Are we more 'enlightened' now?

M0nica

It would not bother me to discover that I had an ancestor who was criminal or worse. That was them. I am me. I find all this coyness over the past and how it upsets modern sensibilities makes me feel quite queasy.

The past is the past, there is nothing you can do to affect it, anymore than any apology to those long dead is of any use to them. All it does is help people today feel better about themselves for no good reason.

I use the quote facility because I am in total agreement with this view.
The ME society seems to be taking over some countries.
Let us be practical, yes, and acknowledge that times were so different then, and rejoice that they are not that way now, but move on and live with new values.
While accepting that values will change once more in the future.

I think there is a very definite notion of the 'undeserving poor' that hasn't moved very far from the Victorian version. We don't have workhouses, but we have a punitive benefits system and regular calls for people to have to work in created schemes for benefits. I don't see much enlightenment in that.

growstuff

Records of crimes are available in historic newspapers. As far as I know, no 100 year rule applies.

I found out from www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ that my father was fined for speeding two years before I was born.

It's not just newspapers. The 1939 registration of all the people in the UK (though just adults, IIRC) done because of the war, is freely available. Also the land ownership survey done in about 1911/12 in preparation for a proposed Land Tax, was available in 2000 when I was researching a piece of local land. Ship and airline passenger manifests from less than 100 years ago are also available. The 100 year rule isn't universal.

@nanna8
I worked in a prison . It has a book about its history . The youngest person hung there was a young lad that had been caught stealing a piglet.
The also shocking thing was his father had lifted him over the wall
and instructed him to do it. Tragic.

I'm agreeing with MOnica ?

I don't think we're any more 'enlightened' than our forebears... particularly with recent governments that have pandered to the most 'unenlightened' in our society.

Hellsbelles

@nanna8
I worked in a prison . It has a book about its history . The youngest person hung there was a young lad that had been caught stealing a piglet.
The also shocking thing was his father had lifted him over the wall
and instructed him to do it. Tragic.

An interesting fact is that, when sentences were draconian, and automatic, for what seems to us to be trivial amounts, the items stolen were often undervalued by the courts so as to avoid youngsters and vulnerable people being subject to those draconian sentences. So, even then,100/ 200 years ago, there were some enlightened people around. They just need to attain a critical mass for 'enlightenment' to become a key feature of a society.

if you look at history, is there a time when great riches are not the result of some great crime? humanity needs a great leap but how.Look at the state of politics in the past few years, trump, boris? are we progressing,if so towards what?

We all have different outlooks and beliefs. For me, I agree that justice was harsh. If I was in charge NO-ONE would be prison bar any crimes which included violence of any kind and they’d be locked away for a very very long time, rehabilitated whilst inside and taught some form of worthwhile trade. All the rest would have sentences out in the community very appropriate to their crime, eg those vandalising make good and then go onto cleaning streets and parks for the rest of their sentence, those committing financial based or fraud crimes sent to work and repay every single penny. I’ve been inside our prisons (as part of my work), they are not pleasant, well organised or safe. Prisons need to be overhauled as do the sentences

As a historian I feel bound to say that it is wrong to judge any era of the past entirely by the standards of our time.

The past should always partly be judged by what was considered legal and morally right at specific time we are dealing with.

This does not mean that we have to accept that what the 14th, 15th, or any other century believed to be right was right, soley that we should be able to assess whether the particular person or country's standards were acceptable in the time when the deed was committed. We still have the right to say that sending homosexual men to prision along with conscientious objecters during the First World War was wrong, as was burning those accused of witchcraft in the 16th and 17 th centuries , and any number of other atrocities committed in the past were.

However, it should be remembered that many of our grandparents or great-grandparents probably felt as we do that handing down harsh sentences to children who stole was excessive or wrong.

But they would be equally shocked to know that we their descendents are living in a world where politicians may lie with impunity, where children are not taught at an early age that stealing is wrong and when many adults firmly believe that defauding the Inland Revenue "is not really stealing."

