Instances of lethal violence over the past 100 years do not show a dramatic increase, writes IAN ODONNELL
AN ANALYSIS of lethal violence in Ireland during two decades separated by 100 years reveals interesting patterns of continuity and change.
Late 19th century killings took place in every county, were largely a male preserve, and regularly involved elderly victims. Heavy drinking was a factor in many deadly squabbles and workplace disputes sometimes resulted in impulsive, but savage, attacks. Weapon use was uncommon and the range of penalties imposed by the courts was wide.
In the closing decade of the 20th century the overall level of homicide was lower and had become concentrated in and around the cities. Victims were younger, shootings and stabbings were prevalent, and sentences were significantly more severe. Alcohol continued to play an important role.
The annual average number of killings in the 26 counties that were to become the Republic of Ireland was 70 in the 1890s. A century later this had fallen to 40. (Recently there has been an upswing with 60 cases of murder and manslaughter recorded in 2009.) Infanticides are excluded from these figures on the basis that very little information other than the number known to the police (invariably a significant underestimate) was available for the late 19th century, and this type of crime had all but disappeared by the end of the 20th century.
There were twice as many elderly victims in the earlier period. The disrespect for infant life that characterised the 19th century is well documented. Perhaps to this should be added a lack of concern for the old and decrepit?
There are other possible explanations, of course. It may be that senior citizens, to a greater extent than their younger compatriots, did not survive encounters that would not have been lethal in the context of the quality of medical care today.
Also, changing economic structures may have played a role. As older people lost their positions controlling domestic wealth and resources in an agrarian society – and as State protections grew – some good reasons for their involvement in bitter conflicts disappeared.
Victims were predominantly male and so too were perpetrators. It was exceptional for women to kill and, when they did, their victims were likely to be members of the same household.
Fights in the 1890s involved fists and feet and sometimes sticks and stones. Occasionally, in a domestic context, a household implement like a saucepan, brush or poker was introduced to the fray. If a weapon was used, and it was a tool of the trade that was understandably to hand during an altercation (such as a scissors or pitchfork), this was seen as qualitatively different to an assailant having recourse to a knife or gun.
What some historians have described as “recreational violence” was common in the past. Killings were unpremeditated, or involved a challenge that was issued and accepted, or emerged from carousing. The maintenance of a sense of personal honour was another factor. Displays of courage and fighting prowess were among the few ways for younger sons, who were unlikely to marry or inherit and unable to emigrate, to achieve status in their communities. Wanting to be the “better man” was, on occasion, something to die for.
In many violent brawls, either party could have been the victim, making survival a matter of timing, strength and good fortune rather than criminal intent. The use of a weapon indicated a degree of planning and a deliberate attempt to stack the odds in the perpetrator’s favour, thus moving the encounter out of the realms of a “fair fight”.
Killings today are likely to involve guns and knives and there is greater evidence that death was the desired outcome.
The decline of the brawl is noticeable. Six times as many persons were beaten to death in the 1890s as in the 1990s. A trend of this magnitude most probably indicates a downturn in the incidence of rowdy violence as well as an amelioration of its consequences.
Looking across the span of a century there is a clear shift towards longer sentences. In the 1890s, half of the convicted killers received less than one year in custody. Penalties this lenient had disappeared a century later and would be unimaginable today. For those convicted of destroying a human life, the punishment is now measured in terms of many years of custody, any other sanction being considered unconscionably lenient.
It is possible that sentences were light in the past because the behaviour in question was not seen to threaten social order. Why would society feel threatened by young men slapping, punching and beating each other (especially when a fatal outcome was not intended)? Only when weapons were used or violence was employed instrumentally, say during the commission of a crime such as rape or robbery, did the need for a stern response become paramount.
It is sometimes thought that society is becoming ever more brutal and that an increasingly harsh response is necessary to protect the public. However, taking a historical perspective suggests that things are not as grim as they might seem. Indeed, in some respects, the contemporary preoccupation with violence appears oddly disproportionate.
Ian ODonnell is professor of criminology at UCD. This article is based on an essay to be published later this month in Irish Economic and Social History.