Question 1
Before the invention of photography in 1839, the identification of criminals was mainly made through exhaustive descriptions of the physical attributes on their criminal’s records. Some of these attributes included age, the colour of the hair eyes, tattoos and facial hair among other physical attributes that would distinguish criminals (Clark, 2011). The first evidence of photographic recording of the prison inmates came from Belgium in 1843-1844. In Australian colonies, there is a single image of a Victorian prisoner that was taken in 1853. Many mugshots were taken in Victory from 1863. In 1867 South Australia was the first colony to employ the new technology of photography. New South Wales would follow this trend as early as 1869. It is however unclear whether any person who was admitted to the prison was photographed as these actions are incomplete.
Mug shots were about identifying the criminals but still played a role in stereotyping and in classifying people based on their physical features. This was a system of criminal identification that was discriminatory as it tended to be tinted with the class notions and superiority of the observers. It was ideally a system that was considered to be rational in the 19th century. Over time, photography of the criminals would be taken by professionals to avoid distorted portraits that would not help in criminal investigations (Clark, 2011). This method of criminal identification however had a major impact on the investigation of crime as it eased prosecution of criminals. In modern days, photographs of criminals are widely used. It is an accepted and common part of the investigation of crime. The root of this technology finds root in the 19th century when photography technology merged with the need to identify criminals.
Question 2
Phrenology was a system of reading character from the contours of the skull and produced one of the most radical reorientations in ideas about crime and punishment in many Western countries. The concept of phrenology helped in developing retributive strategies for prisoners. The concept of phrenology was founded on the idea that the brain was the main organ of a person’s mind (Rafter, 2005). Personality traits would be located in a separate area of the brain and this could be measured by feeling the fissures or bumps in the skull of an individual. The fissures and bumps in the skulls of an individual determined their character and this made phrenology to be considered as plausible science. It, therefore, went on to influence psychiatry and early studies into neuroscience. It would therefore be viewed as pseudoscience before it began to lose taste among the criminologists.
Phrenology was one of the earliest biological theories of criminology and helped lay down the foundation for the development of the biological school of criminology. Phrenology would be d discredit as a scientific theory in the 1840s mainly because there was growing evidence against this concept (Rafter, 2005). Phrenologists could not agree on the most basic mental organ numbers against phrenology going over from 27 to 40 and it became very challenging in locating the mental organs. Initially, this science had been hailed as some type of breakthrough in criminology. However, regardless of the initial popularity, phrenology began to lose support from scientists in the 20th century due to its methodological criticisms and due to failure to replicate some of the findings.
References
Clark, J. (2011). ‘Rendering our criminal procedure more perfect’: 19th-century forensic photography at home and abroad. Tasmanian Historical Studies, 16, 25.
Rafter, N. (2005). The murderous Dutch fiddler: Criminology, history and the problem of phrenology. Theoretical Criminology, 9(1), 65-96.