LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

and frequently drunk.

      In 1727, Joseph Cotton, the Deputy Steward of Westminster, visited St. Margaret’s Watchhouse and complained that there was “neither Constable, Beadle, Watchman, or other person (save one who was so Drunk that he was not capable of giving any Answer) Present in, or near the said Watchhouse.” A few years later, in 1735, John Goland of Bond Street complained to the Burgesses that he had been robbed three times in five years, noting that he “generally finds the Watchmen drunk, and wandering about with lewd Women.”29

      The watch thus represented neither a significant bulwark against crime nor a major source of power for the state. Yet the watch continued in various forms for 600 years.

      During the eighteenth century, the London Watch underwent a long series of reforms.30 While neglect of duty and drunkenness remained major complaints, most of the characteristics of modern police were introduced to the watch in this period, first in one locale and then in the others. “The goal,” as historian Elaine Reynolds notes, “was a system of street policing that was honest, accountable, and impartial in its administration and operation.”31 Toward this end, several West End parishes began paying watchmen in 1735; most other parishes adopted the practice within the next fifty years.32 During this same time, more men were hired, hours of operation were expanded, command hierarchies and plans of supervision were drafted, minimum qualifications established, record-keeping introduced, and pensions offered.33 Reynolds explains:

      By 1775, Westminster and several neighboring parishes had a night watch system that was both professional and hierarchical in structure, charged with preventing crime and apprehending night walkers and vagabonds. While police authority did remain divided between several local bodies and officials, decentralization was not necessarily synonymous with defectiveness. These parochial authorities put increasing numbers of constables, beadles [church officials], watchmen, and [militia] patrols on the street, paid and equipped them. They spent increased amounts of time disciplining them when they were delinquent and increasing amounts of money on wages.34

      Thus, during the eighteenth century the London Watch came very nearly to resemble the modern police department that replaced it.

      The watch was also supplemented by various private efforts, including a “river police” created by local merchants and taken over by the government in 1800.35 During the first three decades of the nineteenth century, London was what one historian describes as “a patchwork of public and private police forces,” dependent for their authority on a wide array of institutions and officials, including “vestries, church wardens, boards of trustees, commissioners, parishes, magistrates, and courts-leet.”36 Among this mix, we find one group worthy of special notice—the thieftakers, forerunners of the modern detective. Despite their name, thieftakers were less interested in catching thieves than in retrieving stolen property and collecting rewards. The easiest way to do that was to act as a fence for the thieves, returning the goods and splitting the fee. Until his execution in 1725, Jonathan Wild was England’s most prominent thieftaker, controlling an international operation that included warehouses in two countries and a ship for transport.37

      Such was the state of policing when Robert Peel, the home secretary, proposed a plan for a citywide police force. This body, the Metropolitan Police Department—now nicknamed “Bobbies” after their creator, but commonly called “crushers” by the public of the time38—adopted many of the innovations previously introduced in the local watch, adding to these a new element of centralization.39 It thus fulfilled most of the criteria defining modern policing.

      Peel based this effort on his experiences in Ireland, where he had introduced the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1818.40 Hence both the traditional watch and the police system that came to replace it were informed by the experience of colonial rule. They were each created by foreign conquerors to control rebellious populations. Peel had seen the difficulties of military occupation and understood the need to establish some sort of legitimacy. He crafted his police accordingly—first in Ireland, and then, with revisions, in England.41 In London the police uniforms and equipment were selected with an eye toward avoiding a military appearance, though critics of the police idea still drew such comparisons.42

      In 1829, citing a rise in crime (especially property crime), Parliament accepted Peel’s proposal with only a few adjustments.43 The most important of these compromises excluded the old City of London from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police. The old City of London (about one square mile, geographically) retained its own police force, which in 1839 was reorganized on the Metropolitan model.44 Meanwhile, the watch and river police were preserved and proved for some time more effective than the new Metropolitans.45 Still, though they lacked citywide jurisdiction and sole policing authority, the London Metropolitan Police are generally credited as the first modern police department.

      Some historians treat the modern American police as a straightforward application of Peel’s model. As we shall see, however, policing in the United States followed a separate course, motivated by different concerns and producing unique institutional arrangements. In fact, I shall argue that American policing systems, especially those designed for slave control, neared the modern type well before Peel’s reforms.

      Colonial Forerunners

      The American colonies mostly imported the British system of sheriffs, constables, and watches, though with some important differences.

      Sheriffs at first were appointed by governors, and made responsible for apprehending suspects, guarding prisoners, executing civil processes, overseeing elections, collecting taxes, and performing various fiscal functions. Corruption in all of these duties was quite common, with sheriffs accepting bribes from suspects and prisoners, neglecting their civil duties, tampering with elections, and embezzling public funds.46 The sheriff was empowered to make arrests when issued a warrant, or without one in certain circumstances, and was given additional duties during emergencies, but during the colonial period the office was only tangentially concerned with criminal law.47

      The constable’s duties were similarly varied. He was charged with summoning citizens to town meetings, collecting taxes, settling claims against the town, preparing elections, impressing workers for road repair, serving warrants, summoning juries, delivering fugitives to other jurisdictions, and overseeing the night watch. In addition, he was, in theory, expected to enforce all laws and maintain the Crown’s peace.48 In practice, however, constables were paid by a system of fees, and tended to concentrate on the better-paying tasks.49

      In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, both the sheriff and the constable were elected positions.50 Still, they were not popular jobs; many people refused to serve when elected,51 and the authority of each office was commonly challenged, sometimes by violence. In 1756, for example, Sheriff John Christie was killed when trying to make an arrest. James Wilkes was convicted, but was soon pardoned by Governor Sir Charles Hardy, who reasoned that Wilkes

      had imbibed and strongly believed a common Error generally prevailing among the Lower Class of Mankind in this part of the world that after warning the Officer to desist and bidding him to stand off at his Peril, it was lawful to oppose him by any means to prevent the arrest.52

      The fact that such a view would be respected, despite its legal inaccuracy, says a great deal about the weakness of the sheriff’s position.53

      Neither of these offices was designed for what we now consider police work, and neither ever fully adapted itself to that function.54 Constables survived into the twentieth century, though only as a kind of rural relic.55 Sheriffs, meanwhile, retained many of their original duties—especially those concerning jails—and in some places still patrol the unincorporated areas of counties, though even in this respect state police forces sometimes supersede them.

      Rather than invest much authority in these offices, the colonial government relied primarily on informal means of policing. As difficulties arose concerning the behavior of slaves, the delivery of goods, sanitation, street use, gambling, and the like, the local government responded by instituting regulations, which were generally ignored. To remedy this deficiency, the civil authorities called on the family and church to use their influence to bring about compliance. Where that failed, they would institute a system of fines (for violators) and rewards (for informers). They might then direct the

Скачать книгу