Today, one can do more harm by stealing online than in person. And, again, the consequence for these individuals who get caught would be something less severe like paying a fine or serving a short prison sentence if caught committing a large theft scam however, I think pocket picking is viewed as a less-serious offence today. However, these would be professional individuals and not children. For example, scammers might work together to steal at malls or airports to steal shopping bags and suitcases. However, teenagers and young adults merely hacking on low-scale levels would not face such severe consequences.Īlthough pocket picking is lesson common in modern day, it is still prevalent, just less common. If they are caught online, the consequence would not be death or punishments that were given out in the 18th century - people might face fines or potentially prison time if the hacker has committed crime on a large scale. Even if one is unsuccessful stealing online, it is highly unlikely that they would be traced or caught for trying. Stealing online is also ideal since it’s harder to get caught. It might be more effective for people today to steal online through hacking online shops and finding credit card numbers through hacking personal information. ![]() Physical pocket picking and shoplifting is becoming more rare due to an easier online presence. Present day, pocket picking is very uncommon - especially for children. Sometimes, pocket picking was a vital component to providing food for families in this time. Children that took part in pocket picking were usually orphans or street children and were, therefore, a part of the lower classes. Punishments for children or others being caught for pocket picking for the first time might include whipping, hand burning, and similar consequences. This particular account demonstrates that even children were sentenced to death for something such as pocket picking, especially if it is not their first time being caught. However, when they were caught in the act, their punishment was often as drastic as execution. During the eighteenth century, it was uncommon for pocket pickers to be caught. Afterwards, they would share their findings based on skill, merit, and seniority. Often, pickpockets worked together in this time period in order to distract their victims while others committed the theft. Thus, they were free to roam the streets without supervision. Children often took part in these acts since, during this time, kids were left alone when they weren’t in school. Children were also taught to look for specific features which made it easiest to pick pockets.ĭuring this time, especially in London in the 1800’s, child pickpockets were abundant due to heavily crowded streets, which made it infinitely easier to successfully pickpocket. If the child apprentice could take the handkerchief without making the bell ring then they were seen as skilled and were then able to continue on with real pocket picking. However, they would also put a bell in the same pocket. For example, trainers would wear coats with handkerchiefs in their pockets. These children went through a series of training exercises before they were able to try their skills on real victims. For example, orphans and street children as young as five years old were apprenticed with older men who took part in pocket picking. ![]() Pocket pickers were seen as skilled individuals and passed the knowledge and skill set needed to successfully pick-pocket onto younger generations. In the 1800’s, pick-pocketing was often viewed an art form. Smith had been previously sentenced before and his hands were burnt as a a consequence. ![]() This was not Smith’s first guilty account. and 31.5 s.Īlthough Smith did give the money back to the man from whom he was trying to steal and was very young in age, the Jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. At this time, the boy did not hesitate to give the bag of money back to the man. However, Alderidge did not believe the boy. However, Alderidge, noticing something being moved within his coat pocket, caught the boy by grabbing ahold of his arm before Smith could get away with the act.The boy, who was caught before he could escape with the money, tried to deny that he had attempted to steal the money from his pocket, stating that the bag had fallen on the ground. Aldridge was walking over the London-Bridge when the boy attempted to steal a linen bag in which a number of of coins were found. The boy was caught by John Alderidge, whose pocket Smith was trying to pick. On May 19, 1997, a little boy named William Smith was sentenced for pocket picking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |