вторник, 14 декабря 2010 г.
понедельник, 25 октября 2010 г.
Different types of law
Some different types of law include:
(1) Public law - law that concerns the state, either in international relations, or in the relationship between the state and the individual.
(2) Criminal law - law that is concerned with breach of public duty and is punishable by the state on behalf of society.
(3) Tort - torts are such things as negligence, nuisance, defamation and trespass - they are concerned with civil wrongs other than breaches of contract and trust. The law requires people not to harm or threaten the interests of others, and the law of tort is designed to compensate for harm when it occurs.
(4) Trusts: Defined as an "equitable obligations imposing on one or more persons a duty of dealing with property, over which they have control, for the benefit of other persons who may enforce the obligation." The property may be any asset: money, stocks, shares, land etc. Note that partnerships and minors cannot legally have estates.
(5) Civil law provides rules for the conduct of relations and transactions between persons or organisations, for example, contracts, consumer rights and property transactions. For the purposes of business studies, civil law is more relevant. Civil proceedings are brought by private parties with a grievance. Proof is on the balance of probabilities, meaning that a lesser degree of proof is required than in a criminal case. If the person bringing the case, the plaintiff (the accuser), is able to obtain a favourable judgement then he will be awarded compensation, usually financial, for the civil wrong that has been shown to have been done.
http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3899.html
суббота, 2 октября 2010 г.
четверг, 16 сентября 2010 г.
понедельник, 19 июля 2010 г.
What is Discrimination?
In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. In everyday life, when faced with more than one option, we discriminate in arriving at almost every decision we make. But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including:
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
Gender
Marital status
National origin
Race,
Religion, and
Sexual orientation.
Lawful vs. Unlawful Discrimination
Not all types of discrimination will violate federal and/or state laws that prohibit discrimination. Some types of unequal treatment are perfectly legal, and cannot form the basis for a civil rights case alleging discrimination. The examples below illustrate the difference between lawful and unlawful discrimination.
Example 1: Applicant 1, an owner of two dogs, fills out an application to lease an apartment from Landlord. Upon learning that Applicant 1 is a dog owner, Landlord refuses to lease the apartment to her, because he does not want dogs in his building. Here, Landlord has not committed a civil rights violation by discriminating against Applicant 1 based solely on her status as a pet owner. Landlord is free to reject apartment applicants who own pets.
Example 2: Applicant 2, an African-American man, fills out an application to lease an apartment from Landlord. Upon learning that Applicant 2 is an African-American, Landlord refuses to lease the apartment to him, because he prefers to have Caucasian tenants in his building. Here, Landlord has committed a civil rights violation by discriminating against Applicant 2 based solely on his race. Under federal and state fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, Landlord may not reject apartment applicants because of their race.
Where Can Discrimination Occur?
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against members of protected groups (identified above) in a number of settings, including:
Education
Employment
Housing
Government benefits and services
Health care services
Land use / zoning
Lending and credit
Public accommodations (Access to buildings and businesses)
Transportation
Voting
Anti-Discrimination Laws
Most laws prohibiting discrimination, and many legal definitions of "discriminatory" acts, originated at the federal level through either:
Federal legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992. Other federal acts (supplemented by court decisions) prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, extension of credit, public education, and access to public facilities.
OR
Federal court decisions, like the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which was the impetus for nationwide racial desegregation of public schools. Other Supreme Court cases have shaped the definition of discriminatory acts like sexual harassment, and the legality of anti-discrimination remedies such as affirmative action programs.
Today, most states have anti-discrimination laws of their own which mirror those at the federal level. For example, in the state of Texas, Title 2 Chapter 21 of the Labor Code prohibits employment discrimination. Many of the mandates in this Texas law are based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law making employment discrimination unlawful.
Municipalities within states (such as cities, counties, and towns) can create their own anti-discrimination laws or ordinances, which may or may not resemble the laws of the state itself. For example, a city may pass legislation requiring domestic partner benefits for city employees and their same-sex partners, even though no such law exists at the state level.
Discrimination: Getting a Lawyer's Help
If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation such as discrimination, the best place to start is to speak with an experienced Discrimination Attorney. Important decisions related to your case can be complicated -- including which laws apply to your situation, and who is responsible for the discrimination and any harm you suffered. A Discrimination Attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
Gender
Marital status
National origin
Race,
Religion, and
Sexual orientation.
Lawful vs. Unlawful Discrimination
Not all types of discrimination will violate federal and/or state laws that prohibit discrimination. Some types of unequal treatment are perfectly legal, and cannot form the basis for a civil rights case alleging discrimination. The examples below illustrate the difference between lawful and unlawful discrimination.
Example 1: Applicant 1, an owner of two dogs, fills out an application to lease an apartment from Landlord. Upon learning that Applicant 1 is a dog owner, Landlord refuses to lease the apartment to her, because he does not want dogs in his building. Here, Landlord has not committed a civil rights violation by discriminating against Applicant 1 based solely on her status as a pet owner. Landlord is free to reject apartment applicants who own pets.
Example 2: Applicant 2, an African-American man, fills out an application to lease an apartment from Landlord. Upon learning that Applicant 2 is an African-American, Landlord refuses to lease the apartment to him, because he prefers to have Caucasian tenants in his building. Here, Landlord has committed a civil rights violation by discriminating against Applicant 2 based solely on his race. Under federal and state fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, Landlord may not reject apartment applicants because of their race.
Where Can Discrimination Occur?
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against members of protected groups (identified above) in a number of settings, including:
Education
Employment
Housing
Government benefits and services
Health care services
Land use / zoning
Lending and credit
Public accommodations (Access to buildings and businesses)
Transportation
Voting
Anti-Discrimination Laws
Most laws prohibiting discrimination, and many legal definitions of "discriminatory" acts, originated at the federal level through either:
Federal legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992. Other federal acts (supplemented by court decisions) prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, extension of credit, public education, and access to public facilities.
OR
Federal court decisions, like the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which was the impetus for nationwide racial desegregation of public schools. Other Supreme Court cases have shaped the definition of discriminatory acts like sexual harassment, and the legality of anti-discrimination remedies such as affirmative action programs.
Today, most states have anti-discrimination laws of their own which mirror those at the federal level. For example, in the state of Texas, Title 2 Chapter 21 of the Labor Code prohibits employment discrimination. Many of the mandates in this Texas law are based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law making employment discrimination unlawful.
Municipalities within states (such as cities, counties, and towns) can create their own anti-discrimination laws or ordinances, which may or may not resemble the laws of the state itself. For example, a city may pass legislation requiring domestic partner benefits for city employees and their same-sex partners, even though no such law exists at the state level.
Discrimination: Getting a Lawyer's Help
If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation such as discrimination, the best place to start is to speak with an experienced Discrimination Attorney. Important decisions related to your case can be complicated -- including which laws apply to your situation, and who is responsible for the discrimination and any harm you suffered. A Discrimination Attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/discrimination-defined.html
What are Civil Rights?
"Civil rights" are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.
Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African-Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics.
Where Do Civil Rights Come From?
Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, either through federal legislation, or through federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court). States also pass their own civil rights laws (usually very similar to those at the federal level), and even municipalities like cities and counties can enact ordinances and laws related to civil rights.
"Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties"
"Civil rights" are different from "civil liberties." Traditionally, the concept of "civil rights" has revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.), while "civil liberties" are more broad-based rights and freedoms that are guaranteed at the federal level by the Constitution and other federal law.
Civil Rights: Getting a Lawyer's Help
If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation, the best place to start is to speak with an experienced Civil Rights Attorney. Important decisions related to your case can be complicated -- including which laws apply to your situation, and who is responsible for any harm you suffered. A Civil Rights Attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.
Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African-Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics.
Where Do Civil Rights Come From?
Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, either through federal legislation, or through federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court). States also pass their own civil rights laws (usually very similar to those at the federal level), and even municipalities like cities and counties can enact ordinances and laws related to civil rights.
"Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties"
"Civil rights" are different from "civil liberties." Traditionally, the concept of "civil rights" has revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.), while "civil liberties" are more broad-based rights and freedoms that are guaranteed at the federal level by the Constitution and other federal law.
Civil Rights: Getting a Lawyer's Help
If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation, the best place to start is to speak with an experienced Civil Rights Attorney. Important decisions related to your case can be complicated -- including which laws apply to your situation, and who is responsible for any harm you suffered. A Civil Rights Attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-defined.html
воскресенье, 18 июля 2010 г.
Miranda Warnings
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you.
You can choose to exercise these rights at anytime.
What is Miranda?
Everyone who has watched an American police show, such as Dragnet, has heard these warnings. Most people can probably recite them as well as the police. Miranda warnings are based on the landmark United States case Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436 (1966). The warnings are required to be read during 'custodial interrogations'. This means that whenever a person is under arrest, and they are asked a question about a crime, these rights must be read to them. They must also understand these rights, and waive them voluntarily.
Who Was this Miranda?
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape by the Phoenix, Arizona police. He was taken to the police department where he was identified by the complainant. Then he was taken to an interrogation room, and two hours later he signed a confession. The confession was the principle basis for Miranda's conviction.
After the Supreme Court's decision, Miranda was re-tried without his statement. He was convicted again, and he served time in prison.
After he was released, Miranda was killed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested. Officers read the killer his Miranda rights, but he wouldn't speak with them. There wasn't enough evidence to convict him. So, ironically, Miranda's killer got off because of the Miranda vs Arizona case.
Arguments for Miranda
The basic argument for Miranda warnings is that they notify suspects of their rights during a very stressful time. Since a person is being held away from friends in a strange environment, the warning helps them understand what is happening and what they can do.
There are some district attorneys and police officers that like Miranda. They make suppression hearings very simple. If a prosecutor can prove that Miranda was read and waived properly, then any admissions are assumed to be voluntary. It simplifies motion to suppress hearings.
Arguments against Miranda
Miranda has several flaws. First, people are supposed to know the law and the cliché, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', is based on common law. People are assumed to be familiar with the law, and they are held responsible for that knowledge. Why should there be this one exception?
Secondly, the Miranda warnings are a part of American culture. Virtually everybody knows them. No one needs to have them read to them any longer.
Finally, the whole series of cases that led up to Miranda were geared towards proving that confessions were voluntary. Miranda ignores whether or not the statements are voluntary if the warnings haven't been read. If a person gives a voluntary confession it shouldn't be suppressed because they hadn't heard the warning. Even if a criminal defence attorney is interrogated, and these rights aren't read to him, his statements can be suppressed. The warnings have become an anachronism.
Myths about Miranda
Miranda is a much misunderstood decision and there are numerous misconceptions about what the decision means.
Officers Must Read the Miranda Warnings whenever they Arrest Someone
This comes from the curious fascination of directors having television cops read Miranda whenever they make an arrest. It's very dramatic, but it isn't necessary1. Officers are only required to read the Miranda warnings when someone is:
In custody
Being interrogated
If a person is arrested, and the officer doesn't have any questions for him, then there's no reason to read the warning. However, some agencies do require their officers to read people their rights every time they arrest someone.
Anything Gained in Violation of Miranda is Inadmissible
There are several ways to get statements that technically violate Miranda into court. One method that is allowed by Harris vs New York 401 US 222 (1971) is, after a person has invoked their Miranda rights, to keep questioning the suspect. You can even tell the suspect, 'Look, you don't have to worry about anything you say from here on out. We can't use anything else you say in our case-in-chief'. This is all technically correct, but you can use any information he provides to impeach him at trial.
If he gets on the stand, and denies any of the facts he gave you in violation of Miranda, the prosecution can use those statements to impeach his credibility. They can't be used for their value as direct evidence, but they do show that he changes his story. The fact that they're incriminating statements given by him is irrelevant to his impeachment (but they sure are convenient).
There is also a public safety exception. If you arrest someone, and you think they have a gun, you can ask them about it, because it's a matter of public safety.
I Have to Be Read Miranda on Traffic Stops
The courts have ruled that traffic stops are brief stops where custody doesn't exist. Therefore, officers don't need to read you Miranda before asking questions on traffic stops.
Now, if an officer develops probable cause to make an arrest during a traffic stop, things become vague. It is sometimes difficult to know when you gain probable cause and when the situation changes between investigative detention and custodial arrest. The best thing to do is not to ask directly incriminating questions when it appears that there may be an arrest. It is especially important to not indicate that you are going to arrest before you're investigation is complete.
There was one instance where an officer's case was thrown out because he requested a wrecker and then continued to ask questions. The court held that the person was under arrest when the wrecker was called because they felt that in the officer's mind that person was going to be arrested at that point.
How to Apply the Miranda Warnings
Rule for reading Miranda is that if you are a uniformed officer don't. Unless the case is your case, and you feel that you're ready to interrogate the person, then don't read it. If the person you arrested is going to be interrogated by someone else, let them read the warnings.
If you just had to chase the suspect, and you used minimum necessary force to arrest them, they probably will not be well disposed towards you. If you read them Miranda, they're not going to co-operate. If they refuse to talk to you, then a detective can not re-read them later. When a person is taken to a detective, he is meeting a person who is not in a uniform. The perception is that they are being taken to a person in authority over the officers who 'abused' them. The detective will approach the person in a friendly manner. They are trained to minimise the impact of the warnings, and usually they can obtain a confession if they're allowed to ask the person questions pursuant to Miranda.
There are many ways to get around Miranda, and to minimise its impact on the suspect.
Don't Interrupt
Miranda only applies when a police officer asks a question. If a person volunteers information, then listen carefully. Turn on your pocket tape recorder (it should already have been on). Let him say his piece. Do not interrupt the guy to read him his warnings - he wants to say his piece.
People will do this. Numerous admissions have been taken while officers have filled out paperwork. People have a hard time sitting in silence when other people are around. They want to talk.
Once the person has had their say, you may want to ask, 'Look, do you want to talk to me about this?'. If they say yes, then read them their warnings, and ask your questions (see below).
It's rude, disrespectful and stupid to prevent someone from confessing. Any officer who does this should be suspended!
Don't Take Them into Custody
Detectives routinely ask suspects to come down to the station. Detectives question them without Miranda being read, and then they let them leave. When the suspect leaves, the detective goes to the judge for an arrest warrant. This is called the 'Catch and Release' programme.
Reading Miranda
If you have to read Miranda to someone, then there are some ways to minimize the warning's effects. It's always good to talk to a person. Ask questions that don't have anything to do with the crime. Good questions include, 'Tell me about where you grew up?' and 'Describe your high school'. This makes them comfortable, and it allows you to pick up on their cues for honesty and deception.
Then you read the statement very quickly. The warning can be prefaced by something like: 'Look I need to read this to you. We're not really supposed to talk to you until you sign'. It also helps to make light of it. The Miranda waiver forms generally have five places to initial and two places to sign. You can remind the suspect, 'Look we're part of the government, and we have to sign everything in triplicate'.
Once they've signed, stay on non-threatening subjects, and put them at ease. Then start asking pertinent questions. They may get tired of the exercise and try to talk to you outright.
Dickerson vs United States
Would it Really Have Overturned Miranda?
Dickerson vs United States was the case that everyone said would 'overturn' Miranda. Miranda v. Arizona allowed for other methods of ensuring the voluntariness of confessions. The court held that as long as the other methods were at least as effective as Miranda, they would be proper. This was also a court-created rule, rather than something required by the Constitution. So Congress enacted 18 USC 3501.
Section 3501 makes the admissibility of statements turn on whether or not they are voluntary. One of the possible ways of showing that they are voluntary is showing that Miranda warnings are read. This was the method clearly preferred by the code section, but it allowed for other methods such as showing that no coercion was used and so forth.
Dickerson was a bank robber who was questioned without being read his Miranda warnings. He made a motion to suppress, which was granted by the District Court. The Government appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the statement was voluntary and that it complied with section 3501. It also concluded that Miranda was not of Constitutional significance, therefore, Congress could modify it by statute. The decision of the Fourth Circuit was reversed by the Supreme Court.
1 It's also a big mistake. Almost everyone will invoke their rights while being arrested.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you.