All this makes me think how important education, council housing and the welfare state has been for people and the taxation to pay for them. The Tories would roll all that back if they could in the name of low taxes and the 'small state' aided by the disgusting Daily Wail and the rest of the gutter press. The attack on Channel 4 and the BBC is a taste of things to come if the right wing if the Tory party get their way.

Why do we worry about who stole the geese from off the common and ignore who steals common from under the geese?

many adults firmly believe that defauding the Inland Revenue "is not really stealing."

I had a conversation last night with someone who was recommending tradespeople to me to do work on my house, and her main criteria for choosing them was whether they would let her pay in cash so she saved on the VAT and the people would knock off a bit and not declare the job to the taxman. I was unimpressed to say the least. I don't know how anyone who does that can complain about cuts to services, when other people (ie honest taxpayers) are funding them and they are opting out ?.

Also, well said, Grantanow.

Do you know what happened to the father Hellsbelles?

That is an awful story, as the boy would have been caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

It used to be the case that women couldn't testify against their husbands as they had promised to obey them at marriage, so there would be a conflict between marriage vows in church and the oath they swore to God in court. The same logic should have applied to cases like the boy and his father, as disobeying him would contradict the ten commandments.

I think it's still the case that a husband or wife can't be compelled to testify against their partner, but I could be wrong.

I wonder if those two boys went on time and time again to commit crime, albeit small crimes. These days there seems to be a badge of honor for being sent down on a regular basis for doing wrong.

Wealth being shared more equally will not stop crime. Human beings being as they are will always have those who want more than others for less effort. Again education will have little impact. Children already are taught about Citizenship and that seems to fall on deaf ears for a lot given the drug and knife crime amongst the young. What happened to fear of being caught? No fear, given the meaningless penalties. The 10 year old may have stolen something worthless nowadays but it was still stealing.

A bit like the well off, who try to find all sorts of ways to hide their money?
Stealing.
Education really does seem to make little difference to them.

Smileless2012

I think it's still the case that a husband or wife can't be compelled to testify against their partner, but I could be wrong.

I thought it was a one-way thing, as only women promised to obey.

I could be wrong too, though. I've never needed to testify against Mr Dog, and I didn't promise obedience anyway .

A bit like the well off, who try to find all sorts of ways to hide their money?

MissAdventure Do I understand you to be saying that everyone who is well off (definition?) always, every single one, finds all sorts of ways to hide their money?

Do you have any evidence to justify this sweeping statement.

MissA will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she is talking about those of the well-off who hide their money, not saying that all well-off people do so.

Yes, M0nica.
People quite often post on here about different schemes they can use to ensure their money doesn't get swallowed up in care fees.
You are often the person who explains that if this was possible, then everyone would do it.

Oh, and there is,nothing in my sweeping statement to suggest it is everyone.
You must have misconstrued what i said.

But most of those people (who look for schemes to avoid paying care schemes) are not the well off. They are those on average incomes, most of whose capital (the value of their house), would be swallowed up by care fees, leaving nothing for their children to inherit.

You need to separate the amounts of money the government chooses to exempt from taxation from those that are illegal.

For example every person with any income gets a tax free allowance, currently £12,750. That means everyone is complicit in not paying taxes, if they can avoid them. Any money paid into a pension is tax-free and so on from there. If the government said that they would only take a person's income into account when assessing care charges, not their capital, then no scheme to avoid charges would be necessary. It would be a normal tax exemption like saving for a pension.

Pointing out that schemes set up to enable someone to avoid paying care fees will not work is just stating a fact. I would do the same if someone said they were going to invest in any other scam, whether investing in carbon credits or investing in fine wine.

What I am still not clear is the income level that makes someone well-off and means that if they use any tax exemption allowed by the government, for example saving into a pension, it is distasteful, while for someone with an income below that point it is entirely acceptable.

Chestnut

Yes the punishments for minor transgressions in the past were excessive, and especially for children who seem to have had no rights at all. We have moved on and in many ways things are better, but we seem to have gone too far the other way. When you see such lenient sentences for murder and appallingly brutal crimes it is very upsetting. Some of the judges seem to let people off with a slap on the wrist.

The sentence for murder is always life.