5 ms·

This dates from the so-called "Bloody Code" era of 1688 to 1815, where some 220 offences could lead to the death sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_

This dates from the so-called "Bloody Code" era of 1688 to 1815, where some 220 offences could lead to the death sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code Apparently "theft of goods worth more than 12 pence, which was only about one-twentieth of the weekly wage for a skilled worker at the time" could lead to the death sentence. Other crimes that could be punished with death included: - Being in the company of Gypsies for one month - Strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age - Blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime The latter comes from the Black Act, which introduced 50 such offences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Act "Pleading the belly" was an option for women who were detectably pregnant, and if they were found pregnant, the woman's death sentence could be postponed until they had delivered their child, changed to penal transportation, or even pardoned altogether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleading_the_belly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleading_the_belly A jury of matrons would be responsible - sometimes corruptly - although a woman would only receive one reprieve; any further pregnancy would be ignored and the death penalty carried out regardless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_of_matrons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_of_matrons

noir_lord 12y ago
It's easy to forget living in 21st century Britain how far we've come generally. Thanks for the reminder.
- pjc50 12y ago
  And the death penalty was only formally abolished by the Human Rights Act 1998 (for the remaining offences of high treason or arson in a naval dockyard). I believe that polls on the subject of reintroducing it for serious crimes regularly return over 50% support. Edit: oh and you can still get disproportionate sentences for trivial crimes in California under the "three strikes" law. There are people serving life sentences for minor shoplifting.
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    Indeed and the world is not perfect but it's a damn sight better than it was 200 years ago (in the west) anyway. To quote William Gibson > "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."
  - runarb 12y ago
    > I believe that polls on the subject of reintroducing > it for serious crimes regularly return over 50% support. To some degree understandable. I used to be against the death penalty for humanitarian reason, but after Anders Behring Breivik gunned down 69 people, mostly children, and got only 21 years in prison [0], I think it would have been better if we just had hanged him. At least then the families of his victim could get to move on, knowing that they will not meet him on the street sometime in the future. 0: 21 years is the maximum prison sentence in Norway, but the prison term can then be repeatedly extended by five years as long as he is considered a threat to society. However that someone is being a threat to society can be hard to prove, so it is totally possible that he will be getting out some day.
    - matthewmacleod 12y ago
      so it is totally possible that he will be getting out some day. Isn't that the whole point of a maximum prison sentence, though?
    - iaskwhy 12y ago
      I have some curiosity about how you went from 21 years of jail time to the death penalty without even thinking about something else like a life sentence.
    - emn13 12y ago
      Cases like these - you could try to argue what's best with all kinds of arguments, ideas, principles and aim. Death? Life? 21 years + you need to make a shrink happy? So the interesting question is: why does his current sentence bother you? I'm honestly curious on your perspective.
  - lootonbaynard 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Shihan 12y ago
  Unfortunately not all parts of the world are on the same civilized level yet. There are many countries in which the law is based on so called divine rules and there it is seen as something positive/progressive that the woman can give birth to her child before she is being stoned for her "crime" (e.g. adultery (true meaning: have been raped)). Way to go humanity.
- sneak 12y ago
  The lines are imaginary. They still execute people all of the time in America, oftentimes for things just as trivial.
  - maob 12y ago
    Although I'm against the death penalty and I think it's used too much here in the US, I don't think it's used 'all of the time' and I'm pretty sure it's never for something trivial. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      An alarmingly large number of police have acquired the delusion that it is permissible for them to exercise the state's power to punish suspected criminals, without affording them the courtesy of due process. I don't think this behavior is increasing by all that much. I think the increasing ubiquity of cameras capable of recording decent quality video and the increasing ease in distributing that video is making the existing behavior more noticeable. The fact that police killings are not capital punishment executions is largely a semantic distinction. Some people feel it is important, while others are less apt to recognize it. As such, whether the death penalty is used "all the time" or not, and whether it is used for "something trivial" depends largely on how you count the bodies. People have been killed by police for misdemeanor offenses, or even no reasonable suspicion whatsoever. I don't erase that semantic distinction entirely, but it is rather counterproductive to abolish the post-conviction capital punishment without also rigorously investigating and prosecuting all police-involved deaths. If cops believe that a suspect deserves the death penalty, and the state does not employ it, that person may never get the benefit of a single hearing before a judge.
      - iak8god 12y ago
        Around 1,000 people were killed by police in the US last year[1]. I assume that in the vast majority of those cases the use of lethal force was justified to protect the officer(s) or bystanders. Then there are the mistakes. In what percentage of these cases would you guess that suspect was killed because the officer decided to play judge, jury and executioner? 1%? Even a shockingly high 10%, that would not be an order of magnitude more than the number of capital punishment executions per year. [1] http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/more-than-1000-people-have-been-killed-b http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/more-than-1000-people-have...

