Why it was more dangerous to steal a loaf of bread than commit murder in medieval England

“The jury often reached a not guilty verdict simply because they thought, ‘This person doesn’t deserve to be hanged’”, explains Professor Manuel Eisner, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast.

“They thought, ‘He’s a respectable member of the community. He gives to the Church. He has apprentices who he trains. He does all kinds of things right. And here was this stupid conflict that ended up badly, and somebody died.’”

Theft, however, was a different story.

In the eyes of the court, and in the minds of the people, this was a much more calculated and unforgivable betrayal – a sign, according to Eisner, of moral rot. And for that, you could be hanged without hesitation.

Violence was common – and often forgiven

By today’s standards, murder was shockingly frequent in medieval England. Homicide rates, says Eisner, were “20 to 50 times more frequent than they are currently in England and Wales”. Yet despite the brutal frequency of killings, very few of them ended in punishment.

“In principle, medieval law was harsh,” says Eisner. “The only penalty for homicide that you could possibly get was death by hanging.” Yet in practice, the system was far more lenient.

“We know that 90 to 95 per cent of all cases that ended up being tried ended with a non-guilty verdict.”

That verdict wasn’t always reached through genuine conviction in the defendant’s innocence. Sometimes, says Eisner, a not-guilty verdict would be used to subvert a punishment, even if someone was believed to be guilty.

Many cases never reached trial at all. Numerous suspected killers simply disappeared: as soon as they were named, they would become outlaws, and so many found it preferable to leave everything behind and make a new life somewhere else.

• Read more | Why reporting a murder in medieval England could destroy your life

For those who did stand trial, juries often opted for compassion over justice. In the context of a period in which violence could erupt over a spilled drink or a contested field boundary, a killing was often seen as an unfortunate accident: the tragic end to a dispute that got out of hand.

Theft was unforgivable

Murder might have been emotional, even justifiable. But theft? In contrast to violence, this was a crime that was judged to have been deliberate, devious, and, above all, evil.

“Stealing something was considered primarily an evil crime because it required an intention to do harm,” says Eisner. It was a crime more often attributed to outsiders; lesser-known members of a community, or strangers.

Those were the people juries didn’t feel compelled to protect, and that’s reflected in the death sentences. If you were caught stealing grain or clothing, your odds of being hanged were considerably higher than if you’d taken a life.

Ultimately, premediated acts of crime were judged to be a more significant threat to society than random acts of violence.

• Read more | How bloody was medieval life?

“Homicide was seen as something that just resulted from a conflict that escalates unintentionally,” Eisner explains. “Stealing was considered far more disruptive – it undermined the social fabric.”

Even prison could kill you

A punishment of execution wasn’t the only way in which medieval society could deliver an effective death sentence; being sent to a medieval prison could be enough to kill too. Conditions were filthy, crowded and disease-ridden, and people regularly died before they ever saw a trial.

“Each year about six to 10 prisoners in London prisons died,” says Eisner. “If we translated this to the size of contemporary London, that would mean about a thousand people dying in prison in any given year.”

Just being accused of a crime, let alone convicted, could prove fatal. In a world where calculated crime was more morally subversive than a spontaneous murder, it really might have been safer to kill someone and flee the scene, than to steal their bread.