You can choose to exercise these rights at anytime.
What is Miranda?
Everyone who has watched an American police show, such as Dragnet, has heard these warnings. Most people can probably recite them as well as the police. Miranda warnings are based on the landmark United States case Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436 (1966). The warnings are required to be read during 'custodial interrogations'. This means that whenever a person is under arrest, and they are asked a question about a crime, these rights must be read to them. They must also understand these rights, and waive them voluntarily.
Who Was this Miranda?
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape by the Phoenix, Arizona police. He was taken to the police department where he was identified by the complainant. Then he was taken to an interrogation room, and two hours later he signed a confession. The confession was the principle basis for Miranda's conviction.
After the Supreme Court's decision, Miranda was re-tried without his statement. He was convicted again, and he served time in prison.
After he was released, Miranda was killed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested. Officers read the killer his Miranda rights, but he wouldn't speak with them. There wasn't enough evidence to convict him. So, ironically, Miranda's killer got off because of the Miranda vs Arizona case.
Arguments for Miranda
The basic argument for Miranda warnings is that they notify suspects of their rights during a very stressful time. Since a person is being held away from friends in a strange environment, the warning helps them understand what is happening and what they can do.
There are some district attorneys and police officers that like Miranda. They make suppression hearings very simple. If a prosecutor can prove that Miranda was read and waived properly, then any admissions are assumed to be voluntary. It simplifies motion to suppress hearings.
Arguments against Miranda
Miranda has several flaws. First, people are supposed to know the law and the cliché, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', is based on common law. People are assumed to be familiar with the law, and they are held responsible for that knowledge. Why should there be this one exception?
Secondly, the Miranda warnings are a part of American culture. Virtually everybody knows them. No one needs to have them read to them any longer.
Finally, the whole series of cases that led up to Miranda were geared towards proving that confessions were voluntary. Miranda ignores whether or not the statements are voluntary if the warnings haven't been read. If a person gives a voluntary confession it shouldn't be suppressed because they hadn't heard the warning. Even if a criminal defence attorney is interrogated, and these rights aren't read to him, his statements can be suppressed. The warnings have become an anachronism.
Myths about Miranda
Miranda is a much misunderstood decision and there are numerous misconceptions about what the decision means.
Officers Must Read the Miranda Warnings whenever they Arrest Someone
This comes from the curious fascination of directors having television cops read Miranda whenever they make an arrest. It's very dramatic, but it isn't necessary1. Officers are only required to read the Miranda warnings when someone is:
In custody
Being interrogated
If a person is arrested, and the officer doesn't have any questions for him, then there's no reason to read the warning. However, some agencies do require their officers to read people their rights every time they arrest someone.
Anything Gained in Violation of Miranda is Inadmissible
There are several ways to get statements that technically violate Miranda into court. One method that is allowed by Harris vs New York 401 US 222 (1971) is, after a person has invoked their Miranda rights, to keep questioning the suspect. You can even tell the suspect, 'Look, you don't have to worry about anything you say from here on out. We can't use anything else you say in our case-in-chief'. This is all technically correct, but you can use any information he provides to impeach him at trial.
If he gets on the stand, and denies any of the facts he gave you in violation of Miranda, the prosecution can use those statements to impeach his credibility. They can't be used for their value as direct evidence, but they do show that he changes his story. The fact that they're incriminating statements given by him is irrelevant to his impeachment (but they sure are convenient).
There is also a public safety exception. If you arrest someone, and you think they have a gun, you can ask them about it, because it's a matter of public safety.
I Have to Be Read Miranda on Traffic Stops
The courts have ruled that traffic stops are brief stops where custody doesn't exist. Therefore, officers don't need to read you Miranda before asking questions on traffic stops.
Now, if an officer develops probable cause to make an arrest during a traffic stop, things become vague. It is sometimes difficult to know when you gain probable cause and when the situation changes between investigative detention and custodial arrest. The best thing to do is not to ask directly incriminating questions when it appears that there may be an arrest. It is especially important to not indicate that you are going to arrest before you're investigation is complete.
There was one instance where an officer's case was thrown out because he requested a wrecker and then continued to ask questions. The court held that the person was under arrest when the wrecker was called because they felt that in the officer's mind that person was going to be arrested at that point.
How to Apply the Miranda Warnings
Rule for reading Miranda is that if you are a uniformed officer don't. Unless the case is your case, and you feel that you're ready to interrogate the person, then don't read it. If the person you arrested is going to be interrogated by someone else, let them read the warnings.
If you just had to chase the suspect, and you used minimum necessary force to arrest them, they probably will not be well disposed towards you. If you read them Miranda, they're not going to co-operate. If they refuse to talk to you, then a detective can not re-read them later. When a person is taken to a detective, he is meeting a person who is not in a uniform. The perception is that they are being taken to a person in authority over the officers who 'abused' them. The detective will approach the person in a friendly manner. They are trained to minimise the impact of the warnings, and usually they can obtain a confession if they're allowed to ask the person questions pursuant to Miranda.
There are many ways to get around Miranda, and to minimise its impact on the suspect.
Don't Interrupt
Miranda only applies when a police officer asks a question. If a person volunteers information, then listen carefully. Turn on your pocket tape recorder (it should already have been on). Let him say his piece. Do not interrupt the guy to read him his warnings - he wants to say his piece.
People will do this. Numerous admissions have been taken while officers have filled out paperwork. People have a hard time sitting in silence when other people are around. They want to talk.
Once the person has had their say, you may want to ask, 'Look, do you want to talk to me about this?'. If they say yes, then read them their warnings, and ask your questions (see below).
It's rude, disrespectful and stupid to prevent someone from confessing. Any officer who does this should be suspended!
Don't Take Them into Custody
Detectives routinely ask suspects to come down to the station. Detectives question them without Miranda being read, and then they let them leave. When the suspect leaves, the detective goes to the judge for an arrest warrant. This is called the 'Catch and Release' programme.
Reading Miranda
If you have to read Miranda to someone, then there are some ways to minimize the warning's effects. It's always good to talk to a person. Ask questions that don't have anything to do with the crime. Good questions include, 'Tell me about where you grew up?' and 'Describe your high school'. This makes them comfortable, and it allows you to pick up on their cues for honesty and deception.
Then you read the statement very quickly. The warning can be prefaced by something like: 'Look I need to read this to you. We're not really supposed to talk to you until you sign'. It also helps to make light of it. The Miranda waiver forms generally have five places to initial and two places to sign. You can remind the suspect, 'Look we're part of the government, and we have to sign everything in triplicate'.
Once they've signed, stay on non-threatening subjects, and put them at ease. Then start asking pertinent questions. They may get tired of the exercise and try to talk to you outright.
Dickerson vs United States
Would it Really Have Overturned Miranda?
Dickerson vs United States was the case that everyone said would 'overturn' Miranda. Miranda v. Arizona allowed for other methods of ensuring the voluntariness of confessions. The court held that as long as the other methods were at least as effective as Miranda, they would be proper. This was also a court-created rule, rather than something required by the Constitution. So Congress enacted 18 USC 3501.
Section 3501 makes the admissibility of statements turn on whether or not they are voluntary. One of the possible ways of showing that they are voluntary is showing that Miranda warnings are read. This was the method clearly preferred by the code section, but it allowed for other methods such as showing that no coercion was used and so forth.
Dickerson was a bank robber who was questioned without being read his Miranda warnings. He made a motion to suppress, which was granted by the District Court. The Government appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the statement was voluntary and that it complied with section 3501. It also concluded that Miranda was not of Constitutional significance, therefore, Congress could modify it by statute. The decision of the Fourth Circuit was reversed by the Supreme Court.
1 It's also a big mistake. Almost everyone will invoke their rights while being arrested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A593688
Matthew Hopkins, 'Witchfinder General' of East Anglia
He is a man that doth disclaime that ever he detected a witch, or said, Thou art a witch; only after her tryall by search, and their owne confessions, he as others may judge.
Matthew Hopkins is believed to have been responsible for the killing of around 300 women between the years 1644 and 1646. Many of these women were accused of witchcraft by children, and convicted on 'evidence' such as 'third nipples' considered to be a witches mark, any strange boil scar or birthmark would be the devil's mark which would be a 'dead spot' which wouldn't cause pain or bleed when pricked, or even owning a cat (not necessarily black) or other pet. Some now believe that these 'witches marks' were tumours or other similar growths, as boils (which are often assumed to be the most likely candidates) would have been quite common at the time.
They are most commonly insensible, and feele neither pin, needle, aule, &c. thrust through them.
The numbers may not seem much today, but in those days, that was a huge amount. Local magistrates would pay Hopkins up to 20 shillings for each 'witch' he uncovered who was then found guilty of witchcraft - the daily wage at the time was around 2 1/2p. He often boasted that he held the 'Devil's list of all English witches'. He had two assistants, John Stearne and Mary Phillips, who would assist in the 'questioning'.
The Problem Of Witches
Witchfinders became popular due to the Witchcraft Act of 1563, which made it illegal to be a witch. This was more widespread in Scotland at the time, many more women were persecuted as witches there than in England. It only became considered a serious crime in the reign of James I (1603-1625), when the law was changed to the Witchcraft Statute of 1604.
Matthew Hopkins was never in the direct employ of Parliament. He had appointed himself Witchfinder General and used the turmoil of the English Civil War to his advantage, allowing him to run roughshod over East Anglia without any challenge from any lawful authority.
Popular to contrary belief, witches in England were not burned at the stake. The punishment was death - by hanging. They were also not tried for heresy, as they were in other European countries, but maleficium - evil deed directed at the victim by the power of Satan.
Witches were believed to fornicate with the devil, kill babies, drink blood, desecrate the cross and conjure demons. Many people blamed any misfortune on witches.
The Man Himself
Hopkins is a man of mystery - barely any documentation exists to prove that he was ever born, or even died. He is believed to have died and been buried in Mistley in 1647, whether the victim of retribution on behalf of the women he murdered, or through natural causes is unknown. The most popular version of events states that Hopkins was eventually put to his own methods by an angry mob, but many historians think he retired with his ill-gotten gains and eventually died of 'consumption' (tuberculosis). He is believed to have been the son of a Puritan minister from Great Wenham. He became a solicitor, but attempts to start up a practice failed twice. He was drawn to his new trade after overhearing women discussing their meetings with the devil.
Unearthing The Witches
His methods were mainly bloodless, as torture was illegal, and this was his way of 'getting round' the law. In modern times, all the methods that Hopkins used would be considered to be torture. Sleep deprivation, making the victim walk or run up and down without rest and 'pricking' the skin led to a great deal of distress to innocent women, most of who were elderly and made the mistake of owning pets that Hopkins considered to be 'familiars' who would feed on blood from the 'third nipple'.
Prisoners would often be kept in cold, windowless cells and made to sit on uncomfortable wooden stools1. If the prisoner was seen to doze off they would be 'Walked', literally force marched around the cell, until they had woken up again. Although never confirmed one of the rumoured methods used to cause confusion was greeting prisoners with a 'good morning' or 'good afternoon' at random times of day, especially if they had just awoken. Pricking the skin consisted of him and his accomplices using retractable knives to poke the women, causing them to voice their pain. The blade was withdrawn into the hilt to enable him to poke an area, causing no noise and no blood from the victim. He also used solitary confinement, cross legged binding and starvation - none of these was considered torture under the law, but they still made women confess to crimes they did not commit. Women were tied up - left thumb to right toe, and right toe to left thumb, and thrown into water. The idea was that if the accused floated, she had been saved by her master, the devil, and so was guilty for rejecting the baptismal water. If she sank and drowned, she was innocent, but at least she died without a stain on her character. In order to aid buoyancy the 'witches' would often be dressed in loose fitting shifts, which would form air pockets around the prisoner’s body when she was thrown in the water. The natural urge to gasp in a lungful of air would have also made victims more buoyant.
Witches deny their baptisme when they Covenant with the Devill, water being the sole element thereof, and therefore saith he, when they be heaved into the water, the water refuseth to receive them into her bosome
He carried out his interrogations mainly at inns in Manningtree and Mistley2, with trials being held at Chelmsford assizes. Trials were a mockery; East Anglia was known as the 'Witch Country' due to the hysteria of the people. Courtrooms were noisy, chaotic places, often making it impossible to hear the charges, let alone the testimony.
The 'Witches'
His first victim was Elizabeth Clarke of Manningtree; evidence she gave under torture led him to another five victims, one of whom led Hopkins to more to save her own life, creating a total of 32. Clarke was a widow, as many of his victims were. With no man beside them to protect them, widows were easy targets. Hopkins gave his evidence at Colchester Castle, and the trial took place at Chelmsford. In all, 28 women were convicted at that trial. Four died in gaol and the rest were hanged.
After his first success, Hopkins began touring East Anglia in an effort to unmask the area's witches. His record was 19 witches hanged in one day. He moved into Suffolk after Elizabeth Clarke's trial, as a result of things he had heard during her interrogation at Manningtree. He was searching for Mother Hovey, and began to look at her birthplace of Hadleigh. Nothing came of that search, but undeterred, he carried on. He would let it be known that he was approaching an area, and would then charge a fee for a consultation and initial survey, as well as his charge for each conviction. How many magistrates and judges let him do his work unmolested, for fear that perhaps his eye would fall upon them? There was no legal counter-argument against a charge of witchcraft.
He didn't only persecute women - one of his victims was an 80 year old vicar. John Lowes had held his position in the village of Brandeston in Suffolk for 50 years. Considered to be cantankerous and eccentric, the villagers wanted a new vicar. In reality, he was simply a Catholic who preached that way, instead of the Puritan way, and an old man set in his ways. His parishioners had previously tried to make witchcraft charges stick. On the first attempt to remove him from the vicarage he took the side of one woman in a quarrel, Ann Anson. Unfortunately she ended up convicted of witchcraft and hanged. After this, attempts were made to make the charges of witchcraft stick to Lowes himself, but none were successful. The parishioners approached Hopkins, who took him in for questioning. Eventually, he was tried and convicted after Hopkins usual methods had succeeded, and he was hanged.
Extra Facts
Matthew Hopkins was accused of being in league with the Devil which was why he was able to spot witches; his pamphlet 'The Discovery of Witches' was written as a reaction to this. It was published in London in 1647.
Hopkins carried on his trade for 18 months, putting to death more women than all of the other witchfinders put together.
His memory inspired at least one film, Witchfinder General (1968), known in the US as Edgar Allan Poe's 'Conqueror Worm'. The film actually has nothing to do with the poem, the American distributors changed the title because Vincent Price was doing a series of Poe-inspired films at the time and they wanted to release it as part of the series.
More 'witches' were hanged in Essex than any other English county.
Sadly, the witch-hunts and hysteria continued in East Anglia even after Hopkins was off the scene, for over 40 years, although not in the same organised way. The last woman to be convicted and hanged for witchcraft in England was a woman named Alice Holland in Exeter in 1684.
The Museum of Witchcraft at Boscastle holds two black and white reproduction images of Hopkins.
1 Presumably with plenty of splinters on the seat.
2 It is believed that Mistley Thorn Hotel stands on the site of the inn that Hopkins used in Mistley.
Matthew Hopkins is believed to have been responsible for the killing of around 300 women between the years 1644 and 1646. Many of these women were accused of witchcraft by children, and convicted on 'evidence' such as 'third nipples' considered to be a witches mark, any strange boil scar or birthmark would be the devil's mark which would be a 'dead spot' which wouldn't cause pain or bleed when pricked, or even owning a cat (not necessarily black) or other pet. Some now believe that these 'witches marks' were tumours or other similar growths, as boils (which are often assumed to be the most likely candidates) would have been quite common at the time.
They are most commonly insensible, and feele neither pin, needle, aule, &c. thrust through them.
The numbers may not seem much today, but in those days, that was a huge amount. Local magistrates would pay Hopkins up to 20 shillings for each 'witch' he uncovered who was then found guilty of witchcraft - the daily wage at the time was around 2 1/2p. He often boasted that he held the 'Devil's list of all English witches'. He had two assistants, John Stearne and Mary Phillips, who would assist in the 'questioning'.