noir_lord 12y ago

It's easy to forget living in 21st century Britain how far we've come generally. Thanks for the reminder.

pjc50 12y ago
And the death penalty was only formally abolished by the Human Rights Act 1998 (for the remaining offences of high treason or arson in a naval dockyard). I believe that polls on the subject of reintroducing it for serious crimes regularly return over 50% support. Edit: oh and you can still get disproportionate sentences for trivial crimes in California under the "three strikes" law. There are people serving life sentences for minor shoplifting.
- noir_lord 12y ago
  Indeed and the world is not perfect but it's a damn sight better than it was 200 years ago (in the west) anyway. To quote William Gibson > "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."
- runarb 12y ago
  > I believe that polls on the subject of reintroducing > it for serious crimes regularly return over 50% support. To some degree understandable. I used to be against the death penalty for humanitarian reason, but after Anders Behring Breivik gunned down 69 people, mostly children, and got only 21 years in prison [0], I think it would have been better if we just had hanged him. At least then the families of his victim could get to move on, knowing that they will not meet him on the street sometime in the future. 0: 21 years is the maximum prison sentence in Norway, but the prison term can then be repeatedly extended by five years as long as he is considered a threat to society. However that someone is being a threat to society can be hard to prove, so it is totally possible that he will be getting out some day.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    so it is totally possible that he will be getting out some day. Isn't that the whole point of a maximum prison sentence, though?
  - iaskwhy 12y ago
    I have some curiosity about how you went from 21 years of jail time to the death penalty without even thinking about something else like a life sentence.
  - emn13 12y ago
    Cases like these - you could try to argue what's best with all kinds of arguments, ideas, principles and aim. Death? Life? 21 years + you need to make a shrink happy? So the interesting question is: why does his current sentence bother you? I'm honestly curious on your perspective.
- lootonbaynard 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Shihan 12y ago
Unfortunately not all parts of the world are on the same civilized level yet. There are many countries in which the law is based on so called divine rules and there it is seen as something positive/progressive that the woman can give birth to her child before she is being stoned for her "crime" (e.g. adultery (true meaning: have been raped)). Way to go humanity.
sneak 12y ago
The lines are imaginary. They still execute people all of the time in America, oftentimes for things just as trivial.
- maob 12y ago
  Although I'm against the death penalty and I think it's used too much here in the US, I don't think it's used 'all of the time' and I'm pretty sure it's never for something trivial. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    An alarmingly large number of police have acquired the delusion that it is permissible for them to exercise the state's power to punish suspected criminals, without affording them the courtesy of due process. I don't think this behavior is increasing by all that much. I think the increasing ubiquity of cameras capable of recording decent quality video and the increasing ease in distributing that video is making the existing behavior more noticeable. The fact that police killings are not capital punishment executions is largely a semantic distinction. Some people feel it is important, while others are less apt to recognize it. As such, whether the death penalty is used "all the time" or not, and whether it is used for "something trivial" depends largely on how you count the bodies. People have been killed by police for misdemeanor offenses, or even no reasonable suspicion whatsoever. I don't erase that semantic distinction entirely, but it is rather counterproductive to abolish the post-conviction capital punishment without also rigorously investigating and prosecuting all police-involved deaths. If cops believe that a suspect deserves the death penalty, and the state does not employ it, that person may never get the benefit of a single hearing before a judge.
    - iak8god 12y ago
      Around 1,000 people were killed by police in the US last year[1]. I assume that in the vast majority of those cases the use of lethal force was justified to protect the officer(s) or bystanders. Then there are the mistakes. In what percentage of these cases would you guess that suspect was killed because the officer decided to play judge, jury and executioner? 1%? Even a shockingly high 10%, that would not be an order of magnitude more than the number of capital punishment executions per year. [1] http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/more-than-1000-people-have-been-killed-b http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/more-than-1000-people-have...