crime and criminal statistics in nineteenth-century massachusetts

Crime and Criminal Statistics in Nineteenth-Century MassachusettsAuthor(s): Roger LaneSource: Journal of Social History, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1968), pp. 156-163Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786747 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 06:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofSocial History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.109 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:21:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786747?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ROGER LANE

CRIME AND CRIMINAL STATISTICS IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY MASSACHUSETTS

There is a special place in the traditional Amencan folklore of the city for the themes of vice and violence. As an article of the con-

ventional wisdom, the notion of a special urban propensity for criminal behavior is widely shared among citizens, politicians, and scholars alike. Even the President's Commission on Crime and Law Enforcement, while clearly anxious to allay an obsessive public concern with "safety in the streets," has asserted an apparently functional and long-standing connection between the growth of cities and the growth of crime.l Historians and cnminologists have both, over the years, endorsed the same conclusion.

But despite its age and breadth, this particular anti-urban myth is simply unfounded. There is little long-term evidence to support it. For any period before 1930, when the National Crime Index was instituted, the necessary research must be confined to scarce or uneven local records. Urban historians have generally neglected this aspect of social history, while criminologists, already vexed by the manifold inadequacies of modern data, have rarely risked their sophisticated analytical tools on the jagged materials of another era.2 As a result, few serious statistical studies exist for any time be-

Professor Lane is in the Department of History of Haverford College. 1 The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A Report by the President's Com-

mission on Law Enforcesnent and Administration of Justice (Wash., 1967), pp. 28-3 1.

2 Among historians the one exception has been the study of penology and penal reform; see, notably, Blake McKelvey's American Prisons: A Stady in Americall Social History Prior to 1915 (Chicago, 1936) and several more popular books by Harry Elmer Barnes, such as The Evolution of Penology in Pennsylvania (Indianapolis, 1927) Most of the contributions in this field, however, are wholly innocent of numbers; the concern is what was done with men in prisons, not why or how or how many got there. Early urban historians, largely interested in "problems," such as the "rise" in criminal behavior, were not concerned with statistical documentation. Even McKelvey, the one major scholar who has dealt with both urban history and penology, simply asserts "mounting criminal ratios" in the nineteenth-century U.S. (See The Urbanization of America, 1860-1915 [New Brunswick, 1963], p. 124).



CRIME IN 1 9th CENTURY MASSACHUSETTS 1 57

fore Prohibition; these do not, in general, point to any clear connection between urban growth and the crime rate.3 And a close in- vestigation of the criminal statistics of nineteenth-century Massachusetts, a reasonably representative industrial state, reveals in fact an entirely different pattern.4

This data from Massachusetts challenges the traditional as- sumptions at two levels. First, the available evidence points to the fact that serious crime was not increasing but decreasing between 1835, the first date for which reasonable records are available, and the turn of the century. Second, while a full explanation for this decline would require a social history beyond the limits of a brief study, the structure of the evidence suggests that, under relatively stable conditions, the urban-industrial growth of the commonwealth was itself a major contribution. In short, the growth of cities had a literally "civilizing' effect on the population affected.

Since the analysis of criminal statistics and their relation to the actual incidence of crime is at best a difficult business, it is necessary first to describe the data and the methods used in establishing the brute facts themselves. Most modern studies depend heavily upon police arrest statistics to establish trends or patterns, following the dictum that the value of official records decreases from the point of the actual commission of a crime.5 For present purposes, however, the use of police records is neither possible nor desirable.6

3 See, e.g., Harold A. Phelps, "Frequency of Crime and Punishment," Joarnal of the American lnstitute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. XIX, no. 2 (Aug., 1928), pp. 165-180, and Sam Bass Warner, Crime and Criminal Statistics in Boston (Boston, 1934), pp. 19-27. Phelph's study covers Rhode Island between 1897 and 1927, a period in which his figures show a decrease in the crime rate, although he asserts (p. 67) that urbanization causes crime. Warner's figures, based on arrests, show a relative drop in the more violent oSenses, great increases in minor crime, but in general a fairly constant rate for 1883-1931, the period he covers.