The Problem Of Witches
Witchfinders became popular due to the Witchcraft Act of 1563, which made it illegal to be a witch. This was more widespread in Scotland at the time, many more women were persecuted as witches there than in England. It only became considered a serious crime in the reign of James I (1603-1625), when the law was changed to the Witchcraft Statute of 1604.
Matthew Hopkins was never in the direct employ of Parliament. He had appointed himself Witchfinder General and used the turmoil of the English Civil War to his advantage, allowing him to run roughshod over East Anglia without any challenge from any lawful authority.
Popular to contrary belief, witches in England were not burned at the stake. The punishment was death - by hanging. They were also not tried for heresy, as they were in other European countries, but maleficium - evil deed directed at the victim by the power of Satan.
Witches were believed to fornicate with the devil, kill babies, drink blood, desecrate the cross and conjure demons. Many people blamed any misfortune on witches.
The Man Himself
Hopkins is a man of mystery - barely any documentation exists to prove that he was ever born, or even died. He is believed to have died and been buried in Mistley in 1647, whether the victim of retribution on behalf of the women he murdered, or through natural causes is unknown. The most popular version of events states that Hopkins was eventually put to his own methods by an angry mob, but many historians think he retired with his ill-gotten gains and eventually died of 'consumption' (tuberculosis). He is believed to have been the son of a Puritan minister from Great Wenham. He became a solicitor, but attempts to start up a practice failed twice. He was drawn to his new trade after overhearing women discussing their meetings with the devil.
Unearthing The Witches
His methods were mainly bloodless, as torture was illegal, and this was his way of 'getting round' the law. In modern times, all the methods that Hopkins used would be considered to be torture. Sleep deprivation, making the victim walk or run up and down without rest and 'pricking' the skin led to a great deal of distress to innocent women, most of who were elderly and made the mistake of owning pets that Hopkins considered to be 'familiars' who would feed on blood from the 'third nipple'.
Prisoners would often be kept in cold, windowless cells and made to sit on uncomfortable wooden stools1. If the prisoner was seen to doze off they would be 'Walked', literally force marched around the cell, until they had woken up again. Although never confirmed one of the rumoured methods used to cause confusion was greeting prisoners with a 'good morning' or 'good afternoon' at random times of day, especially if they had just awoken. Pricking the skin consisted of him and his accomplices using retractable knives to poke the women, causing them to voice their pain. The blade was withdrawn into the hilt to enable him to poke an area, causing no noise and no blood from the victim. He also used solitary confinement, cross legged binding and starvation - none of these was considered torture under the law, but they still made women confess to crimes they did not commit. Women were tied up - left thumb to right toe, and right toe to left thumb, and thrown into water. The idea was that if the accused floated, she had been saved by her master, the devil, and so was guilty for rejecting the baptismal water. If she sank and drowned, she was innocent, but at least she died without a stain on her character. In order to aid buoyancy the 'witches' would often be dressed in loose fitting shifts, which would form air pockets around the prisoner’s body when she was thrown in the water. The natural urge to gasp in a lungful of air would have also made victims more buoyant.
Witches deny their baptisme when they Covenant with the Devill, water being the sole element thereof, and therefore saith he, when they be heaved into the water, the water refuseth to receive them into her bosome
He carried out his interrogations mainly at inns in Manningtree and Mistley2, with trials being held at Chelmsford assizes. Trials were a mockery; East Anglia was known as the 'Witch Country' due to the hysteria of the people. Courtrooms were noisy, chaotic places, often making it impossible to hear the charges, let alone the testimony.
The 'Witches'
His first victim was Elizabeth Clarke of Manningtree; evidence she gave under torture led him to another five victims, one of whom led Hopkins to more to save her own life, creating a total of 32. Clarke was a widow, as many of his victims were. With no man beside them to protect them, widows were easy targets. Hopkins gave his evidence at Colchester Castle, and the trial took place at Chelmsford. In all, 28 women were convicted at that trial. Four died in gaol and the rest were hanged.
After his first success, Hopkins began touring East Anglia in an effort to unmask the area's witches. His record was 19 witches hanged in one day. He moved into Suffolk after Elizabeth Clarke's trial, as a result of things he had heard during her interrogation at Manningtree. He was searching for Mother Hovey, and began to look at her birthplace of Hadleigh. Nothing came of that search, but undeterred, he carried on. He would let it be known that he was approaching an area, and would then charge a fee for a consultation and initial survey, as well as his charge for each conviction. How many magistrates and judges let him do his work unmolested, for fear that perhaps his eye would fall upon them? There was no legal counter-argument against a charge of witchcraft.
He didn't only persecute women - one of his victims was an 80 year old vicar. John Lowes had held his position in the village of Brandeston in Suffolk for 50 years. Considered to be cantankerous and eccentric, the villagers wanted a new vicar. In reality, he was simply a Catholic who preached that way, instead of the Puritan way, and an old man set in his ways. His parishioners had previously tried to make witchcraft charges stick. On the first attempt to remove him from the vicarage he took the side of one woman in a quarrel, Ann Anson. Unfortunately she ended up convicted of witchcraft and hanged. After this, attempts were made to make the charges of witchcraft stick to Lowes himself, but none were successful. The parishioners approached Hopkins, who took him in for questioning. Eventually, he was tried and convicted after Hopkins usual methods had succeeded, and he was hanged.
Extra Facts
Matthew Hopkins was accused of being in league with the Devil which was why he was able to spot witches; his pamphlet 'The Discovery of Witches' was written as a reaction to this. It was published in London in 1647.
Hopkins carried on his trade for 18 months, putting to death more women than all of the other witchfinders put together.
His memory inspired at least one film, Witchfinder General (1968), known in the US as Edgar Allan Poe's 'Conqueror Worm'. The film actually has nothing to do with the poem, the American distributors changed the title because Vincent Price was doing a series of Poe-inspired films at the time and they wanted to release it as part of the series.
More 'witches' were hanged in Essex than any other English county.
Sadly, the witch-hunts and hysteria continued in East Anglia even after Hopkins was off the scene, for over 40 years, although not in the same organised way. The last woman to be convicted and hanged for witchcraft in England was a woman named Alice Holland in Exeter in 1684.
The Museum of Witchcraft at Boscastle holds two black and white reproduction images of Hopkins.
1 Presumably with plenty of splinters on the seat.
2 It is believed that Mistley Thorn Hotel stands on the site of the inn that Hopkins used in Mistley.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6358926
Life Inside Newgate Prison, London, UK
The hellish noise, the roaring, swelling and clamour, the stench and nastiness [...] an emblem of hell itself.
- Moll Flanders, Daniel Defoe
An abominable sink of beastliness and corruption.
- Sir Stephen Jansen
The Building
The Central Criminal Court in London stands on the original site of Newgate Prison1. There has been a prison on this site since the 12th Century, if not before. It was rebuilt a number of times - Dick Whittington2 left a bequest to rebuild it, and, in 1422, a licence was granted to the executors 'to re-edify the gaol of Newgate'. At the end of the 16th Century it had to be 'new fronted and new faced'; it also had to be rebuilt after the Great Fire in 1666. It was considered a bottleneck a century later, and was demolished (including the gateway) in 1770. It took eight years3 to rebuild. The Gordon rioters set fire to Newgate in 1780, and the interior was reconstructed for the final time.
When the rebuilding was finished in 1672, the difference between the inside and the outside could not have been greater; it was a magnificent structure. Facing Snow Hill was a statue of Dick Whittington and his cat, underneath the emblematical figures of Liberty, Peace, Security and Plenty. On the east side there were statues depicting Justice, Fortitude and Plenty.
Justice
Those who refused to plead4 would be taken to the prison and pressed until they changed their mind or died. This involved being tied, spread-eagled, to the floor wearing virtually nothing, and having a board laid on the top. Weights were added each day, and the prisoner given nothing but water and a few scraps of bread for days. If they managed to stay silent until they died, they could not be found guilty, and the crown could not confiscate their estates. Prior to 1426, the punishment for refusing to plead was starvation, but the method was changed because too many prisoners were allowing themselves to die.
Life Inside
With over 350 crimes punishable by death5 in the 18th century - and transportation, branding and other forms of public penance taking care of many of the rest - long prison sentences were almost unheard of. However, many stayed in prison until they died, despite receiving a short sentence, or no sentence at all. With no police force, catching criminals was very difficult. Execution was supposed to deter other would-be lawbreakers.
Of the 150 prisons in London, Newgate was the largest, most notorious and the worst. It had room for between 40 and 50 prisoners at various times. Because prisons were privately run, any time spent in prison had to be paid for by the prisoner; gaoler in those times was a lucrative position, and one that had to be paid for. 'Garnish' had to be paid on arrival, payments for candles, soap and other supplies had to be made. Heavy manacles - often painfully constricting - were attached to prisoners and then secured to chains and staples in the floor. The prisoner could pay to have lighter manacles fitted ('easement of irons'), or have them removed entirely. The freedom to walk around could also be bought, if enough money changed hands. Prisoners were also housed according to their ability to pay, ranging from a private cell with a cleaning woman and a visiting prostitute, to simply lying on the floor with no cover and barely any clothes. Lice were everywhere, and only a quarter of the prisoners survived until their execution day. Infectious diseases like typhus - the so-called 'gaol-fever', which was spread throughout the prison by lice and fleas, killed far more people than the gallows.
Food was provided by the authorities, and by charities to those who could not pay, but cooking wasn't included and so it was often eaten raw. Drink was also available - the prison had a bar - although the prices were extortionate. Leaving prison was not simply a matter of finishing a sentence and walking out. A departure fee had to be paid and, until it was, prisoners could not leave. Those who died inside had to stay there as a rotting corpse until relatives found the money for it to be released. The stench was unimaginable, and unavoidable for the incarcerated. Nearby shops were often forced to close in the summer because of the unbearable smell. It wasn't unusual for children to be conceived and born inside the prison, for men and women freely mingled, and the women found that they could swap sex for food; if they became pregnant they could 'plead the belly' in an attempt to avoid hanging. Surviving children were taken to the workhouse, where their chances weren't much better. Prisoners often had their entire families inside the prisons with them, including any family pets6.
Spiritual Life
Prison chaplains (called 'Ordinaries') held services inside the prison, although the chaos there often resulted in the Ordinary having to shout to be heard during a sermon. They also held the service for the condemned. Gathered around their coffins, the prisoners would listen to a lengthy sermon on the Sunday before they were taken to the Tyburn tree, with the fee-paying public in the gallery.
Ordinaries also attended the condemned in the prison on the eve of their execution. Supposedly bringing them spiritual peace of mind, they were usually more interested in getting prisoners' stories so that they could sell them as broadsheets at huge profit on the way to Tyburn.
The tenor bell in the bell tower at St Sepulchre-without-Newgate was rung on mornings when there was an execution. The 'execution bell' was a hand bell that was rung for other services concerning condemned prisoners; it was also rung outside the condemned cell at midnight. The bellman would repeat the following verse three times as he paced outside the condemned cells. A merchant taylor, Robert Dove, gave Ј40 to the parish in 1604 to ensure that this was done, in the hope that the prisoners would seek redemption.
All you that in the condemned hold do lie
Prepare you, for tomorrow you will die.
Watch all, and pray, the hour is drawing near
That you before th'Almighty must appear
Examine well yourselves, in time repent,
That you may not t'eternal flames be sent;
And when St Sepulchre's bell tomorrow tolls,
The Lord have mercy on your souls!
Newgate Prison acquired its own bell in 1783, and the tenor bell was no longer used on execution mornings.
Executions
When executions were stopped at Tyburn, they moved to Newgate, and public burnings7 and hangings were carried out in the open area in front of the smoke-blackened prison until 1868. Hangings were carried out on the 'new drop' – a portable gallows with a collapsible platform. Intended to break necks and bring death more quickly, this unfortunately depended on the hangman making sure that the rope was the right length, and very few got it right, if they even bothered to try.
After 1868, hangings were carried out within the walls of the prison. 'Dead Men's Walk' was the burial ground for those executed here, under the stone flags of the corridor that connected the prison with the adjoining courts. Suspended over a pit in the prison yard, the gallows were built so that they could hold three prisoners at a time. This was also intended to break necks, but most of the prisoners continued to slowly strangle to death
After Newgate Was Demolished
When Newgate prison was finally demolished in 1902 the gallows were moved to Pentonville Prison, where more criminals were executed than at any other British prison up to the last execution in July 1961.
The male prisoners were also moved to Pentonville, and the women moved to the recently-renovated Holloway Prison for women.
The Central Criminal Court next door was also knocked down with the prison. Building began on the site in 1903 (using as much of the prison stone as possible), and three years later the new Central Criminal Court (The old Bailey) was finished.
Fascinating Facts
Last execution at Newgate was in May 1902.
Newgate prison occupied the site of the main west gate into London in Roman times.
The last triple execution at Newgate was 19 May, 1901.
The Debtors' Door of the prison is now on display in the Museum of London, along with other relics.
The phrase 'Black as a Newgate's Knocker' (meaning very black indeed) refers to the door knocker on the entrance to the prison.
1 The court is more commonly know as 'the Old Bailey', after the street in which it stands. The name comes from the situation of the original building in the bailey - the area inside the wall, which provided the first line of defence - of the City Wall.
2 Not just a pantomime character but real life, three times Mayor of London.
3 The Sessions House next door was finished in 1774.
4 Prisoners could not be tried without their consent, so staying quiet was a way of avoiding a trial.
5 By 1861 only treason, piracy, mutiny and murder were capital offences.
6 Dogs were allowed inside until 1792. Pigs, pigeons and poultry were not banned until 1814.
7 For those women condemned for treason or for murdering their husbands.
- Moll Flanders, Daniel Defoe
An abominable sink of beastliness and corruption.
- Sir Stephen Jansen
The Building
The Central Criminal Court in London stands on the original site of Newgate Prison1. There has been a prison on this site since the 12th Century, if not before. It was rebuilt a number of times - Dick Whittington2 left a bequest to rebuild it, and, in 1422, a licence was granted to the executors 'to re-edify the gaol of Newgate'. At the end of the 16th Century it had to be 'new fronted and new faced'; it also had to be rebuilt after the Great Fire in 1666. It was considered a bottleneck a century later, and was demolished (including the gateway) in 1770. It took eight years3 to rebuild. The Gordon rioters set fire to Newgate in 1780, and the interior was reconstructed for the final time.
When the rebuilding was finished in 1672, the difference between the inside and the outside could not have been greater; it was a magnificent structure. Facing Snow Hill was a statue of Dick Whittington and his cat, underneath the emblematical figures of Liberty, Peace, Security and Plenty. On the east side there were statues depicting Justice, Fortitude and Plenty.
Justice
Those who refused to plead4 would be taken to the prison and pressed until they changed their mind or died. This involved being tied, spread-eagled, to the floor wearing virtually nothing, and having a board laid on the top. Weights were added each day, and the prisoner given nothing but water and a few scraps of bread for days. If they managed to stay silent until they died, they could not be found guilty, and the crown could not confiscate their estates. Prior to 1426, the punishment for refusing to plead was starvation, but the method was changed because too many prisoners were allowing themselves to die.
Life Inside
With over 350 crimes punishable by death5 in the 18th century - and transportation, branding and other forms of public penance taking care of many of the rest - long prison sentences were almost unheard of. However, many stayed in prison until they died, despite receiving a short sentence, or no sentence at all. With no police force, catching criminals was very difficult. Execution was supposed to deter other would-be lawbreakers.
