This is one of the questions addressed in Judith Flanders' book, The Invention of Murder, which came out earlier this year http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/53228/the-invention-of-murder-epub-edition-judith-flanders-9780007352470. Beginning with the Ratcliffe Highway murder in London in 181 and finishing with the Ripper murders in Whitechapel at the end of the century, and looking at celebrated Victorian muderers from Burke and and Hare to William Palmer to Madeleine Smith she explores the factors that led to the modern fascination with the crime of murder.
The rise of murder is traced on the one hand to the combination of organised policing, the rise of criminal detection and the birth of the emergence of the modern adversarial trial. But hand in hand with the was the emergence of the modern press and publishing industry, which sold papers through their sensationalised coverage of crime and trials. And other authors were not far behind producing novels that were often little more than fictionalised accounts of the more serious crimes. And hence our obsession with murder.
But here's a thought. Could we have crime fiction centred on other crimes? On theft? Or fraud? People traficking? Anti-social behaviour? Should we ask that our crime authors be more imaginative? And perhaps the same is true of criminal law too? What would the law look like if we did not place homicide at the centre?
No comments:
Post a Comment