4 The choice of Massachusetts was dictated simply by the availability of the relevant statistics in that commonwealth, probably the best kept in the United States.

5 Thorstein Sellin and Marvin E. Wolfgang, The Measurement of Delinquency (New York, 1964), p. 31.

6 The use of police statistics is not possible, first because many localities had no police for most of the period, and second because no statewide compilations were made until near the end of the century. It is not desirable because of the widely varying practices of different departments with regard to minor crimes and to the frequent use of 'dragnet' arrests in serious cases. Arrest statistics, even more than others, are misleading unless the investigator has an acquaintance with depart- mental history and policy.

Two notabIe recent articles by criminologists, both based on arrest figures, are Elwin Powell's "Crime as a Function of Anomie," in the Journal of Criminal Law,



158 journal of social history

It is thus necessary to find other indices of real criminal activityS defined as behavior which involves genuine personal injury or loss. Four available sets of records do fit this test: those for lower court cases, jail commitments, grand jury cases, and state prison commitments, all involving the major common law oSenses against persons or property.7 The first three-year period in which all four were officially compiled in trustworthy form is 1860-1862, the first such period in which any two of them were so compiled is 1834-1836. Both sets of figures are compared with those for the end of the century in Table I.

TABLE I. Average Yearly Incidence of Cases per 100,000 Population8

1834-1836 1860-1862 1899-1901

Lower court cases -- 777 707 Jail commitments -- 333 163 Grand jury cases 89 117 63 Imprisonments 16.8 11.9 5.9

Crintinology, and Police Science (June, 1966), pp. 123-9 which deals with Buffalo from 1854-1956, and Theodore Ferdinand, "The Criminal Patterns of Boston since 1849," The American Journal of Sociology (July, 1967), pp. 84-99, which runs to 1951. Both are concerned with the social dislocations and events which create short-term fluctuations, but both also indicate, without stressing this, a notable long-term proportionate decline in major offenses. Historians may object to parts of both articles, but they contain material of considerable interest.

7 The remarkable stability of the Massachusetts criminal code enables these comparisons. All changes are summarized in the Revised Statutes of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. . . 1835 (Boston, 1936), chs. 125, 126, The General Statutes, . . . 1859 (Boston, 1860), chs. 159, 160; The Public Statutes . . t 1$81 (Boston, 1882), chs. 202, 203, and The Revised Laws . . . 1901 (Boston, 1902), chs. 208, 209. Although the number of statutory offenses was multiplied enorInously, neither the defixlition of nor punishment for the major common law crimes was altered appreciably, with the exception of a series of laws which eliminated the death penalty for armed robbery, arson, rape, treason against the commonwealth, and second degree murder, all passed between 1839 and 1858. The one major change in the rules governing the prison population was the creation in 1885 of the Concord Reformatory, primarily for young first offenders. Prison records indicate, however, that this move affected the population not of the Charlestown State Prison but of the various local Houses of Correction. See Commissioners of Prisons: Annual Report for the Year Ending Decen1ber 31J

1900, Mass. Public DocuInent no. 13 (1900), p. 213, and P.D. no. 13 (1887). Annual Prison Report p. 9.

8 Figures are obtained from the following: Lower courts: P.D. no. 23, Criminal Statistics (1860), pp. 118-119; P.D. no. 18, Criminal Statistics (1861), pp. 330-331; P.D. no. 18, Criminal Statistics (1862), pp. 300-301; P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison Report (1899), p. 261; P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison Report (l900), p. 268; P.D. no. 41, Annual Prison Report ( 1901), p. 198. Jailings: P.D. no. 21 Returns of Jail* (1860), pp. 16-17; P.D. no. 19, Returns of Jails pp. 16-17; P.Db no. 19, Returns of Jails (1862), pp. 18-19; P.D. no. 13, A:nnual Prison Reporz- (1900), p. 214 (contains 1899 figures); P.D. no. 41> Annual Prison Report (19Ol)