Of the 150 prisons in London, Newgate was the largest, most notorious and the worst. It had room for between 40 and 50 prisoners at various times. Because prisons were privately run, any time spent in prison had to be paid for by the prisoner; gaoler in those times was a lucrative position, and one that had to be paid for. 'Garnish' had to be paid on arrival, payments for candles, soap and other supplies had to be made. Heavy manacles - often painfully constricting - were attached to prisoners and then secured to chains and staples in the floor. The prisoner could pay to have lighter manacles fitted ('easement of irons'), or have them removed entirely. The freedom to walk around could also be bought, if enough money changed hands. Prisoners were also housed according to their ability to pay, ranging from a private cell with a cleaning woman and a visiting prostitute, to simply lying on the floor with no cover and barely any clothes. Lice were everywhere, and only a quarter of the prisoners survived until their execution day. Infectious diseases like typhus - the so-called 'gaol-fever', which was spread throughout the prison by lice and fleas, killed far more people than the gallows.
Food was provided by the authorities, and by charities to those who could not pay, but cooking wasn't included and so it was often eaten raw. Drink was also available - the prison had a bar - although the prices were extortionate. Leaving prison was not simply a matter of finishing a sentence and walking out. A departure fee had to be paid and, until it was, prisoners could not leave. Those who died inside had to stay there as a rotting corpse until relatives found the money for it to be released. The stench was unimaginable, and unavoidable for the incarcerated. Nearby shops were often forced to close in the summer because of the unbearable smell. It wasn't unusual for children to be conceived and born inside the prison, for men and women freely mingled, and the women found that they could swap sex for food; if they became pregnant they could 'plead the belly' in an attempt to avoid hanging. Surviving children were taken to the workhouse, where their chances weren't much better. Prisoners often had their entire families inside the prisons with them, including any family pets6.
Spiritual Life
Prison chaplains (called 'Ordinaries') held services inside the prison, although the chaos there often resulted in the Ordinary having to shout to be heard during a sermon. They also held the service for the condemned. Gathered around their coffins, the prisoners would listen to a lengthy sermon on the Sunday before they were taken to the Tyburn tree, with the fee-paying public in the gallery.
Ordinaries also attended the condemned in the prison on the eve of their execution. Supposedly bringing them spiritual peace of mind, they were usually more interested in getting prisoners' stories so that they could sell them as broadsheets at huge profit on the way to Tyburn.
The tenor bell in the bell tower at St Sepulchre-without-Newgate was rung on mornings when there was an execution. The 'execution bell' was a hand bell that was rung for other services concerning condemned prisoners; it was also rung outside the condemned cell at midnight. The bellman would repeat the following verse three times as he paced outside the condemned cells. A merchant taylor, Robert Dove, gave Ј40 to the parish in 1604 to ensure that this was done, in the hope that the prisoners would seek redemption.
All you that in the condemned hold do lie
Prepare you, for tomorrow you will die.
Watch all, and pray, the hour is drawing near
That you before th'Almighty must appear
Examine well yourselves, in time repent,
That you may not t'eternal flames be sent;
And when St Sepulchre's bell tomorrow tolls,
The Lord have mercy on your souls!
Newgate Prison acquired its own bell in 1783, and the tenor bell was no longer used on execution mornings.
Executions
When executions were stopped at Tyburn, they moved to Newgate, and public burnings7 and hangings were carried out in the open area in front of the smoke-blackened prison until 1868. Hangings were carried out on the 'new drop' – a portable gallows with a collapsible platform. Intended to break necks and bring death more quickly, this unfortunately depended on the hangman making sure that the rope was the right length, and very few got it right, if they even bothered to try.
After 1868, hangings were carried out within the walls of the prison. 'Dead Men's Walk' was the burial ground for those executed here, under the stone flags of the corridor that connected the prison with the adjoining courts. Suspended over a pit in the prison yard, the gallows were built so that they could hold three prisoners at a time. This was also intended to break necks, but most of the prisoners continued to slowly strangle to death
After Newgate Was Demolished
When Newgate prison was finally demolished in 1902 the gallows were moved to Pentonville Prison, where more criminals were executed than at any other British prison up to the last execution in July 1961.
The male prisoners were also moved to Pentonville, and the women moved to the recently-renovated Holloway Prison for women.
The Central Criminal Court next door was also knocked down with the prison. Building began on the site in 1903 (using as much of the prison stone as possible), and three years later the new Central Criminal Court (The old Bailey) was finished.
Fascinating Facts
Last execution at Newgate was in May 1902.
Newgate prison occupied the site of the main west gate into London in Roman times.
The last triple execution at Newgate was 19 May, 1901.
The Debtors' Door of the prison is now on display in the Museum of London, along with other relics.
The phrase 'Black as a Newgate's Knocker' (meaning very black indeed) refers to the door knocker on the entrance to the prison.
1 The court is more commonly know as 'the Old Bailey', after the street in which it stands. The name comes from the situation of the original building in the bailey - the area inside the wall, which provided the first line of defence - of the City Wall.
2 Not just a pantomime character but real life, three times Mayor of London.
3 The Sessions House next door was finished in 1774.
4 Prisoners could not be tried without their consent, so staying quiet was a way of avoiding a trial.
5 By 1861 only treason, piracy, mutiny and murder were capital offences.
6 Dogs were allowed inside until 1792. Pigs, pigeons and poultry were not banned until 1814.
7 For those women condemned for treason or for murdering their husbands.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A987861
The Legal Side of Death in England and Wales
When someone dies, in addition to grieving and arrangements with undertakers, there is a lot of legal paperwork that sustains life and careers elsewhere. The papers are needed because they allow the bereaved to recover the deceased's mortal remains and finalise their estate, releasing it from the civil court. In common language, not legalese, 'probate' is the process for obtaining the power to disburse an estate, so that the beneficiaries can receive their inheritance, after the government has taken any share to which it may be entitled.
The UK Legal System
This Entry outlines the current UK process. More specifically it is the process used in England, Wales and, to some extent, Northern Ireland, as Scotland has a completely separate legal system and language, as well as property laws.
Wills
It is simplest, when someone has died, if the deceased has left a legal will. This has to be written by the loved one and witnessed. It costs at least Ј100 for a solicitor to draw up a simple will. More complicated estates are likely to cost more, but will save a significant amount in inheritance tax. Wills are a major tool in inheritance tax planning.
The will normally nominates an executor, who is the person who must sort out the estate. The executor is often a family member, and may be in line for an inheritance, also known as a legacy. In some cases the will may have appointed a solicitor as the executor, rather than a family member.
If the deceased did not leave a legal will, then they have died in what is called a state of intestacy. The process is more complicated, and many legatees1 may not even know of their potential inheritance. In this case the State takes the legacy and disburses it according to intestacy rules, and not according to the wishes of the deceased. It can happen that without a legal will, a spouse could find that the family home is inherited by a relative2, all for the sake of a Ј100 will. If there are no apparent heirs, the State will take the inheritance until such time as any heirs make themselves known.
The Death Certificate
Before you can bury, cremate or otherwise dispose of the mortal remains of the deceased, there are other legal formalities to follow. The National Health Service administers the first part.
In the 21st Century most people die in hospital, or sometimes a hospice. If someone dies at home, the family doctor will visit to confirm death and a funeral director will arrange to collect the mortal remains. Funeral directors usually have a 24-hour on-call service and are happy to come and collect the loved one from home. Most hospitals have a morgue where the body is kept until released for disposal. Apart from a very short journey, the body is already close to a funeral parlour, followed by another short journey, usually in a hearse, to a crematorium or graveyard.
The process of registering a death begins with a form, loosely called the 'cause of death form' or medical certificate. This is issued by a medical practitioner, usually in the hospital, to say the deceased is legally dead, that nothing suspicious happened and that the body may be handed over to an undertaker. It also avoids the complication and delay of a post-mortem examination and a coroner's court, with more forms. If the death occurred under suspicious circumstances, or the deceased had not been seen by a doctor during the previous two weeks, a post-mortem could be ordered by the coroner. (Usually, however, if someone dies at home of a terminal disease, and had not seen a doctor within the last two weeks, the coroner would authorise a medical certificate without a post-mortem).
The medical certificate is also taken to another government official, whose job it is to register the deceased's death and issue the death certificate. By this act, the Registrar of Deaths officially recognises the deceased's life has ended.
Financial institutions, including banks and pension providers, and legal practitioners, including the court granting probate, will need to see the death certificate. It will also be of interest to relatives researching their family trees in years to come. It pays to obtain four or five copies from the registrar because of its multiple uses.
Probate
The Probate Service of the civil court grants probate, meaning that the will has been formally accepted, and made public, the death certificate has been accepted, the deceased's assets have been assessed, and any liability to inheritance tax has been properly calculated and paid. What is left may be disbursed to those named in the will. That's it. Easy. However, getting to that point isn't.
Assessing the estate (the deceased's assets, less liabilities) is complicated, and will involve property, bank and building society accounts, personal goods and chattels, stocks and shares, insurance policies, businesses and possibly numbered accounts. On the debit side there may be unpaid taxes, unpaid loans and other debts of money, including overpaid pensions and the funeral expenses (which are allowed to be paid out of the estate). However, selling property is usually the biggest challenge, involving estate agents and solicitors.
Finally, having added up the pluses and minuses, and successfully completed the sum, the final figure, less any inheritance tax, is what the estate is worth to the beneficiaries. The court will then, after ensuring inheritance tax liability has been discharged, grant probate. This, another piece of paper, will be needed by the bank to set up a cheque account for the executors. (If the sum turns out to be a negative amount, advice from an accountant may be necessary).
The executors will then disperse the proceeds in accordance with the legal will, assuming there isn't a challenge from a disaffected relative or previously unknown family member. In that event, a lawyer may be needed to finalise the disbursement.
What Can Go Wrong?
Sometimes the process can go wrong, at any stage. In some cases, when the deceased's bank has to issue a cheque book and an account to the executors so that they may disburse the estate's funds, at the final hurdle, a mistake may be made. It has been known that receiving banks return the cheques written by the executors because the issuing bank forgot to enter the executor's signatures on their system. This can lead to many months of anguish, hugely expensive unauthorised overdrafts and recourse to the financial ombudsman to recover lost interest and compensation.
The process is well documented and it is relatively easy when things do not go wrong. And it takes your mind off the other, really painful part of death and coping with bereavement.
1 Those who are in line for a legacy.
2 Although sometimes a legal will can be changed by a 'deed of variation' if all the inheritors agree.
The UK Legal System
This Entry outlines the current UK process. More specifically it is the process used in England, Wales and, to some extent, Northern Ireland, as Scotland has a completely separate legal system and language, as well as property laws.
Wills
It is simplest, when someone has died, if the deceased has left a legal will. This has to be written by the loved one and witnessed. It costs at least Ј100 for a solicitor to draw up a simple will. More complicated estates are likely to cost more, but will save a significant amount in inheritance tax. Wills are a major tool in inheritance tax planning.
The will normally nominates an executor, who is the person who must sort out the estate. The executor is often a family member, and may be in line for an inheritance, also known as a legacy. In some cases the will may have appointed a solicitor as the executor, rather than a family member.
If the deceased did not leave a legal will, then they have died in what is called a state of intestacy. The process is more complicated, and many legatees1 may not even know of their potential inheritance. In this case the State takes the legacy and disburses it according to intestacy rules, and not according to the wishes of the deceased. It can happen that without a legal will, a spouse could find that the family home is inherited by a relative2, all for the sake of a Ј100 will. If there are no apparent heirs, the State will take the inheritance until such time as any heirs make themselves known.
The Death Certificate
Before you can bury, cremate or otherwise dispose of the mortal remains of the deceased, there are other legal formalities to follow. The National Health Service administers the first part.
In the 21st Century most people die in hospital, or sometimes a hospice. If someone dies at home, the family doctor will visit to confirm death and a funeral director will arrange to collect the mortal remains. Funeral directors usually have a 24-hour on-call service and are happy to come and collect the loved one from home. Most hospitals have a morgue where the body is kept until released for disposal. Apart from a very short journey, the body is already close to a funeral parlour, followed by another short journey, usually in a hearse, to a crematorium or graveyard.
The process of registering a death begins with a form, loosely called the 'cause of death form' or medical certificate. This is issued by a medical practitioner, usually in the hospital, to say the deceased is legally dead, that nothing suspicious happened and that the body may be handed over to an undertaker. It also avoids the complication and delay of a post-mortem examination and a coroner's court, with more forms. If the death occurred under suspicious circumstances, or the deceased had not been seen by a doctor during the previous two weeks, a post-mortem could be ordered by the coroner. (Usually, however, if someone dies at home of a terminal disease, and had not seen a doctor within the last two weeks, the coroner would authorise a medical certificate without a post-mortem).
The medical certificate is also taken to another government official, whose job it is to register the deceased's death and issue the death certificate. By this act, the Registrar of Deaths officially recognises the deceased's life has ended.
Financial institutions, including banks and pension providers, and legal practitioners, including the court granting probate, will need to see the death certificate. It will also be of interest to relatives researching their family trees in years to come. It pays to obtain four or five copies from the registrar because of its multiple uses.
Probate
The Probate Service of the civil court grants probate, meaning that the will has been formally accepted, and made public, the death certificate has been accepted, the deceased's assets have been assessed, and any liability to inheritance tax has been properly calculated and paid. What is left may be disbursed to those named in the will. That's it. Easy. However, getting to that point isn't.
Assessing the estate (the deceased's assets, less liabilities) is complicated, and will involve property, bank and building society accounts, personal goods and chattels, stocks and shares, insurance policies, businesses and possibly numbered accounts. On the debit side there may be unpaid taxes, unpaid loans and other debts of money, including overpaid pensions and the funeral expenses (which are allowed to be paid out of the estate). However, selling property is usually the biggest challenge, involving estate agents and solicitors.
Finally, having added up the pluses and minuses, and successfully completed the sum, the final figure, less any inheritance tax, is what the estate is worth to the beneficiaries. The court will then, after ensuring inheritance tax liability has been discharged, grant probate. This, another piece of paper, will be needed by the bank to set up a cheque account for the executors. (If the sum turns out to be a negative amount, advice from an accountant may be necessary).
The executors will then disperse the proceeds in accordance with the legal will, assuming there isn't a challenge from a disaffected relative or previously unknown family member. In that event, a lawyer may be needed to finalise the disbursement.
What Can Go Wrong?
Sometimes the process can go wrong, at any stage. In some cases, when the deceased's bank has to issue a cheque book and an account to the executors so that they may disburse the estate's funds, at the final hurdle, a mistake may be made. It has been known that receiving banks return the cheques written by the executors because the issuing bank forgot to enter the executor's signatures on their system. This can lead to many months of anguish, hugely expensive unauthorised overdrafts and recourse to the financial ombudsman to recover lost interest and compensation.
The process is well documented and it is relatively easy when things do not go wrong. And it takes your mind off the other, really painful part of death and coping with bereavement.
1 Those who are in line for a legacy.
2 Although sometimes a legal will can be changed by a 'deed of variation' if all the inheritors agree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A63025085
Law-Making in Australia
This entry deals with Federal law-making in Australia, known as 'statute law'. The process takes place in Parliament House, Canberra, Australia and involves both Houses of Parliament (the House of Representatives and the Senate). You may find it difficult to follow without a basic understanding of the Australian Parliamentary System, A Guide to Australian Politics may help.
In the Beginning
Every law starts out as a bill. A bill is a document stating a proposal for a new law or a change in existing law. The idea for a bill most commonly comes from government departments or from party policy (often announced during election campaigns), but may also come from an MP or community group, or arise from a recent court case. Any Member of Parliament can propose a bill: when the proposer is a Minister acting on behalf of the Government, it is a 'Government Bill', when the proposer is acting as an individual, it is a 'Private Member's Bill'. A bill becomes a Law - an Act of Parliament - only after it has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and approved by the Governor-General1.
A bill may be introduced in either House of Parliament but must be assessed by each house in turn. While a bill is being passed through the House (its 'passage'), proposals can be made for changes. These proposals are debated, with speeches being made for and against the bill, followed by a vote. Generally Members of Parliament have to vote with their party on the side they are told to. This usually means that the Government, which has a majority, wins the votes. However, when a 'conscience vote' is called, Members may vote whichever way they choose, regardless of what the rest of their party is voting for.
