History of Crime & Punishment 

Crime has existed since the dawn of time, but the ways in which humanity has dealt
with it has evolved. Sometimes it's a direct reflection of our priorities, and other times,
it's an example of our humanity at play. But the evolution of crime and punishment says
a lot about how humanity has grown and evolved, as well. 
It's led to the development of modern criminology, a respected social science with the
aim to prevent crime by learning why and how it occurs. 
So, when did crime and punishment start? How has it changed over the centuries?
What factors lead people to commit crimes? In this guide, we'll answer all these
questions and discuss the historical background of punishment — from the inhumane to
the ethical.

What Is the History of Crime and Punishment?

Often, the punishment did not match the crime and was too severe, which resulted in the
criminal taking on a new role as the victim — and probably seeking revenge of their own. It was
a vicious cycle that led to many blood feuds among families — like the Montagues and the
Capulets in "Romeo and Juliet."

What Is the History of Punishment?

Eventually, people realized that having families constantly seeking revenge on each
other wasn't a productive way to live, so laws and rules regarding crime and punishment
were established.
These new laws were designed so that the punishment matched the crime, even though
more often than not, the punishment was still inflicted by the victim as a form of
revenge. The Code of Hammurabi became one of the first legal codes to be
established, and modern criminal justice is still influenced by it.

Hammurabi and the Laws of Retribution

Hammurabi was a Babylonian king who ruled from 1792 until 1750 B.C.E. The Code of
Hammurabi was a set of legal precedents for different types of crimes and disputes,
ranging from family law to contracts and major crimes — this is one of the earliest
examples of the "innocent until proven guilty" adage that we still follow today. 
The Code of Hammurabi included specific punishments based on the criminal's age,
social class and gender. For example, if a rich man was found guilty of stealing, he
would be charged a higher fine than if a slave was found guilty of stealing. Alternately,
the punishment for killing a rich person would be far more severe than for killing a slave.
But the punishments weren't always as logical as the laws themselves. The
punishments could be extremely gruesome and cruel since they relied heavily upon the
laws of retribution, or "an eye for an eye." So, if a man broke his colleague's leg, then
his punishment would be to have his own leg broken. The punishments could end up
being as severe as mutilation, dismemberment or even violent death.

Plato and Aristotle

Early philosophers play a major role in how we look at crime and punishment today.
They also help us understand why crime and punishment are important. They helped
humanity understand that the reason for committing a crime can have an impact on how
severe a punishment should be.
Plato and Aristotle, in particular, are responsible for our understanding of the
relationship between crime and punishment today. These two philosophers helped us
understand why it's equally important to uncover why a person commits a crime as it is
to ensure others don't commit the same crime. They also pointed out that the two are
often closely related, as well:

 Plato: Plato claimed that a major reason why people commit crimes was because of a lack
of education and wealth. People who lived in poverty and who were uneducated — probably
because they couldn't afford to get an education — were more likely to commit crimes, often
just to survive. Plato believed that crimes should be punished, of course, but the punishment
should reflect the degree of fault rather than the severity of the crime. For example, if a man
was caught stealing bread to feed his starving family, he should receive a lesser punishment
than a man who steals bread for himself.
 Aristotle: Meanwhile, Aristotle was explaining that punishments and responses to crime
should be used as an opportunity to prevent others from committing crimes. He believed that
when criminals receive punishment, it should be severe enough that it warns the rest of
society to not commit the same crime while also reminding the criminal to not commit a crime
again.

Roman Law and Secularism

The Romans were the first people to look at crime and punishment as a purely human
trait. Historical crime and punishment commonly claimed that punishing a criminal was
"doing God's work" and that committing a crime was the same as sinning. 
But the Romans saw crime as an insult to society as a whole, and Roman Law was
established to bring order to society. Roman Law was less concerned about pleasing
religious deities and more concerned with ensuring society was safe, orderly and fair. 
Many of the basics of Roman Law are still practiced in modern civil law and criminal
justice in the 21st century.

Middle Ages and Christianity

The evolution of crime and punishment took a few steps backward in the Middle Ages
when the rise of Christianity made it closely linked to religion again. This meant, once
again, crimes were considered to be acts against God, and punishments for these
crimes were God's work.
The punishments were still cruel, severe and often inhumane, because they
were designed to rid the criminal of the devil's influence. Historical crime and
punishment were violent and gory, including a type of punishment designated for
situations in which a person's guilt was unclear. 
In a "trial by ordeal," a person would be put into a life-threatening situation, and their
survival would reveal whether they were guilty or innocent.