CRIME IN 1 9th CENTURY MASSACHUSETTS 1 59

The decline in the officially recorded rate of criminal behavior is unmistakable. Equally significant, for purposes of this study, is the pattern of the decline. In terms of degree of seriousness the four indices in Table I may be ranked in the reverse of the order in which they appear; ffiat is, lower court cases are least serious, jailings next, grand jury cases third, and imprisonments most. And with one exception - the relative rise in indictments between the lS30's and the 1860's, which will be discussed later - it is notable that the decline in the crime rate is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offense. Other data point in the same direction; not only a fall over time, but a fall most marked in the most serious categories, least marked in the least serious.9

The point here may be underlined further by some of the available figures hitherto omitted. When total lower court cases are compared, that is, those which involve "criines against public order," such as drunkenness, as well as those against persons or property, the temporal trend is reversed, as shown in Table II.

TABLE II.-Average Yearly Incidence of Cases per 100,000 Populationl°

1840 1860 1900

Total lower court cases 595 1869 3317

pp. 154-155. Indictments: Mass. Senate Doc. no. 1, Artorney General's Report (1835), p. 75; House Doc. no. 2, Attorney General's lleport (1836) pp. 31-47; Senate Doc. no. 2, Attorney General's Report (1837), pp. 23-40; P.D. no. 23, Criminal Statistics (1860), p. 40; P.D. no. 18, Criminal Statistics (1861), p. 48; P.D. no. 18, Criminal Statistics (1862), p. 40, P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison Report (1899), p. 254; P.D. no. 13, Snnual Prison Report (1900), p. 264, P.D. no. 41, Annual Prison Report (1901), p. 193. Prisons: Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Boston Prison Discipline Society (Boston, 1847), p. 118; P.D. no. 25, Annual Prison Report (1860), p. 29; P.D. no. 20, Annual Prison Report (1861), p. 23; P.D. no. 20, Annual Prison Report (1862), p. 23; P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison Report ( 1900), p. 213 (contains 1899 figures); P.D. no. 41, Annual Prisos Report (1901), p. 157. All population figures, here and throughout, are from The . . . Censlls of Massachusetts . . . 1905 (Boston, 1909), Vol. 1, p. xxxi. In the case of years, such as 1861, which do not appear in the five year intervals, the population is calculated by standard statistical procedures. Except for 1899-1901, all years or periods are chosen for the single reason that they are the first in which a given record is available in reliable form. It happens that none is affected by any of the short-term dislocating events which affect crime rates; even 1862 was not unusual, as the full impact of Civil War was not reflected until later.

9 It is generally true, for example, when commitments for specific crimes are compared; the combined rates of commitment for homicide. rape, robbery, and arson in 1860-1862 is 6.8 per 100,000; in 1899-1901 it is 2.9 per 100,000 (for references? see note 7, above).

10 Senate Doc. no. 15 (1841), Attorney General's Report, p. 21; P.D. no. 23,



160 journal of social history

A similar pattern is illustrated (see Table III), somewhat less strikingly, by the available numbers for total jailings again includ- ing these minor offenses against public order.

TABLE III.- Average Yearly Incidence of Cases per 100,000 Population

1841 1860 lso(

Total jail commitments 419 548 969

The figures from all three tables, when compared, demonstrate the crucial fact that, for the century as a wholeX while the serious crime rate was falling, the total crime rate was rising. Moreover, there is a real inverse relationship between the two curves, essential to understanding their direction. The model they suggest is a simple one. A fall in the real crime rate allows officially accepted standards of conduct to rise; as standards rise, the penal machinery is extended and refined; the result is that an increase in the total number of cases brought in accompanies a decrease in their relative severity.