Giving Notice and the First Reading
The passage of a bill begins with the Member who wishes to introduce it 'giving notice'. The member gives advance warning to the Clerk of the House, who lists the bill on the House's agenda for business (the 'Notice Paper'). The notice uses the bill's 'long title2', but each bill also has a short title3.
Presenting a bill is called the first reading. When the House is dealing with government business, the Clerk reads the notice using the Bill's short title. The relevant Minister/Member stands and says 'I present the ... bill 2003', giving a signed copy of the bill to the Clerk, who stands and reads the long title of the bill. After this first reading, the bill is now public, with copies handed out to Members and made available to the public.
Usually in the same sitting, the proposing Member asks for it to be read a second time, then makes a speech - called the second reading speech - about the bill, explaining its motives, principles and desired effect. At the end of this speech, the Member summarises the bill's provisions and reasons. Debate on the bill is then adjourned, to give other Members a chance to study it.
The Second Reading
There next follows the second reading debate, when Government members give speeches on the bill, outlining its good and bad points and its intended effects. Alternative ways of achieving the same objectives are discussed. For a Government Bill the Shadow Minister to the Minister who proposed the bill gives a speech outlining the Opposition's opinion. A debate ensues, after which a vote is taken to decide the House's view - and whether the bill should be 'read a second time'. If this is agreed, the Clerk reads out the long title of the bill - the second reading.
After the second reading, a bill is considered clause by clause, usually by the whole House but sometimes by the Main Committee. This is more informal, with no limit on how many times a Member can speak. Amendments-usually substitution, addition or deletion of words-may be made to any clause, and each clause can be passed or rejected individually, although often the bill is passed as a whole.
The Third Reading and Royal Assent
The Member who proposed the bill then reads out the long title of the bill again - the third reading. Debate at this stage is rare. When the motion has been agreed, the Clerk signs a certificate to present the bill to the other House, where the bill again goes through the process of three readings (sometimes with consideration by a Senate Committee) and a vote. If the second House requires amendments, these have to be agreed (or in some cases, made) by the other House.
If the two Houses cannot agree after two attempts to pass the bil, the bill may either be 'laid aside' (the usual case) or exceptionally the constitutional circumstances may lead to a double dissolution4 (as happened in 1975).
When the bill has passed both houses it is presented to the Governor-General for assent - if in agreement with the bill, they will assent to the act in the name of the monarch (referred to as 'the royal assent'). At this point the bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and will come into effect the 28th day after it receives assent, unless another preferred date is specified.
1 The Queen's official representative in Australia.
2 For example, 'A bill for an Act to amend the Prices Surveillance Act 1983 and for related purposes'.
3 In this case, 'Prices Surveillance Amendment Bill 2003', with the year being the year of introduction.
4 Resulting in an election in which the whole House of Representatives and the whole Senate has to be re-elected.
In the Beginning
Every law starts out as a bill. A bill is a document stating a proposal for a new law or a change in existing law. The idea for a bill most commonly comes from government departments or from party policy (often announced during election campaigns), but may also come from an MP or community group, or arise from a recent court case. Any Member of Parliament can propose a bill: when the proposer is a Minister acting on behalf of the Government, it is a 'Government Bill', when the proposer is acting as an individual, it is a 'Private Member's Bill'. A bill becomes a Law - an Act of Parliament - only after it has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and approved by the Governor-General1.
A bill may be introduced in either House of Parliament but must be assessed by each house in turn. While a bill is being passed through the House (its 'passage'), proposals can be made for changes. These proposals are debated, with speeches being made for and against the bill, followed by a vote. Generally Members of Parliament have to vote with their party on the side they are told to. This usually means that the Government, which has a majority, wins the votes. However, when a 'conscience vote' is called, Members may vote whichever way they choose, regardless of what the rest of their party is voting for.
Giving Notice and the First Reading
The passage of a bill begins with the Member who wishes to introduce it 'giving notice'. The member gives advance warning to the Clerk of the House, who lists the bill on the House's agenda for business (the 'Notice Paper'). The notice uses the bill's 'long title2', but each bill also has a short title3.
Presenting a bill is called the first reading. When the House is dealing with government business, the Clerk reads the notice using the Bill's short title. The relevant Minister/Member stands and says 'I present the ... bill 2003', giving a signed copy of the bill to the Clerk, who stands and reads the long title of the bill. After this first reading, the bill is now public, with copies handed out to Members and made available to the public.
Usually in the same sitting, the proposing Member asks for it to be read a second time, then makes a speech - called the second reading speech - about the bill, explaining its motives, principles and desired effect. At the end of this speech, the Member summarises the bill's provisions and reasons. Debate on the bill is then adjourned, to give other Members a chance to study it.
The Second Reading
There next follows the second reading debate, when Government members give speeches on the bill, outlining its good and bad points and its intended effects. Alternative ways of achieving the same objectives are discussed. For a Government Bill the Shadow Minister to the Minister who proposed the bill gives a speech outlining the Opposition's opinion. A debate ensues, after which a vote is taken to decide the House's view - and whether the bill should be 'read a second time'. If this is agreed, the Clerk reads out the long title of the bill - the second reading.
After the second reading, a bill is considered clause by clause, usually by the whole House but sometimes by the Main Committee. This is more informal, with no limit on how many times a Member can speak. Amendments-usually substitution, addition or deletion of words-may be made to any clause, and each clause can be passed or rejected individually, although often the bill is passed as a whole.
The Third Reading and Royal Assent
The Member who proposed the bill then reads out the long title of the bill again - the third reading. Debate at this stage is rare. When the motion has been agreed, the Clerk signs a certificate to present the bill to the other House, where the bill again goes through the process of three readings (sometimes with consideration by a Senate Committee) and a vote. If the second House requires amendments, these have to be agreed (or in some cases, made) by the other House.
If the two Houses cannot agree after two attempts to pass the bil, the bill may either be 'laid aside' (the usual case) or exceptionally the constitutional circumstances may lead to a double dissolution4 (as happened in 1975).
When the bill has passed both houses it is presented to the Governor-General for assent - if in agreement with the bill, they will assent to the act in the name of the monarch (referred to as 'the royal assent'). At this point the bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and will come into effect the 28th day after it receives assent, unless another preferred date is specified.
1 The Queen's official representative in Australia.
2 For example, 'A bill for an Act to amend the Prices Surveillance Act 1983 and for related purposes'.
3 In this case, 'Prices Surveillance Amendment Bill 2003', with the year being the year of introduction.
4 Resulting in an election in which the whole House of Representatives and the whole Senate has to be re-elected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2622818
Jonathan Wild - London's First Organised Crime Lord
'Thief-takers' were the men and women who operated in England in the days before there was an established police force and a public prosecutor1. Effectively created by the laws of the time - specifically the 1697 Act of Parliament, which offered rewards for the capture and successful prosecution of highwaymen - they captured those who had committed crimes, and either handed them over to the authorities, or prosecuted them themselves. There have been women thief-takers, but the majority were men, and they worked for the cash rewards offered, as a very good living could be made this way. Highwaymen, coiners and burglars were worth Ј40 each (plus any equipment the criminal may have been using), with an additional Ј100 if robbery was committed within five miles of Charing Cross. This kind of sum would normally take three to four years to earn for the ordinary man. The reward also carried a free pardon for any offences the thief-taker may have committed. If the thief-taker died, any reward would be passed on to his descendents.
Although offering a reward was one of the few ways to encourage the catching of criminals and the breaking up of gangs without an organised police force, it paradoxically also encouraged corruption, blackmail and perjury. Rather than being an early form of 'Neighbourhood Watch', it caused criminals to turn on each other, creating suspicion and violence, and encouraged them to work both sides of the law. Thief-takers were very unpopular.
'Thief-taker General'
Jonathan Wild was the most famous thief-taker of the time. In the early 18th Century he captured and brought to justice many London criminals. What was slow to come to the attention of the law was that he was at the same time involved in many criminal activities of his own.
Born in about 1682, he started his career in Wolverhampton as a buckle-maker. He moved to London when he was in his mid-twenties (leaving behind a wife and child), and soon found himself in a debtor's prison. Mingling with criminals for the two to four years he was incarcerated, Wild made sure that he not only learnt much from the others, but also courted the acquaintance of those he felt would be useful in the future. In his last few months inside, he met Mary Milliner, a prostitute with plenty of underworld contacts. She became his mistress, and when they left prison they set up home in Covent Garden.
At first Wild returned to buckle-making, but the temptation of easy money soon became too much to resist, and while Mary was busy entertaining 'clients' in dark alleys, Wild would rob them. This led to them having enough money to take over a drinking house which was used by many other criminals - the King's Head. He began buying their stolen goods, and this was the start of his double life.
Wild set up an office in Newtoner's Lane and invited victims of crime to come to him with details of any stolen goods, and promised them that he would recover them. His popularity as a receiver of stolen goods meant that he often either had the goods in his possession already, or knew who had stolen them. One of his scams was to order the theft of specific goods so that he could return them to their grateful owners. He managed to please the thieves by paying for their goods, and please the victims, by reuniting them with their property (at a fee, of course). The thieves were also happy because it was a lot easier to steal small goods of sentimental value for which a good reward would be offered, than have to try to steal more valuable property that could be heavily protected.
London's First Criminal Underworld Boss
Wild began to expand his empire - he divided London into districts, and set up gangs in each district, screening them from justice. He arranged for 'specialist' gangs, that robbed churches, or followed the various country fairs, gangs of conmen, gangs who ruled the prostitutes, gangs who collected protection money to name but a few. He did not lead any gangs - he merely organised and advised them.
Anyone who didn't do his bidding, or crossed him, risked being reported to the authorities. They were framed with the assistance of witnesses who belonged to Wild. Once convicted, they could not testify against Wild himself in any subsequent court case. The same happened to those who operated outside of his empire. The rewards he gained from bringing criminals to justice helped him to rise in power among the criminal underworld. Favours done for him were never forgotten, and his loyalty to those who earned his respect never wavered. Treachery was likewise never forgotten, and he was merciless in doling out revenge. He also turned in some of those depending on him to protect them from the law when he became tired of them, sometimes arresting them himself. He often joined the crowds at Tyburn when one of 'his' criminals was being executed, and he enjoyed passing on the tales of the men and women who were there due to his relentless pursuit of the criminal classes.
He avoided handling stolen goods himself, but had artists and craftsmen to alter and reset jewellery and objects of art. He owned warehouses to store large amounts of goods, and he kept a sloop for carrying stolen items into Flanders and Holland; smuggling brandy, linen and lace to London on its return. He passed on information about wealthy travellers to highwaymen. His empire was so successful, that no highwaymen were allowed to operate without his protection, and none were executed between 1723 and 1725. He moved out of the King's Head, took better premises in Old Bailey in 1719, and took a higher class mistress. His house was staffed by felons who had illegally returned from transportation2. Knowing that they would be turned in if they displeased him made them very hard-working.
Wild wasn't entirely unnoticed by the authorities, although they hadn't been able to catch him getting up to anything. In 1717, the Solicitor-General Sir William Thompson was instrumental in securing an Act of Parliament which made it a capital offence to take a reward under the pretence of helping the owner to recover stolen goods, without prosecuting the thief. This Act became known as 'Jonathan Wild's Act' because it had been designed specifically with him in mind.
Initially he was able to find ways around the new legislation. He had to close his office, although work carried on in the coffeehouses and on the streets, and sometimes adverts appeared in newspapers offering rewards with no questions asked. He brazenly put himself under their noses when he petitioned the Lord Mayor for the Freedom of the City. He claimed that his efforts had resulted in more than 60 criminals being led to the gallows. He also claimed that he had spent five years apprehending and convicting felons who had returned from transportation before their time - all for no reward. He had certainly made the streets safer, as he cleared away many notorious gangs. Many of the wealthy London classes were impressed with him. He had consistently returned their stolen goods and accounts of criminals he had rounded up appeared in the papers every week. They saw him as their only defence against the crimewave of the time. His petition does not appear to have been rejected, but adjourned. We have no record of whether it was awarded, but he was paid a handsome sum by way of gratuity.
In the spring of 1724 Wild had succeeded in apprehending a gang of around 100 street robbers in Southwark - most of them ended up in prison. It was clear evidence that not joining his empire meant certain prison for criminals.
Wild's Downfall
After ruling London for seven years, Wild's empire began to crumble in the winter of 1724/5. The captain of his sloop, Roger Johnson, stopped the value of some missing lace from the mate's pay. The mate informed against the captain, and the sloop was exchequered3. The captain returned to his old life as a thief, and soon had a run-in with a man who kept a house of resort for thieves, Thomas Edwards. They turned each other in. Wild bailed his captain out, but as soon as the other man was released, he informed on Wild. Wild's warehouses were searched, and the goods confiscated. Pretending that the goods belonged to his captain, Wild arrested Edwards who was taken to the Marshalsea4.
Wild was eventually convicted under the terms of the new act for procuring the return of some stolen lace. For the sake of Ј40, he lost everything. He had sent a couple who had been drinking in his pub into a lace shop in Seven Dials, and paid them for what they stole when they returned. While this was going on, Edwards had left the Marshalsea. He found Johnson, who he immediately informed on. Johnson sent for Wild, who arrived and prompted a riot so that Johnson could escape. Wild then absconded as his part in the riot became known. On returning to his house three weeks later, he was arrested and taken to Newgate prison. In court he was accused of stealing the lace, and then returning it to the shop owner for the reward.
As his past deeds were unravelled, the public turned against him and called for his blood. Nobody likes to be thought of as a fool. Despite defending himself vigorously, he was found guilty and sentenced to death5.
In the early hours before his execution, he tried to commit suicide with an overdose of laudanum. It didn't work, and on the morning of 24 May, 1725 he was taken to Tyburn, stupefied and delirious. On the journey, he was booed, pelted with a variety of missiles (including faeces and decomposing cat and dog corpses) and verbally abused. His execution attracted one of the largest ever crowds to Tyburn, and they rejoiced in his downfall and humiliation. Perhaps because of the confusion caused by the drugs, Wild did not give the customary last speech before he was hanged. His body was cut down quickly before the surgeons' men could seize it and was buried in St Pancras Churchyard. A few days later the coffin was dug up, and found later in Kentish Town. His body had disappeared. An unidentified body washed up on the bank of the Thames near Whitehall within days,and the extremely hairy chest led some to believe that it was Wild.
Fascinating Facts
Wild's skeleton is on display at the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in Lincoln's Inn Fields, London(Catalogue number RCSHM/Osteo. 336)6. Whether this hairy-chested body was proven to be Wild, or whether the body was delivered to the surgeons the first time it disappeared, is unknown. The people of the time were notoriously afraid of allowing surgeons access to their bodies, or those of their loved ones, that they operated under a veil of secrecy.
The Old Bailey Proceedings Online Project is now complete, and can be searched. Jonathan Wild appears in over 50 cases.
Further Reading
The name of Jonathan Wild has been immortalised in a book written 20 years after his death. The History of the Life of the Late Mr Jonathan Wild the Great by Henry Fielding is still available to buy. It can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg7, as it is not covered by copyright. Mainly read by English Literature students, it should not be read as a biography, but as a political satire.
1 At the time, England was the only country in western Europe to have neither of these.
2 Transportation as a punishment involved sending convicts to North America (and later to Australia) for a set period of time (often seven or 14 years). It was not unknown for criminals to find a way to return.
3 A procedure which meant there would be an indefinite delay in obtaining the release of the ship, even if the case failed. The defendants would have no right or claim for damages or costs.
4 Originally used for persons guilty of offences on the high seas, and later a debtors prison. It is graphically described in Little Dorrit as Dickens's father had been imprisoned there and he visited frequently.
5 The full details of the case can be found in the Old Bailey Proceedings.
6 The Hunterian Museum is closed for refurbishment at the tine of writing but the skeleton will be redisplayed when the museum reopens in February 2005.
7 Project Gutenberg is the first and largest single collection of free electronic books (eBooks).
Although offering a reward was one of the few ways to encourage the catching of criminals and the breaking up of gangs without an organised police force, it paradoxically also encouraged corruption, blackmail and perjury. Rather than being an early form of 'Neighbourhood Watch', it caused criminals to turn on each other, creating suspicion and violence, and encouraged them to work both sides of the law. Thief-takers were very unpopular.
