Very interesting, and godo context. He is a very interesting character in the history of criminology. I wonder to what degree there were other parallel/similar efforts at criminal identification and also why was this becoming a pressing issue. Was there a rise in crime? Did ideas about the causes of crime change such that it was assumed that most crimes were committed by a small number of people? Did changes in infrastructure meant that criminals could have an easier time moving between places and committing crimes -- resulting in a need to identify if people had committed crimes elsewhere?
These are very interesting questions thank you. Record keeping is a subject I began researching in my thesis and which I'd very much like to examine further. I found that individual urban detective departments began to keep their own records from the earliest period of policing – it seems that it was a logical and natural step. All the individual datasets are different, which is really fascinating. After the introduction of the central register in 1869, I found that the regional police largely ignored it and continued with their own systems. There were also more extensive regional initiatives outside London. It seems to me that these initiatives were driven by perceived local need, which certainly included the increasing ease with which offenders were able to travel from place to place. Also, the reporting of crime increased once processes became more established. I'll be exploring this topic further and I'll share my findings in the newsletter, and I'm interested to know your thoughts and observations. Thanks too for the link to @crime&psychology – I'll certainly check that out!
These differences are indeed fascinating and raise all kinds of follow up questions, (i.e. were people who trained together keeping closer types of records, etc).
This sounds quite insightful and I look forward to reading further.
Very interesting, and godo context. He is a very interesting character in the history of criminology. I wonder to what degree there were other parallel/similar efforts at criminal identification and also why was this becoming a pressing issue. Was there a rise in crime? Did ideas about the causes of crime change such that it was assumed that most crimes were committed by a small number of people? Did changes in infrastructure meant that criminals could have an easier time moving between places and committing crimes -- resulting in a need to identify if people had committed crimes elsewhere?
@crime&psychology recently wrote about Bertillon too. In case you are interested, https://open.substack.com/pub/jasonfrowley/p/the-incredible-and-sad-tale-of-grumpy?r=2bk4r1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
These are very interesting questions thank you. Record keeping is a subject I began researching in my thesis and which I'd very much like to examine further. I found that individual urban detective departments began to keep their own records from the earliest period of policing – it seems that it was a logical and natural step. All the individual datasets are different, which is really fascinating. After the introduction of the central register in 1869, I found that the regional police largely ignored it and continued with their own systems. There were also more extensive regional initiatives outside London. It seems to me that these initiatives were driven by perceived local need, which certainly included the increasing ease with which offenders were able to travel from place to place. Also, the reporting of crime increased once processes became more established. I'll be exploring this topic further and I'll share my findings in the newsletter, and I'm interested to know your thoughts and observations. Thanks too for the link to @crime&psychology – I'll certainly check that out!
These differences are indeed fascinating and raise all kinds of follow up questions, (i.e. were people who trained together keeping closer types of records, etc).
This sounds quite insightful and I look forward to reading further.