The statistical r3ise is of course accounted for entirely by drunkenness and similar misdemeanors. This in turn simply reflects the increase in professional police and the penal apparatus. No full-time professionals existed anywhere in the commonwealth in 1834 but by 1860 the larger cities had organized forces of varying sizes, and by 1900 these had grown and spread to the smaller towns.-l2 The effect of thisX and of a parallel multiplication of magistratesS prose- cutorsS and jail cells, is easily measured. Private citizens may initiate the processes of justice when injured directlyS but professionals are usually required to deal with those whose merely immoral or distasteful behavior hurts no one in pa:rticular. It takes real cops to make drunk arrests.

It is notable here that, as time advanced and it became easier to find and complain to a policemanS fewer complaints about serious loss or injury were being made. In the city of Boston, at least, the result was a progressive decrease in the number of annual arrests made by each patrolman.13 This in turn suggests the second reason

Criminal Stcztistics ( 1860), pp. 118-119; P.D. no. 13? Antaual Prison Repost (1900) p. 272. 1840 is the first year for which this figure was published.

11 House Doc. no. 12, Returns of Jails (1842), n.p.; P.D. no. 24, Returtls of Juils, pp. 10-11; P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison Report ( 1900) p. 213. 1841 is the first year for which this figure was published

1 Unfortunately neither the state nor federal census allows an accurate report on the number of policemen, by modern definition, on a statewide basis.

13 Roger Lane? Policing the Cityn BostonJ 1822-1885 (Cambridges I967)? ppw 228-229



CRIME IN 1 9th CENTURY MASSACHUSETTS 161

for the rise in the totals; as the serious or real cnme rato eased, the public and the authorities were able to raise the offlcially condoned standards of conduct, to concern themselves with those third-class offenses previously overlooked.

The process was surely not confined to disorderly behavior, and it seems likely that a larger number of relatively small crimes in the persons and property categorses was overlooked in the earlier years. Note that the farther back the figures go, the higher is the relative proportion of serious crimes among those recorded. With limited resources, the authorities obviously had to deal with felony first, indictable crime next, and misdemeanor only when energy and circumstances warranted. Conversely, given a relatively primitive penal machinery, geared in practice for the coarser items, the citizens were accustomed to handling minor oSenses by themselves.

Such a model may be used to explain the one apparent anomaly in Table I, the increase in indictments between the 1830's and ffie 1 860's, despite the falling rate of pnson commitments. If the model may be extended so far, there is no paradox at all. In the earlier year, the higher incidence of really violent criminal behavior forced the district attorneys to concentrate on clearly prisonable felonies, to the neglect even of other indictable cases. By the 1860's, a decrease in the former enabled more attention to the latter.

It is entirely possible, however, that the model may not be fully applicable to the period in question. However closely analyzed, the supplementary evidence remains ambiguous, while the two main indices continue to point stubbornly in two possible directions.l4

14 Note that the figures for 1835 and 1860 are not statistical accidents, but fit with those for the years in between.

In the case of imprisonrnents, one significant fact is the increasing severity of the judiciary; the median sentence given prisoners at Charlestown fell between two and two and one-half years in 1840, between three and one-half and four in 1860, between four and five in 1900. See Senate Doc. no. 4, Annual Prison Report (1840), p. 10; P.D. no. 25, Annual Prison Report (1860), pp. 28-29; P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison Report, pp. 8-9. This could conceivably mean that a more serious class of offenders was being sent up in the later years. It appears, however, that the increase was created entirely by the tendency of prosecutors to indict on charges of "breaking and entering" and similar non-violent crimes against property those who had before been tried for "simple larceny," a lesser offense. Thus the change is in definition and not in fact, a reflection of a more precise and less tolerant attitude towards crime; otherwise the range of offenses seems comparable in all three periods. The total figures for indictments are: 1834-1836, 549 cases, 418 indictments, 346 convictions; 1860-1862, 1442 cases, 1256 indictments, 646 convictions; 1898-1900 (1901 is not available), 1615 cases, 1384 indictments, 1154 convictions. (See note 7, and P.D. no. 13, Annual Prison



162 journal of social history And a glance at the social and economic history of ie commonwealth suggests that the long generation between 1835 and 1860 may illustrate at least a partial, and important, exception to the general rule described here.