'Thief-taker General'
Jonathan Wild was the most famous thief-taker of the time. In the early 18th Century he captured and brought to justice many London criminals. What was slow to come to the attention of the law was that he was at the same time involved in many criminal activities of his own.
Born in about 1682, he started his career in Wolverhampton as a buckle-maker. He moved to London when he was in his mid-twenties (leaving behind a wife and child), and soon found himself in a debtor's prison. Mingling with criminals for the two to four years he was incarcerated, Wild made sure that he not only learnt much from the others, but also courted the acquaintance of those he felt would be useful in the future. In his last few months inside, he met Mary Milliner, a prostitute with plenty of underworld contacts. She became his mistress, and when they left prison they set up home in Covent Garden.
At first Wild returned to buckle-making, but the temptation of easy money soon became too much to resist, and while Mary was busy entertaining 'clients' in dark alleys, Wild would rob them. This led to them having enough money to take over a drinking house which was used by many other criminals - the King's Head. He began buying their stolen goods, and this was the start of his double life.
Wild set up an office in Newtoner's Lane and invited victims of crime to come to him with details of any stolen goods, and promised them that he would recover them. His popularity as a receiver of stolen goods meant that he often either had the goods in his possession already, or knew who had stolen them. One of his scams was to order the theft of specific goods so that he could return them to their grateful owners. He managed to please the thieves by paying for their goods, and please the victims, by reuniting them with their property (at a fee, of course). The thieves were also happy because it was a lot easier to steal small goods of sentimental value for which a good reward would be offered, than have to try to steal more valuable property that could be heavily protected.
London's First Criminal Underworld Boss
Wild began to expand his empire - he divided London into districts, and set up gangs in each district, screening them from justice. He arranged for 'specialist' gangs, that robbed churches, or followed the various country fairs, gangs of conmen, gangs who ruled the prostitutes, gangs who collected protection money to name but a few. He did not lead any gangs - he merely organised and advised them.
Anyone who didn't do his bidding, or crossed him, risked being reported to the authorities. They were framed with the assistance of witnesses who belonged to Wild. Once convicted, they could not testify against Wild himself in any subsequent court case. The same happened to those who operated outside of his empire. The rewards he gained from bringing criminals to justice helped him to rise in power among the criminal underworld. Favours done for him were never forgotten, and his loyalty to those who earned his respect never wavered. Treachery was likewise never forgotten, and he was merciless in doling out revenge. He also turned in some of those depending on him to protect them from the law when he became tired of them, sometimes arresting them himself. He often joined the crowds at Tyburn when one of 'his' criminals was being executed, and he enjoyed passing on the tales of the men and women who were there due to his relentless pursuit of the criminal classes.
He avoided handling stolen goods himself, but had artists and craftsmen to alter and reset jewellery and objects of art. He owned warehouses to store large amounts of goods, and he kept a sloop for carrying stolen items into Flanders and Holland; smuggling brandy, linen and lace to London on its return. He passed on information about wealthy travellers to highwaymen. His empire was so successful, that no highwaymen were allowed to operate without his protection, and none were executed between 1723 and 1725. He moved out of the King's Head, took better premises in Old Bailey in 1719, and took a higher class mistress. His house was staffed by felons who had illegally returned from transportation2. Knowing that they would be turned in if they displeased him made them very hard-working.
Wild wasn't entirely unnoticed by the authorities, although they hadn't been able to catch him getting up to anything. In 1717, the Solicitor-General Sir William Thompson was instrumental in securing an Act of Parliament which made it a capital offence to take a reward under the pretence of helping the owner to recover stolen goods, without prosecuting the thief. This Act became known as 'Jonathan Wild's Act' because it had been designed specifically with him in mind.
Initially he was able to find ways around the new legislation. He had to close his office, although work carried on in the coffeehouses and on the streets, and sometimes adverts appeared in newspapers offering rewards with no questions asked. He brazenly put himself under their noses when he petitioned the Lord Mayor for the Freedom of the City. He claimed that his efforts had resulted in more than 60 criminals being led to the gallows. He also claimed that he had spent five years apprehending and convicting felons who had returned from transportation before their time - all for no reward. He had certainly made the streets safer, as he cleared away many notorious gangs. Many of the wealthy London classes were impressed with him. He had consistently returned their stolen goods and accounts of criminals he had rounded up appeared in the papers every week. They saw him as their only defence against the crimewave of the time. His petition does not appear to have been rejected, but adjourned. We have no record of whether it was awarded, but he was paid a handsome sum by way of gratuity.
In the spring of 1724 Wild had succeeded in apprehending a gang of around 100 street robbers in Southwark - most of them ended up in prison. It was clear evidence that not joining his empire meant certain prison for criminals.
Wild's Downfall
After ruling London for seven years, Wild's empire began to crumble in the winter of 1724/5. The captain of his sloop, Roger Johnson, stopped the value of some missing lace from the mate's pay. The mate informed against the captain, and the sloop was exchequered3. The captain returned to his old life as a thief, and soon had a run-in with a man who kept a house of resort for thieves, Thomas Edwards. They turned each other in. Wild bailed his captain out, but as soon as the other man was released, he informed on Wild. Wild's warehouses were searched, and the goods confiscated. Pretending that the goods belonged to his captain, Wild arrested Edwards who was taken to the Marshalsea4.
Wild was eventually convicted under the terms of the new act for procuring the return of some stolen lace. For the sake of Ј40, he lost everything. He had sent a couple who had been drinking in his pub into a lace shop in Seven Dials, and paid them for what they stole when they returned. While this was going on, Edwards had left the Marshalsea. He found Johnson, who he immediately informed on. Johnson sent for Wild, who arrived and prompted a riot so that Johnson could escape. Wild then absconded as his part in the riot became known. On returning to his house three weeks later, he was arrested and taken to Newgate prison. In court he was accused of stealing the lace, and then returning it to the shop owner for the reward.
As his past deeds were unravelled, the public turned against him and called for his blood. Nobody likes to be thought of as a fool. Despite defending himself vigorously, he was found guilty and sentenced to death5.
In the early hours before his execution, he tried to commit suicide with an overdose of laudanum. It didn't work, and on the morning of 24 May, 1725 he was taken to Tyburn, stupefied and delirious. On the journey, he was booed, pelted with a variety of missiles (including faeces and decomposing cat and dog corpses) and verbally abused. His execution attracted one of the largest ever crowds to Tyburn, and they rejoiced in his downfall and humiliation. Perhaps because of the confusion caused by the drugs, Wild did not give the customary last speech before he was hanged. His body was cut down quickly before the surgeons' men could seize it and was buried in St Pancras Churchyard. A few days later the coffin was dug up, and found later in Kentish Town. His body had disappeared. An unidentified body washed up on the bank of the Thames near Whitehall within days,and the extremely hairy chest led some to believe that it was Wild.
Fascinating Facts
Wild's skeleton is on display at the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in Lincoln's Inn Fields, London(Catalogue number RCSHM/Osteo. 336)6. Whether this hairy-chested body was proven to be Wild, or whether the body was delivered to the surgeons the first time it disappeared, is unknown. The people of the time were notoriously afraid of allowing surgeons access to their bodies, or those of their loved ones, that they operated under a veil of secrecy.
The Old Bailey Proceedings Online Project is now complete, and can be searched. Jonathan Wild appears in over 50 cases.
Further Reading
The name of Jonathan Wild has been immortalised in a book written 20 years after his death. The History of the Life of the Late Mr Jonathan Wild the Great by Henry Fielding is still available to buy. It can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg7, as it is not covered by copyright. Mainly read by English Literature students, it should not be read as a biography, but as a political satire.
1 At the time, England was the only country in western Europe to have neither of these.
2 Transportation as a punishment involved sending convicts to North America (and later to Australia) for a set period of time (often seven or 14 years). It was not unknown for criminals to find a way to return.
3 A procedure which meant there would be an indefinite delay in obtaining the release of the ship, even if the case failed. The defendants would have no right or claim for damages or costs.
4 Originally used for persons guilty of offences on the high seas, and later a debtors prison. It is graphically described in Little Dorrit as Dickens's father had been imprisoned there and he visited frequently.
5 The full details of the case can be found in the Old Bailey Proceedings.
6 The Hunterian Museum is closed for refurbishment at the tine of writing but the skeleton will be redisplayed when the museum reopens in February 2005.
7 Project Gutenberg is the first and largest single collection of free electronic books (eBooks).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3176291
Joe Hill - Murderer or Martyr?
My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide.
My kin don't need to fuss and moan -
'Moss does not cling to a rolling stone.'
My body? Ah, if I could choose,
I would to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my last and final will,
Good luck to all of you - Joe Hill.
- Joe Hill, 18 November, 1915; the day before he was executed.
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me.
Says I, 'But Joe, you're ten years dead.'
'I never died,' says he.
'Joe Hill ain't dead,'he says to me.
'Joe Hill ain't never died,
Where workingmen are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side!'
- Alfred Hayes, 1925
Joe Hill
Joel Emmanuel Hägglund was born in Gefle, Sweden on 7 October, 18791. He was the ninth child of Olof Hägglund, a railroad worker, and his wife, Margareta. When Olof died, shortly after Joel's eighth birthday, Joel and his five surviving siblings went to work to help support the family. When Margareta died in January, 1902, Joel and his brother, Paul, emigrated to the United States, arriving in New York City in October 1902.
The only work Joel could find at first was cleaning spittoons in one of the poorer neighbourhoods in New York City. He soon travelled west, working as a farmhand, construction worker, longshoreman and logger.
Sometime between 1906 and 1910, Joel Hägglund changed his name to Joseph Hillström. The exact timing is uncertain, as this was not a legal name change. Exactly why he changed his name is also unclear. Some people say that he had to change his name so, throughout the United States, he could avoid the consequences of his strong advocacy of workers' rights. Others say that he had turned to petty crime to support himself and changed his name to keep ahead of the law.
Some time in 1910, Joe Hillström joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). In fact, he may have joined twice. Some reports state that he joined while working on the docks of San Pedro, California. Others state that he joined after hearing Eugene Debs speak in Portland, Oregon. It's possible that he found Debs's speech so inspiring that he joined a second time in Portland, having already signed up in San Pedro.
In any event, Joe Hillström wrote a letter to the IWW newspaper, Industrial Worker, late in 1910, in which he identified himself as a member of the Portland IWW. He signed that letter 'Joe Hill'. This is the first documented use of that name.
Joe Hill spent the years 1911 to 1913 working with the IWW. Although he wasn't a front-line organiser, he had a remarkable talent for writing poetry and songs. In fact, he first coined the phrase 'pie in the sky' in his 1911 song, 'The Preacher and The Slave'. Music was one of the primary tools used by the IWW to get their message to the public; Joe Hill produced an enormous number of songs. In fact, the 1973 edition of the IWW songbook includes 13 songs written by Joe Hill, out of a total of 53 songs.
Murder
Just before 10pm on the night of 10 January, 1914, John Morrison, a Salt Lake City, Utah, grocer and a former policeman, was closing his store with his two sons, Arling and Merlin. Two men wearing red bandannas forced their way into the store. One of the intruders shouted 'we've got you now', levelled a handgun and shot Morrison. Arling Morrison grabbed his father's old service revolver and fired two shots at the masked men, who returned fire and fled the scene. Merlin, the younger child, stayed hidden in the back of the store.
Arling was dead before Merlin reached him. John died within minutes. When the police arrived, Merlin described what had happened, gave a vague description of the gunmen, and stated that one of them had very clearly said the words 'we've got you now'.
John had left the police force specifically because he feared that some of the people he had arrested would seek revenge when they were released from prison. He had recently stated that this was still something he feared. That fact, combined with the shouted 'we've got you now' and the presence of the day's receipts in the cash register, caused the police department to initially conclude that this was a revenge killing. The police department also concluded that at least one of Arling's bullets had found its mark. There was no blood in the store other than John and Arling Morrison's, but witnesses said that one of the gunmen leaving the store appeared to have been wounded. Drops of blood were found in the snow just one block from John Morrison's store.
A Wounded Man
At about 11.30 that night, Joe Hillström went to the home of Dr Frank McHugh. Hill had a bullet wound in his chest. Hillström explained the wound by saying that he had been shot by a man while arguing over a woman. The bullet had passed through Hillström's body without hitting any vital organs, so McHugh just cleaned and bandaged the wound and arranged for a friend to drive Hillström home. During the examination, a gun dropped from Hillström's clothing. At that time and in that place, this was not unusual enough to cause McHugh any alarm. The friend of McHugh who gave Hillström the ride home later reported that, on the way, Hillström had him stop at a vacant field. McHugh's friend reported that Hillström stepped outside the glare of the headlights and threw an object into the field.
The next morning, when McHugh read about the double murder and the police request for help in identifying anyone who had a gunshot wound, he informed them of Hillström's visit.
Arrest
Three days later, McHugh visited Hillström to check the wound and give him some painkillers. When the medication had obviously started making Hillström drowsy, police officers entered the room. They aimed their weapons at Hillström, who was in bed, and ordered him not to move. Hillström started reaching across his bed. An officer, suspecting that Hillström was reaching for a weapon, fired and shattered bones in Hillström's hand. Hillström had been reaching for his pants.
Hillström's roommate, Otto Applequist, who was suspected as the second gunman, left town on the night of the murders and was never located.
Shortly after his arrest, a Salt Lake City newspaper learned that Hillström was the IWW poet/songwriter, Joe Hill.
Trial
Prosecution
During the course of the trial, the prosecution built a reasonably strong circumstantial case against Hill. They produced a dozen eyewitnesses who testified that the killer looked more or less like Hill. Although young Merlin Morrison said 'that's not him at all', when he was first shown Joe Hill, he later retracted that statement and identified Hill as the gunman who had killed his father and brother. One witness testified that the gunman had scars on his face similar to those on Hill's face as a result of a childhood illness.
The original theory of a revenge killing was disregarded as the prosecution presented a case for a simple robbery gone bad. The question of why a robber would yell 'we've got you now' on entering the establishment to be robbed was ignored.
No evidence was presented to suggest that Hill had ever met Morrison or had any grudge against him. The gun the Dr McHugh reported having seen on the night he treated Hill was never recovered. None of Joe Hill's blood was found inside the store. A bullet that had passed through his body caused Hill's wound. That bullet was never found inside the store.
Defence
Two young attorneys in Salt Lake City, hoping to build their reputations and advance their careers, volunteered to defend Hill free of charge. To his subsequent regret, Hill accepted their offer. Partway through the prosecution's case, Hill fired the attorneys for incompetence, citing their weak cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and their failure to object to leading questions from the District Attorney. In his statement on firing them, he said that he believed they were acting in partnership with the District Attorney to convict him (Hill) of a crime he had not committed. Judge Morris Ritchie refused to excuse the attorneys. Hill then refused to have any active participation in the trial.
The case for the defence included the fact that, since the money in the cash register had not been stolen, no motive could be ascribed to Hill. Additionally, 12 other men had been arrested in connection with the crime before Hill and four other men in Salt Lake City had been treated for bullet wounds on the night of the murders.
Hill, who never testified in his own defence, had stated that he was shot in a fight over a woman and that his hands were raised over his head when he was wounded. The fact that the bullet hole in the back of Hill's coat was four inches lower than the bullet wound in his back seemed to support Hill's version of how he had been shot.
Hill never explained his decision not to testify to his attorneys, or anyone else. Speculation as to his motives for this refusal fell into three camps. One group considered Hill a man of honour who was unwilling to tarnish the reputation of a married woman and that a jealous husband had shot him. Another group held that IWW legal advisors had told him not to testify, as the prosecution had not proven their case. The third group said that Hill knew that his alibi wouldn't hold up if he were cross-examined by the prosecution.
