustic crimes such as damaging orchards, gardens, or cattle, with penalties attached to conspiring to commit any of these crimes or rescuing anyone imprisoned for these crimes. Between 1750 and 1815 a series of Acts/Statutes were added to the number of offences punishable by death, bringing the number to more than 200.
Capital punishment legislation and acts proliferated in a haphazard manner during this period to deal with individual crimes as they arose. For example, destroying Westminster Bridge was the same kind of offence as destroying Fulham Bridge, but each offence had a separate capital statute (act).
Upon some research under the broad categories below, there would be several individual offences within them. For example arson had seven different individual offences, each with its own statute. Soldiers and sailors could be executed if found vagrant without their passes and for stealing from bleaching-grounds in England and Ireland. Breaking river banks, cutting down hop-vines, impersonating Greenwich pensioners and destroying textile machinery were all punishable by death.
After much campaigning, social reformer Sir Samuel Romilly succeeded in repealing the death penalty for some minor crimes, and as the century progressed transportation became a more popular mode of punishment.
The National Justice Museum has announced the recipient of a 1000 prize as part of their Freedom photography exhibition. The award includes a creative residency at the National Justice Museum in 2023 with a 1,000 budget, decided by a panel of esteemed and expert photographers Brian Griffin, Amanda Sinclair, and Ofilaye.
The National Justice Museum is looking to expand its collection to reflect the diversity within the legal profession, and to share the lived experiences and the contributions made by Black legal professionals.
2023 is the 150th anniversary of The Technology and Construction Court (TCC), a major specialist Court that deals with disputes about building, engineering and all kinds of technology including software. The TCC is based in the Rolls Building, a spacious and modern courthouse in London's legal heartland.
As part of the anniversary celebrations, there will be a competition for young artists. Entries can be 2D artworks in any medium (except exclusively photography) and relate to the themes of Construction or Technology.
For two weeks in August 2021 summer, the National Justice Museum hosted a variety of exciting events, film screenings, talks and activities as part of S.H.E.D - the Social Higher Education Depot.
Between 1750 and 1815, various other crimes were added to the Bloody Codes. This inflated the list of offenses punishable by death to around 220 with the majority of the crimes regarding property. Many historians have translated this to the suppression of the poor by the wealthy and aristocratic.
Abstracting labour as wages led to the criminalisation of ordinary, day to day practices carried out by working men, such as customary appropriation. This refers to the perquisites that labouring jobs had traditionally entailed, such as keeping extras, leftovers and off-cuts of materials. Under a system of criminal law derived from capitalism, customary appropriation became theft and was subject to punishment by execution, whereas it had previously been an accepted part of craftsmen's trades (Linebaugh, 1991). The criminalisation of the labouring classes throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries benefited the ruling and owning classes.
By way of contrast, the law was far slower to penalise those who perpetrated abuses in the commercial world. Balance sheets and profit and loss accounts did not need to be published until the twentieth century, a lack of scrutiny which made it relatively easy to disguise fraud and embezzlement (Emsley, 2005). The Bloody Code's focus was on types of theft. In addition to the lack of criminalisation of practices in the commercial world, crimes of violence against the person were not punished more harshly or systematically than property crimes, and this was not an area of expanding legislation in the eighteenth century.
The eighteenth century criminal law can be perceived as having an ideological function. It was administered by the ruling class and its subjects were largely from the labouring poor. Analysis of the records of those who were executed on the gallows at Tyburn in London reveal that in addition to being from the lowest class, the hanged were often recent arrivals to London. There is also an over-representation of people who were not English, with Irish forming the largest non-English group (Linebaugh, 1991).
In a famous essay, Hay (1975) contends that in the eighteenth century the criminal law operated as an instrument of terror to subjugate and maintain order among the population. It threatened death for relatively trivial offences, but as they related to property, they damaged capitalist interests. The criminal law's ideological power was manifested in three ways: majesty, justice and mercy. The majesty of the law was enacted through the emotional climax of proclaiming the death sentence on the errant prisoner. The law claimed to extend protection to all by outlawing theft. Therefore, justice was presented as something available to ordinary people, although they were not usually its beneficiaries, especially as men were not eligible to appear on a jury unless they owned property.
c80f0f1006