Legal antiquities : $b A collection of essays upon ancient laws and customsWhite, Edward J. (Edward Joseph)
History
Legal antiquities : $b A collection of essays upon ancient laws and customs
White, Edward J. (Edward Joseph)
Criminal law -- History; Law -- History; Law, Ancient; Punishment -- History
However this may be, we find that during the reign of Henry IV. the mild
punishment provided for by the statute of Edward I. and the proceedings
detailed by Fleta and Britton,[10] of merely being fastened down with
irons, on the bare ground of the prison, “until the plea was entered,”
had given way to the harsher punishment of being compelled to lie under
a “_peine_,” “_till they were dead_,” an event most likely to follow
speedily from the quantity of weight or iron placed upon such prisoners.
The _peine forte et dure_, as it was known, therefore, from the fifteenth
to the eighteenth century, seems to have been firmly established as
an institution of the English Criminal Law, during the time of Henry
IV., and the reason for its existence is to be found in the object of
the justices in eyre and justices of gaol delivery, of obviating the
necessity of remaining for long periods in the English country towns,
waiting for the mild effect of the formerly prevailing punishment,
provided for by the statute of the reign of Edward I., in inducing
prisoners charged with felony to consent to be tried.[11]
The prevalency of the practice of standing mute in such cases, under
the milder form of punishment, increased to such an extent that the
patience of the justices was sorely tried. They determined, about the
beginning of the fifteenth century, to put an end to such a practice,
by furnishing such a harsh punishment that the example of inflicting it
would discourage prisoners from thus defying the law, even if it resulted
in the speedy and painful death of the offender. All exhortations and
mild treatment were abandoned and the obdurate prisoner, thus defying
the court, was sentenced to be literally “pressed to death,” unless he
recanted and submitted himself to a trial, according to the fixed customs
of the realm.
It may justly be doubted if the defiance of the majesty of the law
by this failure to plead was sufficient to justify such a barbarous
practice, with the object of compelling a respect for the law, or if the
remedy was not really worse than the disease, but upon this philosophical
phase of the subject we are not concerned. Whether justly or unjustly,
this species of punishment obtained for three centuries and a half in
the English criminal law and a great many concrete cases, illustrating
the application of the custom, arose during this period. And it is
interesting to note how the punishment was made more severe with the
increasing prevalency of the offense.
In the year 1219, when the first eyre of Henry III.’s reign was in
session, a case arose for the instruction and advice of the King’s
Council regarding the course to be pursued where the prisoner refused to
plead.[12]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account