Verdict
After just a few hours, the jury found Joe Hill guilty of murder. Utah law gave him a choice. He could either be executed by a firing squad or hanged. Presented with these options, Hill said, 'I'll take the shooting. I've been shot a couple of times before and I think I can take it'.
Public Reaction
Hill spent 22 months in prison while his case went through the appeals process. Literally tens of thousands of letters, petitions and resolutions became part of the campaign to save Joe Hill. Virginia Snow Stephen, the daughter of the president of the Mormon Church and a faculty member at the University of Utah, wrote letters to national leaders on Hill's behalf.2 The Swedish Ambassador to the United States sent President Woodrow Wilson a telegram, stating his opinion that Hill had not received a fair trial. This telegram, combined with the urging of the acting United States Secretary of State, resulted in President Wilson writing to Utah Governor William Spry to request that Hill's execution be delayed, pending a full investigation.
The IWW started a campaign to stop the execution. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn visited Hill in prison and worked with the IWW in their campaign. The 30,000 members of the Australian IWW sent a resolution calling on Governor Spry to release Hill. Trade unions in Britain and other European countries echoed that resolution.
Helen Keller, who was nationally known for overcoming multiple disabilities, sent the following telegram to President Wilson.
THE PRESIDENT.
Your Excellency: I believe that Joseph Hillström has not had a fair trial and the sentence passed upon him is unjust. I appeal to you as official father of all the people to use your great power and influence to save one of the nation's helpless sons, the stay of execution will give time to investigate new trial will give the man justice to which the laws of the land entitle him.
Helen Keller.
Governor Spry
Governor Spry first responded to the protest by the Swedish Ambassador by offering Hill and the ambassador the opportunity to present any 'compelling evidence' that might change the verdict. The Ambassador, of course, had no such evidence. Hill, maintaining that the prosecution had not proven his guilt, and that it was not his responsibility to prove his innocence, still refused to speak in his own defence.
Spry had been elected to office based, in part, on his promise 'to sweep out lawless elements, whether they be corrupt businessmen or IWW agitators'. He had broken a Western Federation of Mineworkers strike and supported the Utah Copper Company when they brought in strike-breakers and hired an army of gunmen to guard them.
The IWW was unpopular with Utah's ruling elite. They (The IWW) had organised workers in the Utah Construction Company. In 1913, they had organised a strike among 1500 workers at the Denver Rio Grande Railroad in Utah. One official publicly stated that 'before the end of the year, every single IWW will be run out of the state'. The lawyer who represented Joe Hill during his appeal commented that 'the main thing the state had on Hill was that he was an IWW and therefore sure to be guilty. Hill tried to keep the IWW out of it [the trial]... but the press fastened it upon him'.
Governor Spry's reaction to the intervention from President Wilson was to write the following words to the President.
Your interference in this case may have elevated it to an undue importance and the receipt of thousands of threatening letters demanding the release of Hillström, regardless of his guilt or innocence, may attach a peculiar importance to it.
In Prison
In prison, Joe Hill continued writing the poems and songs that had made him famous, or infamous, depending on one's point of view. He also wrote letters. Some excerpts are provided below.
I have always tried to make this earth a little better for the great producing class, and I can pass off into the great unknown with the pleasure of knowing that I never in my life double-crossed a man, woman or child. - letter to Ben Williams, dated 9 October, 1915.
In spite of all the hideous pictures and all the bad things printed about me, I had only been arrested once before in my life, and that was in San Pedro, California. At the time of the stevedores' and dock workers' strike. I was secretary of the strike committee, and I suppose I was a little too active to suit the chief of that burg, so he arrested me and gave me 30 days in the city jail for vagrancy and there you have the full extent of my 'criminal record'3.
The main and only fact worth considering, however, is this: I never killed Morrison and do not know a thing about it. He was, as the records plainly show, killed by some enemy for the sake of revenge, and I have not been in the city long enough to make an enemy.
Shortly before my arrest I came down from Park City; where I was working in the mines. Owing to the prominence of Mr Morrison, there had to be a 'goat' and the undersigned being, as they thought, a friendless tramp, a Swede, and worst of all, an IWW, had no right to live anyway, and was therefore duly selected to be 'the goat'.
I have always worked hard for a living and paid for everything I got, and in my spare time I spend by painting pictures, writing songs and composing music.
Now, if the people of the state of Utah want to shoot me without giving me half a chance to state my side of the case, bring on your firing squads - I am ready for you. I have lived like an artist and I shall die like an artist'.
- From an article Joe Hill wrote for the socialist journal Appeal to Reason on 15 August, 1915.
Goodbye Bill. I die like a true blue rebel. Don't waste any time in mourning. Organize... Could you arrange to have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don't want to be found dead in Utah.
- Telegram to 'Big Bill' Haywood, shortly before Hill's execution
Execution
On 19 November, 1915, Joe Hill was executed by a firing squad at the Utah State Prison. Legend has it that Hill, having heard the 'Ready... Aim' orders, shouted 'Fire'! himself.
Funeral
Joe Hill's body was transported to Chicago, where the IWW held his funeral. About 30,000 mourners attended that funeral. At the funeral itself, according to the Desert Evening News, 'No creed or religion found a place at the service. There were no prayers and no hymns, but there was a mighty chorus of voices singing songs written by Hill'. One reporter for that newspaper asked: 'What kind of man is this, whose death is celebrated with songs of revolt and who has at his bier more mourners than any prince or potentate?'
Ralph Chaplin described Joe Hill's funeral, which was held in Chicago's West Side Auditorium, in an article written for International Socialist Review in December 1915. He described the casket's placement on a 'flower-laden, black and red-draped stage, above which was hanging a handwoven IWW Label'. The funeral opened with the singing of Joe Hill's song 'Workers of the World, Awaken' by the entire crowd. After that, there were solo performances, one of which was of the Joe Hill song, 'Rebel Girl'. Other songs were performed in Swedish and Italian.
Thousands of members of the funeral procession, which shut down traffic in a sizable portion of Chicago, wore IWW pennants on their sleeves or red ribbons bearing the words 'Joe Hill, murdered by the authorities of the state of Utah, November the 19th, 1915', or 'Don't mourn - organize, Joe Hill'.
When the procession arrived at Graceland Cemetery, various IWW members spoke. Eulogies were given in English, Swedish, Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Spanish, Italian, German, Yiddish and Lithuanian.
Ralph Chaplin's description of the funeral closed with the words:
The state of Utah has shot our song-writer into everlasting immortality and has shot itself into everlasting shame. Thank goodness, neither Joe Hill nor the IWW will ever be found dead in Utah!
Disposition of the Remains
Joe Hill was cremated. Portions of his ashes were put into envelopes and mailed to IWW members in every state in the United States (except Utah, where he didn't want to be found dead) and across the world, with the following letter:
Fellow Worker:
In compliance with the last will of Joe Hill, his body was cremated at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago, Illinois, Nov. 20, 1915.
It was his request, that his ashes be distributed.
This package has been confined [sic] to your care for the fullfilment [sic] of this last will.
You will kindly address a letter to Wm D Haywood, Room 307, 164 W Washington St, Chicago, Ill, telling the circumstances and where the ashes were distributed.
WE WILL NEVER FORGET
JOE HILL MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
Impact of Joe Hill's Execution
By killing Joe Hill, the State of Utah created a martyr. Whether or not Hill was guilty of the murders for which he was executed, in the years after his death, his songs became more popular and were heard at nearly every labour strike or protest of any kind. His name and his story were given as proof that the government and 'big business' were conspiring against the working class.
Some historians believe that Joe Hill chose to become a martyr for his cause, knowing that he could accomplish more dead than he could alive. They hold his writings while in prison to be documentation backing that theory. It is true that he consistently treated his own individual case as insignificant and always emphasized carrying on the struggle for the 'One Big Union'.
Murderer or martyr, Joe Hill may have been executed on 19 November, 1915, but he did not die. If he had, Joan Baez would not have sung the words Alfred Hayes' 1925 poem at the 1969 Woodstock music festival, introducing his name to yet another generation.
Songs of Joe Hill
An index of Joe Hill's songs can be found here.
1 Most historians agree on this date, although some put his birth in 1882.
2 Shortly after Hill was executed, she was fired from the University and moved to California.
3 The police department of San Pedro later stated that he was the main suspect in the armed robbery of a streetcar and that they had used the vagrancy charge to hold him while they investigated. Because the robbers had been masked, nobody ended up being charged with that robbery.
For there is nothing to divide.
My kin don't need to fuss and moan -
'Moss does not cling to a rolling stone.'
My body? Ah, if I could choose,
I would to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my last and final will,
Good luck to all of you - Joe Hill.
- Joe Hill, 18 November, 1915; the day before he was executed.
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me.
Says I, 'But Joe, you're ten years dead.'
'I never died,' says he.
'Joe Hill ain't dead,'he says to me.
'Joe Hill ain't never died,
Where workingmen are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side!'
- Alfred Hayes, 1925
Joe Hill
Joel Emmanuel Hägglund was born in Gefle, Sweden on 7 October, 18791. He was the ninth child of Olof Hägglund, a railroad worker, and his wife, Margareta. When Olof died, shortly after Joel's eighth birthday, Joel and his five surviving siblings went to work to help support the family. When Margareta died in January, 1902, Joel and his brother, Paul, emigrated to the United States, arriving in New York City in October 1902.
The only work Joel could find at first was cleaning spittoons in one of the poorer neighbourhoods in New York City. He soon travelled west, working as a farmhand, construction worker, longshoreman and logger.
Sometime between 1906 and 1910, Joel Hägglund changed his name to Joseph Hillström. The exact timing is uncertain, as this was not a legal name change. Exactly why he changed his name is also unclear. Some people say that he had to change his name so, throughout the United States, he could avoid the consequences of his strong advocacy of workers' rights. Others say that he had turned to petty crime to support himself and changed his name to keep ahead of the law.
Some time in 1910, Joe Hillström joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). In fact, he may have joined twice. Some reports state that he joined while working on the docks of San Pedro, California. Others state that he joined after hearing Eugene Debs speak in Portland, Oregon. It's possible that he found Debs's speech so inspiring that he joined a second time in Portland, having already signed up in San Pedro.
In any event, Joe Hillström wrote a letter to the IWW newspaper, Industrial Worker, late in 1910, in which he identified himself as a member of the Portland IWW. He signed that letter 'Joe Hill'. This is the first documented use of that name.
Joe Hill spent the years 1911 to 1913 working with the IWW. Although he wasn't a front-line organiser, he had a remarkable talent for writing poetry and songs. In fact, he first coined the phrase 'pie in the sky' in his 1911 song, 'The Preacher and The Slave'. Music was one of the primary tools used by the IWW to get their message to the public; Joe Hill produced an enormous number of songs. In fact, the 1973 edition of the IWW songbook includes 13 songs written by Joe Hill, out of a total of 53 songs.
Murder
Just before 10pm on the night of 10 January, 1914, John Morrison, a Salt Lake City, Utah, grocer and a former policeman, was closing his store with his two sons, Arling and Merlin. Two men wearing red bandannas forced their way into the store. One of the intruders shouted 'we've got you now', levelled a handgun and shot Morrison. Arling Morrison grabbed his father's old service revolver and fired two shots at the masked men, who returned fire and fled the scene. Merlin, the younger child, stayed hidden in the back of the store.
Arling was dead before Merlin reached him. John died within minutes. When the police arrived, Merlin described what had happened, gave a vague description of the gunmen, and stated that one of them had very clearly said the words 'we've got you now'.
John had left the police force specifically because he feared that some of the people he had arrested would seek revenge when they were released from prison. He had recently stated that this was still something he feared. That fact, combined with the shouted 'we've got you now' and the presence of the day's receipts in the cash register, caused the police department to initially conclude that this was a revenge killing. The police department also concluded that at least one of Arling's bullets had found its mark. There was no blood in the store other than John and Arling Morrison's, but witnesses said that one of the gunmen leaving the store appeared to have been wounded. Drops of blood were found in the snow just one block from John Morrison's store.
A Wounded Man
At about 11.30 that night, Joe Hillström went to the home of Dr Frank McHugh. Hill had a bullet wound in his chest. Hillström explained the wound by saying that he had been shot by a man while arguing over a woman. The bullet had passed through Hillström's body without hitting any vital organs, so McHugh just cleaned and bandaged the wound and arranged for a friend to drive Hillström home. During the examination, a gun dropped from Hillström's clothing. At that time and in that place, this was not unusual enough to cause McHugh any alarm. The friend of McHugh who gave Hillström the ride home later reported that, on the way, Hillström had him stop at a vacant field. McHugh's friend reported that Hillström stepped outside the glare of the headlights and threw an object into the field.
The next morning, when McHugh read about the double murder and the police request for help in identifying anyone who had a gunshot wound, he informed them of Hillström's visit.
Arrest
Three days later, McHugh visited Hillström to check the wound and give him some painkillers. When the medication had obviously started making Hillström drowsy, police officers entered the room. They aimed their weapons at Hillström, who was in bed, and ordered him not to move. Hillström started reaching across his bed. An officer, suspecting that Hillström was reaching for a weapon, fired and shattered bones in Hillström's hand. Hillström had been reaching for his pants.
Hillström's roommate, Otto Applequist, who was suspected as the second gunman, left town on the night of the murders and was never located.
Shortly after his arrest, a Salt Lake City newspaper learned that Hillström was the IWW poet/songwriter, Joe Hill.
Trial
Prosecution
During the course of the trial, the prosecution built a reasonably strong circumstantial case against Hill. They produced a dozen eyewitnesses who testified that the killer looked more or less like Hill. Although young Merlin Morrison said 'that's not him at all', when he was first shown Joe Hill, he later retracted that statement and identified Hill as the gunman who had killed his father and brother. One witness testified that the gunman had scars on his face similar to those on Hill's face as a result of a childhood illness.
The original theory of a revenge killing was disregarded as the prosecution presented a case for a simple robbery gone bad. The question of why a robber would yell 'we've got you now' on entering the establishment to be robbed was ignored.
No evidence was presented to suggest that Hill had ever met Morrison or had any grudge against him. The gun the Dr McHugh reported having seen on the night he treated Hill was never recovered. None of Joe Hill's blood was found inside the store. A bullet that had passed through his body caused Hill's wound. That bullet was never found inside the store.
Defence
Two young attorneys in Salt Lake City, hoping to build their reputations and advance their careers, volunteered to defend Hill free of charge. To his subsequent regret, Hill accepted their offer. Partway through the prosecution's case, Hill fired the attorneys for incompetence, citing their weak cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and their failure to object to leading questions from the District Attorney. In his statement on firing them, he said that he believed they were acting in partnership with the District Attorney to convict him (Hill) of a crime he had not committed. Judge Morris Ritchie refused to excuse the attorneys. Hill then refused to have any active participation in the trial.
The case for the defence included the fact that, since the money in the cash register had not been stolen, no motive could be ascribed to Hill. Additionally, 12 other men had been arrested in connection with the crime before Hill and four other men in Salt Lake City had been treated for bullet wounds on the night of the murders.
Hill, who never testified in his own defence, had stated that he was shot in a fight over a woman and that his hands were raised over his head when he was wounded. The fact that the bullet hole in the back of Hill's coat was four inches lower than the bullet wound in his back seemed to support Hill's version of how he had been shot.
Hill never explained his decision not to testify to his attorneys, or anyone else. Speculation as to his motives for this refusal fell into three camps. One group considered Hill a man of honour who was unwilling to tarnish the reputation of a married woman and that a jealous husband had shot him. Another group held that IWW legal advisors had told him not to testify, as the prosecution had not proven their case. The third group said that Hill knew that his alibi wouldn't hold up if he were cross-examined by the prosecution.
Verdict
After just a few hours, the jury found Joe Hill guilty of murder. Utah law gave him a choice. He could either be executed by a firing squad or hanged. Presented with these options, Hill said, 'I'll take the shooting. I've been shot a couple of times before and I think I can take it'.
