Why did the police in 1888

As the killings increased in their ferocity, the police found themselves subjected to growing press and public criticism. One of the biggest criticisms was that no reward was being offered that might lead to the perpetrator being identified. On 7th September The Weekly Herald, commenting on the police investigation into the Jack the Ripper murders which at that point were known as the "Whitechapel Murders" reported on the murder of Mary Nichols, — which had taken place on 31st August — that: It is believed that these gangs, who make their appearance during the early hours of the morning, are in the habit of blackmailing these unfortunate women, and when their demands are refused violence follows, and in order to avoid their deeds being brought to light they put away their victims.

Why did the police in 1888

There was a widespread belief among ordinary people, male and female, that it was every man's 'right' to beat his wife so long as it was to 'correct her' if she did anything to annoy or upset him or refused to obey his orders.

The editor of the Hull Packet 7 Oct remarked that wife-beating was 'being accepted as the habit of the nation'. The phrase 'a stick not thicker than his thumb' was often bandied about. Most magistrates disagreed; only a Why did the police in 1888 number upheld that husbands had such a right [see example].

Lord Lovaine 'could not comprehend the distinction between a man who beat his own wife, and a man who beat another man's wife'. Viscount Palmerston said he did not believe that 'a man was more entitled to commit these injuries upon his own wife, than upon another man's wife.

On the contrary, he thought that it was a greater offence. His own wife was more entitled to expect protection, and another man's wife had her own husband to guard her from injury. The editor of The Times 24 Aug criticised the lenient sentences handed out by magistrates: That anyone should claim to interfere with this supposed right causes them unaffacted surprise.

It is not their wife or child? Are they not entitled to do was they will with their own?


These phrases are not, to their apprehension, metaphorical. The shoes on their feet, the cudgel in their hand, the horse or ass that carries their burden, the wife and children, all are "theirs" and all in the same sense.

Doubtless they are aware that they are not a liberty to inflict death; but when they actually do so, and find that they are tried for murder, they seem to receive the information with a kind of stolid astonishment; and it may well appear to them anomalous that a creature is given up to their power to be kicked or beaten, at the peril of life, as often as temper or intoxication may prompt At present it is the universal belief of the labouring class, that the law permits them to beat their wives, and the wives themselves share the general error.

News reports of wife beating cases were exceedingly common. In Henry Fitzroy MP remarked that 'No one could read the public journals without being constantly struck with horror and amazement at the numerous reports of cases of cruel and brutal assaults perpetrated upon the weaker sex by men who one blushed to think were Englishmen.

Hansard In the House of Lords Earl Granville spoke of 'the horrible cases of assault which constantly met the public eye in the columns of the morning journals', Male editors and reporters frequently expressed concern, outrage and disgust at wife beating and sympathised with the wives. At least one newspaperman remarked that it was impossible for women to get justice in these cases, because while the criminal was comfortably lodged and fed in prison, the poor victim and her wretched children were frequently rendered homeless and starved in the streets.

In some provincial newspapers, however, the tone in which wife-beating cases were reported was clearly intended to create mirth in the reader see example. One correspondent suggested that wife-beaters should be named and shamed on a public noticeboard.

The perpetrators and victims It was common to find that a husband had appeared in court several times before for similar assaults on his wife, or a previous wife. In one case inneighbours testified that the assailant had married four times and had beaten all four wives.

The majority of perpetrators were labourers, ex-policemen, miners, brickmakers, grave-diggers, dockworkers, costermongers and hawkers.

According to The Examiner 15 June 'The habit of beating women was once as common as swearing or drinking in the high circles; it is now chiefly confined to the lower classes'. Indeed, 99 cases out of heard in the magistrates' courts involved the working classes.

Among the few professional men charged were a surgeon, a vet and a barrister. The class discrepancy has various explanations. But there existed a clear difference in attitude between educated professional men who made the laws, and who tried and judged the perpetrators, and who reported and commented on the caseswho had been raised to be gallant and protective to women, and the ignorant, rough working men who beat their wives and often thought they had a perfect right to do so.

There was certainly wife-abuse amongst the professional or upper classes, but it was kept hidden, and could often be psychological or financial instead of physical.

When physical violence erupted the wives had more space to escape, more locks on doors, servants to come to their rescue, money at their disposal, wealthy family members to shelter them, who, being more educated and genteel, were more appalled at the husbands' violence than were the rough, uneducated, poverty-stricken neighbours, friends and relations of working class victims.

One MP and magistrate who helped pass anti-wife-beating laws, then sat in judgement of and punished wife-beaters is now known to have been one himself. George Norton psychologically, financially and physically abused his wife Carolineobliging their domestic servants to intervene on more than one occasion.

Any kind of marital trouble was considered shameful and so everyone in polite society would have conspired to keep it a secret. The victims were often described as sober, industrious women struggling to be as good wives and others as possible in appalling circumstances.

Some wives were drunk at the time, some were habitual drunkards, no doubt having turned to drink to erase their misery. Court reports show that women of all ages were beaten: The vast majority were mothers of small children and it was commonly reported that the wife had a baby in her arms at the time of the assault.

Why did the police in 1888

Men who were brutal to their wives were invariably also brutal to their children. A small number of women killed their husbands, but were most likely to use poison rather than physical violence, though there was a case in of a woman beating her husband and another in in which she killed her husband by beating him with a stick.Spotlight > Whistle Categories > Police > For many beginning collectors, using Collecting Police Whistles by Martyn Gilchrist might be a leap too far right now.

Related Posts

Yet there may be a real interest in police issued whistles and nowhere to start on a smaller scale to learn about them. Assistant Chief of Police Kelly Harris joined the Boynton Beach Police Department in September Her initial assignment was to the Uniform Services Patrol Division, where she served as a road patrol officer, Field Training Officer and high liability department trainer.

Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and torosgazete.com Social norms and beliefs. During the s wife beating was extremely common and only caused outrage if it was exceptionally brutal or endangered life. Sep 01,  · Google removed this video but a reader sent in a copy.

Watch how the media carefully manipulates coverage of the events of 9/11, as they interview ‘experts’ who provide the cover story that has gone to make up the standard govt/media version of 9/ Below is a list of all of our episodes in chronological order.

DTR: Steve’s Vietnam Excursion In a change of pace this episode doesn’t feature a mystery; instead it features the team talking about SE Asia.

British Women's Emancipation since the Renaissance