From the Civil War to the end of the century, the urban-industrial development of Massachusetts was often painful for those affected. But change was at least proceeding at a pace and along lines already laid out. It was the preceding era which witnessed the real turbulence of transition. No similar time span encompassed a more rapid percentile increase in urbanization. Between 1835 and 1860, while the total population was growing from 660,940 to 1,231,066 the proportion of city dwellers leapt from 19 to 44 percent. It was between these dates too that the major rail lines were laid out and that steam began to replace water power as the main source of industrial energy, enabling factory industry to move into the population centers. Social dislocation, meanwhile, accompanied economic. Heavy Irish immigration in the 1840's and 1850's ex- acerbated all of the problems of city living. Uprooted from a rural setting, seeking something better, the newcomers often found only hopelessness and alienation, while their miserable habits of life strained the institutions of charity and police. The political tensions posed by ethnic conflict were aggravated further by divisions over an unpopular war, and the overhanging threat of a bigger one. Under such conditions, in nineteenth-century Massachusetts or elsewhere, it would scarcely be surprising if the tendency of the crime rate to drop over time were not slowed or even reversed.

But of the existence of the normative trend the criminal records correctly interpreted, leave no doubt. The most important question remains: Granted the existence of a process something like the model described above why the change in standards, the drop in seriously criminal behavior, the expansion of the penal apparatusi? Criminologists traditionally correlate short-term changes with such specific events as war and depression. But the trend here is so long and so marked as to suggest a connection with the most fundarnental of contemporary social processes, that of industrial urbanizatiorz itself. The nature of the link cannot be described in any detail, but it may at least be indicated. Report (1898), pp. 257-258, for references.) It is hard to draw any conclusions from this except that l9th-century judges and juries were more tolerant than their modern successors; the figures would appall a contemporary distriet attorney.



CRIME IN 1 9th CENTURY MASSACHUSETTS 163

At the beginning of the period covered, in 1835, Massachusetts had a population of about 660,940, 81 percent rural, still over- whelmingly pre-industrial and native born.l5 Its inhabitants, used to living and working independently, wexe more free than law- abiding, not easily constrained by formal rules. Although scarcely a frontier, the commonwealth was used to this condition and was prepared to tolerate considerable disorder. No city in the state boasted a full-time professional police. The machinery of justice was not equipped to handle many cases, and the citizens often ignored their lesser injuries or dealt with them privately.

By 1900, in contrast, the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were 76 percent urban. And the move to the cities had produced, for better and worse, a more tractable, more "civilized," more socialized generation than its predecessors. What had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in one whose members were living close together, whose habits were gov- erned by the clock, and whose livelihood, controlled by a supervisor, was dependent upon cooperation and a delicate inter- dependence. All cities and many towns had acquired police forces. And throughout the state, the victims of violence and theft were conditioned to seek ofEcial help. The whole system of cnminal justice had expanded to meet new demands. As a relative decrease in major offenses eased the task of dealing with minor ones, the system was increasingly able to undertake the task of "maintaining order," of dealing with irregular or distasteful behavior.

In nineteenth-century Massachusetts, then, the figures indicating a "rise in crime" represent at the least a misleading half-truth. Further study may well show that the case is similar for other times and places. If so, we should readjust the conventional notion of an inevitable urban viciousness.

Its acceptance on the one hand is part of a continuing tendency to pasteurize the image of our rural past. And on the other it helps to perpetuate that mistrust of the city that has haunted our society for too long.

16 The urban definition in the Massachusetts Census of 1905 is based on a population of 8000.



crime and criminal statistics in nineteenth-century massachusetts

Documents