Crime in History free essay sample

A Historical Investigation Gaskill (2000, p. 127) states that ‘historians of crime have tended to see coining in two ways: first, as an offence which the authorities treated with the utmost seriousness; secondly, as something which the population at large regarded as no crime at all. ’ This was the opinion of coining in the late 18th Century and throughout much of the 19th Century. Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker (consulted 2010) defines coining offences as ‘a number of offences in which coin or paper money (the Kings currency) was counterfeited or interfered with, or in which individuals used or possessed forged or diminished currency’. Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker goes further to state that coining offences can include: ‘coining (counterfeiting coins)’, ‘possessing moulds for the manufacture of coins’, ‘manufacturing counterfeit paper money, banknotes or bills of exchange’ and ‘possessing counterfeit money or putting it in into circulation (uttering)’. Furthermore, ‘The statute farther enacts, that to . We will write a custom essay sample on Crime in History or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page . . colour, gild, or case over any coin resembling the current coin . . . shall be construed high treason. ’ (Jacob, 1811, p. 495). Coining and forgery became extremely common towards the end of 19th Century: ‘Whereas forgery and coining comprised less than 5% of all trials during the eighteenth century, by 1850 this figure had risen to over 20%, and remained between 10% and 20% of court business until the early twentieth century. ’ (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, consulted 2010). Furthermore, coining tended to be a neighbourhood-based crime; and ‘Neighbourhoods existed where households sustained by coining were well known to each other’ (Gaskill, 2000, p. 139). Coin clipping was the act of shaving or trimming coins (which in the 19th Century were usually made from gold or silver and were easily trimmed) to the point where the coin was still recognisable, but weighed significantly less. When the coiner had collected enough shavings, these could be melted down to create a brand new coin; and then this process would be repeated. There were alternative methods, however, to reach this goal – for instance, some coiners would put a number of coins into a bag and shake them together until the coins were worn down and shavings were produced from the coins hitting against each other. This is why, as early as ‘In 1662, therefore, England began using machines to give coins milled edges . . . which make it easier to spot clipped coins’ (Lynch, 2007). McLynn (1989, p. 165) furthers this, however, y stating that ‘Actually to clip a coin, however, involved no more than cutting a thin sliver of gold from the edge of a guinea, restoring the milling with a file, then returning the diminished coin into circulation’. This emphasises, therefore, that even after the introduction of giving coins a ridged edge, coiners still managed to reproduce counterfeit coins. Gaskill (2000, p. 127) states that ‘As treason, coining was deemed to merit the most severe punishment the state could inflict; d rawing, hanging and quartering for men; burning at the stake for women. ’ This can be supported by the argument that: Burning at the stake in public was used in England amp; Wales to punish heresy for both sexes and for women convicted of High Treason or Petty Treason. Men who were convicted of high treason were hanged, drawn and quartered but this was not deemed acceptable for women as it would have involved nudity. High Treason included such offences as counterfeiting money and coining (the clipping of coins for pieces of silver and gold which were melted down to produce counterfeit coins), possession of coining equipment and colouring base metal coins (to pass them off as of higher value). (Clark, 1995) This clearly emphasises how severe coining offences were considered to be. The main reason as to why coining was considered to be treason (and why counterfeiting is still considered as treason today) is because it involved defiling the monarch’s face. The significance of defiling the monarch’s face is underlined by Emsley (1987, p. 138) arguing that ‘During the eighteenth century a few prosecutions were directed by the Treasury Solicitor, notably in coining offences. In addition to this, Clark highlights the gender differences in the punishment of coining offences. Gatrell (1996, p. 7) states that ‘women hanged for coining’ received the same punishment as ‘murdering their husbands’; with the punishment being (up to 1790) that they ‘had their corpses publicly burnt after hanging’. Gatrell also stated that in the 1820s, coining