Theme One: Unique Criminal Patterns Compared To Other Classes
Criminal behaviour amongst the nobility during the Fourteenth-Century was distinct from the lower orders for several reasons. In her article Hanawalt defines the nobility as the “fur-collar” class and defines this group as ranging from the wealthy and ancient gentry to the higher nobility. The main distinction Hanawalt remarks that most of the crimes the nobility committed during the Fourteenth-Century related to their control of wealth and power. Most of their criminal activity related to their occupations and position in society, therefore it was not considered criminal and even tolerated and expected, as long as it did not become excessive. This class tended not to commit felonious …show more content…
The wealthier nobility with large households committed less violent crimes, preferring to hire or order someone to carry out those crimes. If they had enough wealth they commonly did not commit robbery. Whereas the lower ranks of the nobility tended to commit the crimes themselves or led gangs from which the upper nobles hired to commit crimes. Knights and the poorer nobles tended to commit the most robberies, in an attempt to continue their lavish lifestyles. Lower gentry criminality worsened with economic situation worsened. Money was also a factor that determined the level of personal involvement, as maintain men and dressing them in livery was expensive, even on a temporary …show more content…
Their position of influence and connections in society also made it difficult to control and prosecute them. Often the government chose alternatives to direct confrontation, especially as nobles had many techniques to subvert justice, such as intimidation, bribes or kingship/social connections. Sometimes the king relied on commissions and justices with special powers granted by the king to hear and determine cases. Other times the king tried to enact statutes and laws to help curb the problem. However, mostly the idea was to regulate not eradicate noble crimes. Another approach was to elevate crimes to more serious charges, such as treason. This gave the king more legal clout to act and punish the offender. Hanawalt argues the most effective methods involved skipping the courts and punishing or rewarding the nobles through positions for land. This involved such practices as sending the nobles to fight in the foreign wars, appointing them to peacekeeping or administrative positions or confiscating their lands. These schemes were generally more successful then trying to seek justice through the courts. Given the limitations, Hanawalt argues that the fourteenth century kings were effective in diverting nobles from criminal
Criminal behaviour amongst the nobility during the Fourteenth-Century was distinct from the lower orders for several reasons. In her article Hanawalt defines the nobility as the “fur-collar” class and defines this group as ranging from the wealthy and ancient gentry to the higher nobility. The main distinction Hanawalt remarks that most of the crimes the nobility committed during the Fourteenth-Century related to their control of wealth and power. Most of their criminal activity related to their occupations and position in society, therefore it was not considered criminal and even tolerated and expected, as long as it did not become excessive. This class tended not to commit felonious …show more content…
The wealthier nobility with large households committed less violent crimes, preferring to hire or order someone to carry out those crimes. If they had enough wealth they commonly did not commit robbery. Whereas the lower ranks of the nobility tended to commit the crimes themselves or led gangs from which the upper nobles hired to commit crimes. Knights and the poorer nobles tended to commit the most robberies, in an attempt to continue their lavish lifestyles. Lower gentry criminality worsened with economic situation worsened. Money was also a factor that determined the level of personal involvement, as maintain men and dressing them in livery was expensive, even on a temporary …show more content…
Their position of influence and connections in society also made it difficult to control and prosecute them. Often the government chose alternatives to direct confrontation, especially as nobles had many techniques to subvert justice, such as intimidation, bribes or kingship/social connections. Sometimes the king relied on commissions and justices with special powers granted by the king to hear and determine cases. Other times the king tried to enact statutes and laws to help curb the problem. However, mostly the idea was to regulate not eradicate noble crimes. Another approach was to elevate crimes to more serious charges, such as treason. This gave the king more legal clout to act and punish the offender. Hanawalt argues the most effective methods involved skipping the courts and punishing or rewarding the nobles through positions for land. This involved such practices as sending the nobles to fight in the foreign wars, appointing them to peacekeeping or administrative positions or confiscating their lands. These schemes were generally more successful then trying to seek justice through the courts. Given the limitations, Hanawalt argues that the fourteenth century kings were effective in diverting nobles from criminal