{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014994232987312572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.625954198473282, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The limits of strong government: attempts to control criminality in thirteenth-century England*


 This article examines how far centrally-directed structures of peacekeeping influenced communal reactions to criminality in thirteenth-century England, and the extent to which developments in the systems and procedures of criminal justice manifested into tighter control over law and order. It challenges claims for the importance of the frankpledge system, offering an alternative means upon which the central government came to rely for the maintenance of law and order. Nevertheless, it also complicates the matter by demonstrating that the mechanisms designed to bring crime more firmly under the state’s control did not necessarily result in greater central control over criminality, let alone reduce local autonomy over criminal justice practices and procedures.