Educated Londoners in the early 1800s, frightened by crime, tended to demonize the city's criminals, attributing sophistication, organisation and vigour to them. In reality, conventional Metropolitan crime was the product of acute social disorganisation, most of its exponents coming from a marginalised stratum of the urban lower working class. Change in Metropolitan policing was heavily oriented towards combating the unsophisticated, opportunistic, street crime and public disorder that characterised this group's deviance, and (independently of this) at promoting new standards of public order and decorum. The new police made an important, if sometimes exaggerated, contribution to the major reduction in Metropolitan street crime, pickpocketing, robbery, theft from shop fronts, assaults etc. that occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century. They also contributed significantly to the reduction in most other forms of deviance, as well as dramatically enhancing public order. However, historically, the significance of a simple police presence on the streets has been greatly exaggerated. The Metropolitan force were most effective against crime indirectly, promoting social discipline in a manner that closely accords with modern 'broken windows' theory. They were much less successful in directly combating conventional crime. As this became increasingly apparent in the decades after 1829, many came to believe that the institutional result achieved in 1829, and characterised by the triumph of the 'Peelite' school of preventative policing, was inherently flawed. This prompted further change, in particular, a major reassessment of the importance of detective work. Additionally, although a 'broken windows' approach to policing was fairly effective, it had an inescapable darker side. The imposition of new standards of public behaviour and order impinged on many 'traditional' and popular aspects of urban working class life, exciting bitter antipathy amongst the policed. It threatened long accepted civil liberties, which were increasingly attenuated during the century, and impinged on rights to 'due process', which, for minor offences, were greatly reduced. Even more alarmingly, the 'broken windows' approach to urban policing was the raw material for police abuse of power, whether in the form of corruption, perjury or brutality. This was, in part, the price paid for the radically improved personal and public security of the late Victorian period.

No description available.

Within Victorian society there was a public perception that within the wider field of class there were a number of levels at the bottom of which was a criminal class. This, a very diverse group growing out of the working class, was considered to be responsible for the vast majority of offences ranging from begging to murder. Following the ending of transportation in the 1850’s the Metropolitan Police were faced with a number of new problems and responsibilities. These left them open to allegations that they were so targeting sections of the community that they were creating this criminal class from within the casual poor and those already known to police. As the period progressed the police were given wider powers to deal with the changed situation as well as extra responsibility for the compilation of criminal records and the supervision of released convicts. As a result of these changes allegations were made that the police so harassed those on tickets of leave and under supervision that it impossible for many to obtain employment. In order for this to have the case it would have been necessary for the police to be able to identify those with previous criminal convictions and to target their resources against them. The way in which resources were to be used had been established in 1829 with the objective of preventing crime, by way of uniformed officers patrolling beats and concentrating on night duty. Police resources were not efficiently used and failed to adapt to changing circumstances. In particular, whilst the available evidence especially for the early years is not complete it will be argued that, despite the allocation of considerable resources, the police were very poor at a very important part of their role, that of the identification of criminals. The concept of a criminal class has been examined in two ways. There was a ‘subjective’ public perception of the situation which included all those committing offences but it is argued that in reality what happened was that there were a series of legislative changes focussing on a gradually reducing group of habitual offenders which can properly be called a criminal class. This small group was responsible for the majority of serious crime during the period. As a result the police came to be targeting a very narrowly defined group and they as the agents, the public face of the changes, were the ones against whom complaints were most commonly made. This research shows that the Metropolitan Police were very poor at some important aspects of their role and that they were given additional responsibilities without always having the proper backing of the legislative framework. It also shows that the police were very aware of the difficulties they faced in dealing with released convicts and took great pains not only to allay public fears but also made contributions to the well being of many of those released from prison.