<- Leeuwarden seen along the Trekvaart by P.I. Portier (1774) with gallows on the horizon, next to sail__________________________________
The death penalty executed on Saddam Hussein shocked part of the world. The Iraqi government promised to have a committee charged with the assignment to investigate the circumstances and the hidden videos connected to the execution. At the same time, they expressed their angriness about the criticisms of the death penalty in general, and Saddam’s execution in particular, uttered by other governments and organisations abroad. In the Dutch media they hoped for a new discussion about death penalty worldwide. There seems to be a deep gap in understanding between countries with, and countries without the death penalty. Death penalty-countries mostly feel that they always have to defend themselves for something they find absolutely normal and regular, and non-death penalty countries seem always convinced of their superior ethics which they try to preach to the death-penalty countries.
I was so lucky to read an interesting article by Prof. Johannes (Hans) A. Mol of the Leiden University about hanging places in Fryslân, which was far more instructive than only an investigation of where the gallows were located in our beautiful province during the late Middle Ages. (J.A. Mol: “Galgen in Laat-Middeleeuws Friesland”, De Vrije Fries, issue 2006). To my surprise it could give, at least partially, an answer to the above question of the gap.
Up to around 1500 AD, Fryslân was a rather primitive society with only rural villages and a small number of little towns ruled by local nobility. A strong central government was lacking, the Frisian rulers were free to uphold their own authority, granted to them by Charlemagne. In those times the old Frisian legislation was maintained with elements reminiscent to pre-Christian times. The main form of punishment for crimes, also murder and other capital crimes, was compensation (“composition” is how the author of the article calls it), simply payment. So if a farmer had been robbed and/or killed, the murderer had to give his own farm or big parts of his possessions to the victim’s family. This soon developed into what we now would find “discriminatory legislation”: if the murderer was too poor for “composition”, he was convicted to death. (To my opinion a remnant of this may be left in the American system of payment of a sum of money to avoid emprisonment before the verdict session). Mol explains that the rare occurrence of death penalties was caused by lack of “penitentiary infrastructure”: there was no capital available to build prisons and execution places. Later on, especially after 1500, legislative power became associated with death penalties. Fryslân had lost is autonomy to high nobility under Charles V and it was common practice in Europe that beheading, hanging and “radbraken” (being stretched on a wheel, having one or more arms/legs broken, and (still living) being put on that wheel on top of a pole as birds’ food) became a privilege of the ruling legislative power who was generally the local authority who had been granted this right from the count or king or whoever ruled the area.
Reading the article one cannot fail getting the impression that civilians of the time saw gallows daily, as we are used to see billboards or McDonalds signs. Mol’s study reveals that the civilians didn’t find this as horrible as we would do, but, on the contrary, they found it reassuring: there was a strong lord who could protect them against disturbers of their “peace”. The word “peace” is identified in the old documents by Mol as the situation which is disturbed by the criminals. Gallows that were empty during a long period of time raised anxiety: apparently the lord wasn’t capable of catching criminals. Investigation also revealed that in this rural area there were (far) more gallows than needed for the very few hangings per year that took place. So, if someone would question their usefulness as crime-preventing instruments, the civilians would almost certainly answer: just because there are so many gallows, there are so few capital crimes!
Mol describes that hangings always took place twice: once in public on the market place or other central point where everybody could watch it, and after that on the permanent gallows, always on a place outside the town or village, preferably near the water side (most preferably near the seaside) at a place well visible from far by as many passers-by as possible. (see illustration, where the gallows are located near a canal, you can see them at the horizon). There they functioned as symbols of “peacekeeping”, as a landmark of a strong government where hard-working, law-abiding and tax-paying citizens didn’t need to be afraid that their “peace of living” would be disturbed, and also as a symbol of local autonomy (they had the right to punish capital crimes).
If we go further back into history, we always see that death penalties are only given to those who threaten the established order, either by rape and murder, or in a political sense. The established order was defined by the supreme authority, ultimately a king or an emperor. If the perpetrator is dead, the order is re-established. As long as he lives, it keeps being threatened, even if he is imprisoned or banned. That’s also why our national hero Johan van Oldenbarneveldt had to be beheaded by our other national hero Prince Maurits, forefather of our queen: Johan represented as a former “elderly statesman” the faction of liberals, of the merchants’ and intellectual elite, whereas the poor people, Calvinist and exhausted by the war against the Spanish, put their hopes on the Orange family. So Vondel wrote about Oldenbarneveldt’s execution: “convicted as a Seneca”, because the old man had been the mentor and teacher of Prince Maurits, who watched from a window how he lost his head. His last words were: “Make it short”. One of the greatest shames in Hollands’ history. Later on when Maurits came into military troubles he sighed: “If only that old dog’s ass were alive!”
Anyway, death penalty seems to have a symbolic function. It’s not deterrent anymore, because it doesn’t seem to decrease crime rates. Its primary function is to show “who is in charge” and give people a sense of safety, which is different from increasing the safety rate. In big countries with a central government, where local threats of disturbing social order is most likely to occur, death penalty is also most likely to be maintained. I don’t think that’s the case in the U.S.A.. In those U.S. States where death penalty still exists, I think it’s the will of most civilians of those states who for whatever reason don’t feel safe, or feel it justified to kill criminals, maybe because they feel they aren’t worth their tax dollars as prisoners, or whatever. Do they want to compare themselves with countries like China or Iran? It’s only a question.
