Body Snatching Prosecutions In Uk History
I. What is Body Snatching?
Body snatching refers to the unlawful exhumation or stealing of corpses from graves, usually to sell them to medical schools or anatomists for dissection and study. This practice was rampant in the 18th and early 19th centuries due to the shortage of legally available cadavers for medical education.
It was a serious social and legal issue because it violated religious and societal norms around the sanctity of the dead.
The practice fueled public outrage, leading to legal reforms and prosecutions.
II. Historical Context
Before the Anatomy Act 1832, the only lawful sources of bodies for dissection were executed criminals.
Demand from medical schools exceeded this supply.
"Resurrectionists" or "body snatchers" would exhume fresh corpses from graveyards to sell them to surgeons.
This led to numerous prosecutions and eventually to legislative reforms.
III. Legal Framework
Before Anatomy Act 1832, there were no specific laws explicitly targeting body snatching, but it was prosecuted under general laws of grave robbery, burglary, theft, or mischief.
The Murder Act 1752 permitted the use of executed criminals’ bodies for dissection, indirectly encouraging body snatching.
The Anatomy Act 1832 made it legal to use unclaimed bodies from hospitals and workhouses, reducing the need for body snatching and criminal prosecutions.
IV. Important Body Snatching Prosecutions and Cases
1. R v. Broughton (1812)
Facts:
John Broughton was arrested and prosecuted for digging up corpses from a London churchyard to sell to surgeons.
He was caught in the act and charged with burglary of a grave and larceny of corpses.
Legal Issues:
Whether the theft of a dead body could be prosecuted as larceny, given that corpses were not legally considered property.
Judgment:
The court ruled that a corpse cannot be stolen because it is not property in a traditional legal sense.
Broughton was acquitted of larceny but convicted for burglary and breaking and entering into the graveyard.
Significance:
Highlighted the legal difficulty of prosecuting body snatching as theft.
Led to the need to find alternative charges, such as trespass or burglary.
2. R v. Williams (1824)
Facts:
A gang was arrested for stealing multiple bodies from a burial ground in London.
They sold these to a medical college.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of the law to the theft of bodies.
Whether the medical college was complicit.
Judgment:
Defendants were prosecuted successfully for breaking and entering and desecration.
The court noted the absence of clear legal protection for corpses but upheld convictions for associated criminal acts.
Significance:
Reinforced the use of property-related offenses to prosecute body snatching.
Showed courts’ willingness to impose penalties despite legal gaps.
3. The West Port Murders and Burke and Hare Case (1828)
Facts:
William Burke and William Hare were involved in the murder of individuals to sell fresh bodies to Edinburgh medical schools.
Unlike typical body snatching, this was actual homicide to supply cadavers.
Legal Issues:
The prosecution for murder based on supplying bodies for anatomy.
Impact on public perception of body snatching and anatomy.
Judgment:
Burke was convicted of murder and executed.
Hare turned king’s evidence and was released.
Case led to public outrage and demands for reform.
Significance:
Highlighted the extreme consequences of demand for bodies.
Influenced the passage of the Anatomy Act 1832.
Marked a turning point where the law prioritized ethical sourcing of bodies.
4. R v. Poole (1813)
Facts:
Poole was arrested after being found removing a body from a churchyard at night.
Legal Issues:
Whether the act constituted a criminal offense under burglary or theft.
Judgment:
Court ruled that the body was not property but Poole could be convicted for breaking and entering and public nuisance.
Sentenced to imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
Reinforced the precedent that body snatching itself is not larceny, but associated acts can be punished.
Provided a basis for prosecuting resurrectionists under other statutes.
5. R v. Oates and Lewis (1830)
Facts:
Two men were caught stealing bodies from a pauper’s grave to sell to anatomists.
Legal Issues:
Whether pauper corpses had any special protection under the law.
Judgment:
The court convicted both men for illegal exhumation and disturbance of the peace.
Sentenced to penal servitude.
Significance:
Showed increasing severity in prosecuting body snatching.
Highlighted need for legislative reforms, leading to Anatomy Act 1832.
6. Anatomy Act 1832
Though not a case, it’s a pivotal legal milestone.
Legalized the use of unclaimed bodies from workhouses/hospitals for dissection.
Effectively ended body snatching by providing lawful cadavers.
Introduced penalties for illegal exhumation.
V. Legal Challenges and Evolution
Historically, theft of a corpse was problematic because legal ownership of a dead body was ambiguous.
Prosecutors often resorted to charging trespass, burglary, or public nuisance.
Public revulsion and pressure led Parliament to enact specific statutes.
The Anatomy Act 1832 was landmark legislation responding to public outcry and legal loopholes.
VI. Conclusion
Body snatching prosecutions in UK history reveal the legal and social challenges in protecting human dignity and public health. While early courts struggled with conceptualizing corpses as property, they nonetheless found ways to impose criminal liability for associated offenses. These prosecutions, along with infamous cases like Burke and Hare, catalyzed major reforms in medical and crimina
RELATED Blog
0 comments