St. Thomas Aquinas

It wasn't until St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his "Summa Theologica," a treatise on law,
crime and punishment, that the history of punishment started turning towards
secularism. Aquinas explained that there was a God-given "natural law" that existed and
that humans were naturally designed to do good. 
When a human committed a crime, Aquinas believed it was both an affront on God as
well as society. He claimed that crimes negatively impacted both the victims and the
criminals. The victim was negatively impacted because they were the victim of a crime,
but the criminal was to be pitied because, by committing a crime, they were moving
further away from God and losing their humanness.
It was Aquinas and his compassionate take on punishments that helped create modern
laws.

Cesare Beccaria and Secularism

Secularism has popped up and disappeared several times throughout the history
of crime and punishment. But the eventual separation of church and state brought
around a new way of thinking about crime and punishment — a way that stuck. 
Italian writer Cesare Beccaria wrote a book — called "On Crime and Punishment" — in
which he stated that punishments should match the severity of a crime and that it
should be a way to scare others from committing crimes. 
This isn't a new idea, of course, but it caught the attention of many, since Beccaria also
stated that it was more important to prevent crime than to punish it. He also believed
that there should be laws and rules in place that everyone must follow when it comes to
doling out punishments. He believed that judges should only be allowed to decide if a
person was guilty or innocent and that any punishments that needed to be given should
be picked from a pre-approved list.
This meant that judges couldn't simply make up whatever punishment they wanted for a
guilty criminal. They now had to follow the legislature that specifically stated what the
punishment for certain crimes would be, which made it impossible for any judges who
still enjoyed cruel and unusual punishment to torture people.
How Has Crime and Punishment Changed Today?
The biggest change in how we deal with crimes and criminals today is in the types of
punishments that are legally allowed. We no longer punish criminals as an act of
revenge, and we have, thankfully, done away with torturous punishments, designed to
humiliate and inflict pain. Instead, we now focus more on responding to crime with
reform. 
We also don't have public punishments anymore — while public executions and
floggings used to be typical, we now understand that those punishments were less for
the sake of rehabilitation and more a way to publicly humiliate a person. Eventually,
punishments for crimes became less public and more private.

The Rise of Prisons

Before the 18th century, prisons were mostly used to hold prisoners before their trial or
before their public corporal punishment. They weren't considered to be very good at
deterring criminals from becoming repeat offenders or a legitimate way to punish a
person.
However, as lawmakers began to outlaw public punishments, prisons started to become
popular. As a result, 18th-century prisons were extremely overcrowded. Prisoners would
often fall ill and die because they were crammed together in small, filthy spaces.
Prison overcrowding was so bad that Britain began banishing criminals to isolated
lands, like Australia and the Americas. Plus, prisoners were not separated by crime or
even by gender — so a murderer and a petty thief were thrown into the same room with
hundreds of other criminals without a second thought. 
Corrupt jailers and a lack of staff to help keep the prison safe and secure made for even
worse circumstances — and many times, people would stay in prison for longer than
their sentence because they couldn't afford to pay the jailers to let them out.
People began suggesting the need for prison reform, but it wasn't until the 19th century
that it truly began.

How Did Prisons Change in the 19th Century?

The 19th century saw prison reform in the way of individual cells. Advocates like
Elizabeth Fry worked to improve the conditions for women in prison and took it upon
herself to teach imprisoned women certain skills.
Men's prisons often had cruel practices, such as forcing prisoners to remain
isolated — not even allowed to talk, in some cases — and inactive. Corporal
punishment, like flogging, was still the norm, just done inside prison walls now — this
resulted in many prisoners killing themselves, supporting Fry's claim that prisons were
inhumane and uncivilized. She advocated for improvements for the lives of prisoners
and helped change society's attitude about prisons and prisoners — mainly that
prisoner rehabilitation was a better use of taxes.

How Did Prisons Change Over Time?

From the early 20th century through today, prisons have changed and been improved
as we become more and more aware of how humanity functions. The cruel and unusual
punishments that still hung around in prisons in the 19th century began to be phased
out, once it was understood that they were ineffective. 
Instead, we now focus more on rehabilitation and reform. Improvements in the prison
system include better food, sanitary conditions and the opportunity for inmates to take
classes and learn useful trade skills they can use once freed. Instead of focusing on
how to punish people for crimes they've committed, we now work to understand what
led them to commit the crime and find ways to prevent others from following similar
paths.
We also have started to understand the importance of prison as a place in which to
rehabilitate the person, so they can return to society with new skills and education that
may not have been available to them before. 

Visit the Crime and Punishment Museum at Volo

Knowing the historical background of crime and punishment and the evolving timeline of
criminology allows us to change how we treat our fellow humans. Some people believe
that prisons are no longer a good way to deter crime or to rehabilitate prisoners. Some
believe that prisons are too comfortable to be adequate punishment. 

REFERENCE
https://www.volocars.com/blog/history-of-crime-and-punishment?
fbclid=IwAR0pK2eUHpwoqAWep5wQu5wfFwgimwg1QKTrq_A3kMhS6MutKnK5siaZS0
E