I was so lucky to read an interesting article by Prof. Johannes (Hans) A. Mol of the Leiden University about hanging places in Fryslân, which was far more instructive than only an investigation of where the gallows were located in our beautiful province during the late Middle Ages. (J.A. Mol: “Galgen in Laat-Middeleeuws Friesland”, De Vrije Fries, issue 2006). To my surprise it could give, at least partially, an answer to the above question of the gap.
Up to around 1500 AD, Fryslân was a rather primitive society with only rural villages and a small number of little towns ruled by local nobility. A strong central government was lacking, the Frisian rulers were free to uphold their own authority, granted to them by Charlemagne. In those times the old Frisian legislation was maintained with elements reminiscent to pre-Christian times. The main form of punishment for crimes, also murder and other capital crimes, was compensation (“composition” is how the author of the article calls it), simply payment. So if a farmer had been robbed and/or killed, the murderer had to give his own farm or big parts of his possessions to the victim’s family. This soon developed into what we now would find “discriminatory legislation”: if the murderer was too poor for “composition”, he was convicted to death. (To my opinion a remnant of this may be left in the American system of payment of a sum of money to avoid emprisonment before the verdict session). Mol explains that the rare occurrence of death penalties was caused by lack of “penitentiary infrastructure”: there was no capital available to build prisons and execution places. Later on, especially after 1500, legislative power became associated with death penalties. Fryslân had lost is autonomy to high nobility under Charles V and it was common practice in Europe that beheading, hanging and “radbraken” (being stretched on a wheel, having one or more arms/legs broken, and (still living) being put on that wheel on top of a pole as birds’ food) became a privilege of the ruling legislative power who was generally the local authority who had been granted this right from the count or king or whoever ruled the area.
Reading the article one cannot fail getting the impression that civilians of the time saw gallows daily, as we are used to see billboards or McDonalds signs. Mol’s study reveals that the civilians didn’t find this as horrible as we would do, but, on the contrary, they found it reassuring: there was a strong lord who could protect them against disturbers of their “peace”. The word “peace” is identified in the old documents by Mol as the situation which is disturbed by the criminals. Gallows that were empty during a long period of time raised anxiety: apparently the lord wasn’t capable of catching criminals. Investigation also revealed that in this rural area there were (far) more gallows than needed for the very few hangings per year that took place. So, if someone would question their usefulness as crime-preventing instruments, the civilians would almost certainly answer: just because there are so many gallows, there are so few capital crimes!
Mol describes that hangings always took place twice: once in public on the market place or other central point where everybody could watch it, and after that on the permanent gallows, always on a place outside the town or village, preferably near the water side (most preferably near the seaside) at a place well visible from far by as many passers-by as possible. (see illustration, where the gallows are located near a canal, you can see them at the horizon). There they functioned as symbols of “peacekeeping”, as a landmark of a strong government where hard-working, law-abiding and tax-paying citizens didn’t need to be afraid that their “peace of living” would be disturbed, and also as a symbol of local autonomy (they had the right to punish capital crimes).
If we go further back into history, we always see that death penalties are only given to those who threaten the established order, either by rape and murder, or in a political sense. The established order was defined by the supreme authority, ultimately a king or an emperor. If the perpetrator is dead, the order is re-established. As long as he lives, it keeps being threatened, even if he is imprisoned or banned. That’s also why our national hero Johan van Oldenbarneveldt had to be beheaded by our other national hero Prince Maurits, forefather of our queen: Johan represented as a former “elderly statesman” the faction of liberals, of the merchants’ and intellectual elite, whereas the poor people, Calvinist and exhausted by the war against the Spanish, put their hopes on the Orange family. So Vondel wrote about Oldenbarneveldt’s execution: “convicted as a Seneca”, because the old man had been the mentor and teacher of Prince Maurits, who watched from a window how he lost his head. His last words were: “Make it short”. One of the greatest shames in Hollands’ history. Later on when Maurits came into military troubles he sighed: “If only that old dog’s ass were alive!”
Anyway, death penalty seems to have a symbolic function. It’s not deterrent anymore, because it doesn’t seem to decrease crime rates. Its primary function is to show “who is in charge” and give people a sense of safety, which is different from increasing the safety rate. In big countries with a central government, where local threats of disturbing social order is most likely to occur, death penalty is also most likely to be maintained. I don’t think that’s the case in the U.S.A.. In those U.S. States where death penalty still exists, I think it’s the will of most civilians of those states who for whatever reason don’t feel safe, or feel it justified to kill criminals, maybe because they feel they aren’t worth their tax dollars as prisoners, or whatever. Do they want to compare themselves with countries like China or Iran? It’s only a question.
2 comments:
The death penalty continues to be controversial in the United States. In recent years, some states have put moratoriums on the death penalty's use because it is applied more heavily to members of lower socioeconomic classes and ethnic minorities. If a white man and a black man commit identical crimes, the black man is far more likely to be executed than the white man. Many want the penalty abolished completely, others want it applied more fairly, others want to keep the system as it is, others want to make it harsher...
In general, I oppose the death penalty, just as, in general, I oppose abortion. My rationale for both positions is my understanding of the sanctity of life. Nevertheless, since we do not live in a perfect world, there are times when exceptions to the rules are appropriate.
Tragically, there are cases in which abortion is required. Those are heartbreaking circumsatnces for all involved. It may be that there are times when the death penalty is appropriate too. Saddam Hussein's execution may have been one of those times. Unfortunately, it seems that the event was underscored by malice and vengeance rather than an appropriate sense of the sombre responsibility that a society bears in choosing to execute one of its own.
I fully agree with the well balanced opinion by Evie.
Post a Comment