offences accounted for a twelfth of all hangings. Of course, hanging and death was not the only punis hment given to people convicted of coining. Coiners also received: prison sentences, hard labour (penal servitude) and transportation. For instance, in the case of Henry Thomas, he was found guilty and received ‘Twelve Months Imprisonment. ’ Whereas, Louis Levy pleaded guilty and received ‘Seven Years Penal Servitude. ’ (Both cases from the Old Bailey Proceedings Online, consulted 2010). This highlights, how although hanging – especially in cases of treason – was the common punishment for coining, there were alternative punishments as well. Coining offences have taken on a whole new identity in today’s society. The style of counterfeiting has also changed – rather than â€Å"clipping coins†, coining offences now focus more largely on paper-money and offences such as: credit card fraud or identity theft. However, there is still a large focus on counterfeiting coins and paper-money. Today, counterfeiting crimes are extremely serious crimes that carry large penalties; and penalties that increase with the amount of counterfeit money produced. In addition, counterfeit coins tend to be categorised as organised crime. Hobbs (1995, p. 115) – largely talking about organised crime, in relation to counterfeiting – states that crime: has moved from an occupational foundation of neighbourhood-orientated extortion and individualistic craft-based larcenies towards an entrepreneurial trading culture driven by highly localised interpretations of global markets. ’ Hobbs suggests, therefore, that coining offences have moved from neighbourhood-based crimes to more larger-scal e-based crime. Ballinger (2009) found that: ‘Criminal gangs mass-producing sham coinage are believed to be behind a dramatic surge in the past year in the number of counterfeits, with one in 40 now worthless. The total amount of fake ? 1 coins has hit 37. 5m the highest sum since the coin was introduced in 1983 and a rise of 26% since 2007, when 30m were found to be fakes. ’ Ballinger emphasises the extent to which the pound coin has been counterfeited in Britain; and this has occurred ever since the phased-introduction of the pound coin in 1983 (replacing the pound note). Counterfeiting currency offences fall under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 1981. For counterfeiting coins ‘there is a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or a fine or both’ (Anon, n. d. ). Fines for counterfeiting are unlimited (it depends on the amount of counterfeit coins produced) and the maximum sentence of 10 years is rare. For instance: a man was imprisoned for three-and-a-half years ‘after he admitted running a counterfeit coin factory producing thousands of pounds of fake ? 1 coins’ (Cockerell, 2010). This can be compared to ‘Two mothers who printed their own counterfeit cash using printers and scanners have been jailed for nine months at Mold Crown Court. ’ (BBC News, 2009). Both of these stories can be used to highlight how differences in sentencing can occur in modern criminal justice systems. In addition, a BBC News story (2010) further highlights that there is no one fixed punishment for counterfeiting crimes, but different punishments depending upon the extent of the counterfeiting: ‘Four men have been jailed after counterfeit bank notes worth more than ? 1m were uncovered by police. The men, from Leeds, Bradford and Northop, Flintshire, pleaded guilty to offences under the Forgery and Counterfeit Act 1981. Their sentences, handed down at Leeds Crown Court on Wednesday, ranged from 12 years to five-and-a-half years. At first it would appear, therefore, that there have been large changes in the criminal justice system when it comes to coining offences – especially in terms of punishments – however, there is more similarity than meets the eye. Although the more common punishment for coining in the 19th Century (particularly in cases of treason) was hanging and death, there were cases of alternative punishments being given. This can be linked to modern society where the punishment is very much specific to the extent of the counterfeiting produced. Attitudes to coining offences have also seen differences through the years. The idea of coining offences and counterfeiting began as a community-based, generally small-scale means of attaining more money; according to Gaskill (2000, p. 142) in the late 18th Century, ‘for most people coining was no more than an occasional, small-scale operation meant to supplement a low income’. However, over time coining offences have changed into a much more larger, organised crime; that is no longer focused on attaining more money to survive, but has a new focus of attaining more money in order to even more money.