Public Reaction
Hill spent 22 months in prison while his case went through the appeals process. Literally tens of thousands of letters, petitions and resolutions became part of the campaign to save Joe Hill. Virginia Snow Stephen, the daughter of the president of the Mormon Church and a faculty member at the University of Utah, wrote letters to national leaders on Hill's behalf.2 The Swedish Ambassador to the United States sent President Woodrow Wilson a telegram, stating his opinion that Hill had not received a fair trial. This telegram, combined with the urging of the acting United States Secretary of State, resulted in President Wilson writing to Utah Governor William Spry to request that Hill's execution be delayed, pending a full investigation.
The IWW started a campaign to stop the execution. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn visited Hill in prison and worked with the IWW in their campaign. The 30,000 members of the Australian IWW sent a resolution calling on Governor Spry to release Hill. Trade unions in Britain and other European countries echoed that resolution.
Helen Keller, who was nationally known for overcoming multiple disabilities, sent the following telegram to President Wilson.
THE PRESIDENT.
Your Excellency: I believe that Joseph Hillström has not had a fair trial and the sentence passed upon him is unjust. I appeal to you as official father of all the people to use your great power and influence to save one of the nation's helpless sons, the stay of execution will give time to investigate new trial will give the man justice to which the laws of the land entitle him.
Helen Keller.
Governor Spry
Governor Spry first responded to the protest by the Swedish Ambassador by offering Hill and the ambassador the opportunity to present any 'compelling evidence' that might change the verdict. The Ambassador, of course, had no such evidence. Hill, maintaining that the prosecution had not proven his guilt, and that it was not his responsibility to prove his innocence, still refused to speak in his own defence.
Spry had been elected to office based, in part, on his promise 'to sweep out lawless elements, whether they be corrupt businessmen or IWW agitators'. He had broken a Western Federation of Mineworkers strike and supported the Utah Copper Company when they brought in strike-breakers and hired an army of gunmen to guard them.
The IWW was unpopular with Utah's ruling elite. They (The IWW) had organised workers in the Utah Construction Company. In 1913, they had organised a strike among 1500 workers at the Denver Rio Grande Railroad in Utah. One official publicly stated that 'before the end of the year, every single IWW will be run out of the state'. The lawyer who represented Joe Hill during his appeal commented that 'the main thing the state had on Hill was that he was an IWW and therefore sure to be guilty. Hill tried to keep the IWW out of it [the trial]... but the press fastened it upon him'.
Governor Spry's reaction to the intervention from President Wilson was to write the following words to the President.
Your interference in this case may have elevated it to an undue importance and the receipt of thousands of threatening letters demanding the release of Hillström, regardless of his guilt or innocence, may attach a peculiar importance to it.
In Prison
In prison, Joe Hill continued writing the poems and songs that had made him famous, or infamous, depending on one's point of view. He also wrote letters. Some excerpts are provided below.
I have always tried to make this earth a little better for the great producing class, and I can pass off into the great unknown with the pleasure of knowing that I never in my life double-crossed a man, woman or child. - letter to Ben Williams, dated 9 October, 1915.
In spite of all the hideous pictures and all the bad things printed about me, I had only been arrested once before in my life, and that was in San Pedro, California. At the time of the stevedores' and dock workers' strike. I was secretary of the strike committee, and I suppose I was a little too active to suit the chief of that burg, so he arrested me and gave me 30 days in the city jail for vagrancy and there you have the full extent of my 'criminal record'3.
The main and only fact worth considering, however, is this: I never killed Morrison and do not know a thing about it. He was, as the records plainly show, killed by some enemy for the sake of revenge, and I have not been in the city long enough to make an enemy.
Shortly before my arrest I came down from Park City; where I was working in the mines. Owing to the prominence of Mr Morrison, there had to be a 'goat' and the undersigned being, as they thought, a friendless tramp, a Swede, and worst of all, an IWW, had no right to live anyway, and was therefore duly selected to be 'the goat'.
I have always worked hard for a living and paid for everything I got, and in my spare time I spend by painting pictures, writing songs and composing music.
Now, if the people of the state of Utah want to shoot me without giving me half a chance to state my side of the case, bring on your firing squads - I am ready for you. I have lived like an artist and I shall die like an artist'.
- From an article Joe Hill wrote for the socialist journal Appeal to Reason on 15 August, 1915.
Goodbye Bill. I die like a true blue rebel. Don't waste any time in mourning. Organize... Could you arrange to have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don't want to be found dead in Utah.
- Telegram to 'Big Bill' Haywood, shortly before Hill's execution
Execution
On 19 November, 1915, Joe Hill was executed by a firing squad at the Utah State Prison. Legend has it that Hill, having heard the 'Ready... Aim' orders, shouted 'Fire'! himself.
Funeral
Joe Hill's body was transported to Chicago, where the IWW held his funeral. About 30,000 mourners attended that funeral. At the funeral itself, according to the Desert Evening News, 'No creed or religion found a place at the service. There were no prayers and no hymns, but there was a mighty chorus of voices singing songs written by Hill'. One reporter for that newspaper asked: 'What kind of man is this, whose death is celebrated with songs of revolt and who has at his bier more mourners than any prince or potentate?'
Ralph Chaplin described Joe Hill's funeral, which was held in Chicago's West Side Auditorium, in an article written for International Socialist Review in December 1915. He described the casket's placement on a 'flower-laden, black and red-draped stage, above which was hanging a handwoven IWW Label'. The funeral opened with the singing of Joe Hill's song 'Workers of the World, Awaken' by the entire crowd. After that, there were solo performances, one of which was of the Joe Hill song, 'Rebel Girl'. Other songs were performed in Swedish and Italian.
Thousands of members of the funeral procession, which shut down traffic in a sizable portion of Chicago, wore IWW pennants on their sleeves or red ribbons bearing the words 'Joe Hill, murdered by the authorities of the state of Utah, November the 19th, 1915', or 'Don't mourn - organize, Joe Hill'.
When the procession arrived at Graceland Cemetery, various IWW members spoke. Eulogies were given in English, Swedish, Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Spanish, Italian, German, Yiddish and Lithuanian.
Ralph Chaplin's description of the funeral closed with the words:
The state of Utah has shot our song-writer into everlasting immortality and has shot itself into everlasting shame. Thank goodness, neither Joe Hill nor the IWW will ever be found dead in Utah!
Disposition of the Remains
Joe Hill was cremated. Portions of his ashes were put into envelopes and mailed to IWW members in every state in the United States (except Utah, where he didn't want to be found dead) and across the world, with the following letter:
Fellow Worker:
In compliance with the last will of Joe Hill, his body was cremated at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago, Illinois, Nov. 20, 1915.
It was his request, that his ashes be distributed.
This package has been confined [sic] to your care for the fullfilment [sic] of this last will.
You will kindly address a letter to Wm D Haywood, Room 307, 164 W Washington St, Chicago, Ill, telling the circumstances and where the ashes were distributed.
WE WILL NEVER FORGET
JOE HILL MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
Impact of Joe Hill's Execution
By killing Joe Hill, the State of Utah created a martyr. Whether or not Hill was guilty of the murders for which he was executed, in the years after his death, his songs became more popular and were heard at nearly every labour strike or protest of any kind. His name and his story were given as proof that the government and 'big business' were conspiring against the working class.
Some historians believe that Joe Hill chose to become a martyr for his cause, knowing that he could accomplish more dead than he could alive. They hold his writings while in prison to be documentation backing that theory. It is true that he consistently treated his own individual case as insignificant and always emphasized carrying on the struggle for the 'One Big Union'.
Murderer or martyr, Joe Hill may have been executed on 19 November, 1915, but he did not die. If he had, Joan Baez would not have sung the words Alfred Hayes' 1925 poem at the 1969 Woodstock music festival, introducing his name to yet another generation.
Songs of Joe Hill
An index of Joe Hill's songs can be found here.
1 Most historians agree on this date, although some put his birth in 1882.
2 Shortly after Hill was executed, she was fired from the University and moved to California.
3 The police department of San Pedro later stated that he was the main suspect in the armed robbery of a streetcar and that they had used the vagrancy charge to hold him while they investigated. Because the robbers had been masked, nobody ended up being charged with that robbery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A676361
Insanity and The Law
In 1843, Daniel McNaughton opened probably the biggest can of worms that exists in law when he shot and killed Edward Drummond, Private Secretary to the then British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel. The murder was a mistake; McNaughton meant to kill Peel. His defence was based largely around the fact that for years he had suffered from paranoid delusions, namely that Peel's Conservative Party was trying to kill him. McNaughton was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to Bethlem Hospital, and thence to Broadmoor Criminal Asylum shortly after it opened. The case gave cause to great debate in the House of Lords, resulting in the McNaughton Rules, which, although having no statutory basis, were afforded the same status as actual law.
In summary, these rules state that a person cannot be held responsible for a crime if they were 'labouring under such a deficit of reason from disease of the mind to not know the nature and quality of the act; or that if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong'.
Development
It is clear that this presents far too narrow a definition of insanity to be workable, and in section 2 of the 1957 Homicide Act the plea of 'Diminished Responsibility' is introduced to widen the catchment area of 'insanity' to include diseases of the mind and actual physical damage to the brain. Regina1 v Kemp, 1957, shows us that a man suffering from a case of arteriosclerosis (an umbrella term relating to disorders of the blood supply) which induced automatism killed his wife during a blackout and was cleared when the judge ruled that physical damage of the brain could amount to disease of the mind. This new view was echoed by Lord Denning in 1963:
It seems to me that any mental disorder that manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind. At any rate it is a disease for which a person should be detained in hospital rather than given an unqualified acquittal.
In the USA, the Durham rule was used. It states that '...an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect'. This was put forward in 1954, but has since been replaced by the Brawner Decision, which expounds the point further:
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect he lacks substantial capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
In Regina v Byrne, 1960, the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that they were satisfied with the scope of the premise 'abnormality of the mind' and also mentioned 'the ability to exercise willpower to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement'. In saying this, the concept of Irresistible Impulse is recognised, after being excluded under the scope of the McNaughton Rules. This was first mentioned in the USA in 1922 and it defines that 'a person cannot be held responsible for a criminal act if it can be shown that they acted through an irresistible impulse which they were unable to control because of a mental disorder' (Arthur S Reber, 1985). Most US courts have rejected this and it is rarely used today.
Following the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the plea of insanity has rarely been used, the preferred plea being diminished responsibility. If this defence, or that of automatism is used, the prosecution is allowed to rebut with evidence of insanity (Regina v Kemp).
Law and Psychology
As far as any legal definition could ever be, the concepts of insanity and diminished responsibility seem quite clear and well defined. But if we look to the field of psychology, we see that these terms just do not exist. The studies of Rosenhan are particularly relevant, being both a professor of Law and Psychology. He was the first to note that sane and insane are legal terms and not psychiatric, and that no psychiatrist will ever make a diagnosis of sanity or insanity. A two-part study by Rosenhan carried out in 1973 demonstrated how difficult it was for a member of the medical profession to make an accurate diagnosis of mental disorder.
Eight psychiatrically 'normal' people presented themselves to eight different mental hospitals in the USA, complaining of hearing voices saying 'empty', 'hollow', and 'thud'. Apart from their names and addresses, these symptoms were the only falsehoods involved. All were admitted, and after admission claimed that the voices had stopped. All were eventually discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission.
For the second part, these findings were presented to the staff of another hospital, and told that the same experiment would be carried out on them. Each member of staff was asked to rate each new admission, as to whether they rated the patient genuine or fake. Out of the 193 new admissions over three months, 41 were alleged to be fake by at least one staff member; 23 were suspected by one psychiatrist and a further 19 by one psychiatrist and one other member of staff. All were genuine patients.
The term 'insane' is itself inaccurate and open to wide and varied interpretation. Typically, the image of an insane person is that of one whose grip on reality is chronically loosened or severed; incapable of coherent thought or speech; unable to make logical, rational decisions; the old-fashioned image of the 'village idiot' is the prevalent one. No jury would have trouble finding a plea of insanity unreasonable when faced with someone who looked like that. But consider these three different types:
One who is of above average intelligence, who is charming and socially skilled; disarming, amoral, manipulative, insensitive to the feelings of others, unable to tolerate frustration, callous, unable to settle or make commitment.
One who is jumpy, irritable, finds it difficult to concentrate or make decisions; has trouble sleeping, has a poor appetite, and suffers from vague feelings of panic or nausea that leaves them exhausted.
One who has decreased sexual desire, loss of appetite, a slowing of the mental processes, a general feeling of hopelessness and despair, worthlessness and unattractiveness, delusions of physical decay and an expectation of punishment.
The first is a typical sociopath or borderline psychopath, the second suffers from an anxiety neurosis, and the third a depressive disorder. None of these, put before a jury, would conform to the 'insane' image portrayed earlier. Yet all these three types are categorised as mental disorders by the two leading psychiatric diagnostic manuals, DSM-III-R (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Revision (1987))) and ICD10 (International Classification of Diseases).
At his trial, Peter Sutcliffe, the notorious 'Yorkshire Ripper' told of the voice he was hearing that explained to him that he was the instrument of God's will. He was instructed to kill prostitutes by the voice, which he described as benign and reassuring. He was found guilty of the murders of 13 women, and the attempted murders of seven more. Schizophrenia is rated probably the most serious mental disorder, and for a diagnosis of schizophrenia a patient must exhibit one of the seven 'first rank' symptoms and have no physical brain damage (Schneider, 1957). Sutcliffe openly exhibited four out of the seven. He was considered sane enough to stand trial for his crimes, for which he received 20 concurrent life sentences. He served a token period in prison but, like his famous predecessor Daniel McNaughton, was soon moved to Broadmoor Special Hospital. On reflection, it would appear that Sutcliffe was sane enough to stand trial for his crimes, but not sane enough to serve the punishment for them.
1 Regina refers to the British crown/monarch. When the monarch is a king, the title becomes Rex.
In summary, these rules state that a person cannot be held responsible for a crime if they were 'labouring under such a deficit of reason from disease of the mind to not know the nature and quality of the act; or that if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong'.
Development
It is clear that this presents far too narrow a definition of insanity to be workable, and in section 2 of the 1957 Homicide Act the plea of 'Diminished Responsibility' is introduced to widen the catchment area of 'insanity' to include diseases of the mind and actual physical damage to the brain. Regina1 v Kemp, 1957, shows us that a man suffering from a case of arteriosclerosis (an umbrella term relating to disorders of the blood supply) which induced automatism killed his wife during a blackout and was cleared when the judge ruled that physical damage of the brain could amount to disease of the mind. This new view was echoed by Lord Denning in 1963:
It seems to me that any mental disorder that manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind. At any rate it is a disease for which a person should be detained in hospital rather than given an unqualified acquittal.
In the USA, the Durham rule was used. It states that '...an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect'. This was put forward in 1954, but has since been replaced by the Brawner Decision, which expounds the point further:
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect he lacks substantial capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
In Regina v Byrne, 1960, the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that they were satisfied with the scope of the premise 'abnormality of the mind' and also mentioned 'the ability to exercise willpower to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement'. In saying this, the concept of Irresistible Impulse is recognised, after being excluded under the scope of the McNaughton Rules. This was first mentioned in the USA in 1922 and it defines that 'a person cannot be held responsible for a criminal act if it can be shown that they acted through an irresistible impulse which they were unable to control because of a mental disorder' (Arthur S Reber, 1985). Most US courts have rejected this and it is rarely used today.
Following the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the plea of insanity has rarely been used, the preferred plea being diminished responsibility. If this defence, or that of automatism is used, the prosecution is allowed to rebut with evidence of insanity (Regina v Kemp).
Law and Psychology
As far as any legal definition could ever be, the concepts of insanity and diminished responsibility seem quite clear and well defined. But if we look to the field of psychology, we see that these terms just do not exist. The studies of Rosenhan are particularly relevant, being both a professor of Law and Psychology. He was the first to note that sane and insane are legal terms and not psychiatric, and that no psychiatrist will ever make a diagnosis of sanity or insanity. A two-part study by Rosenhan carried out in 1973 demonstrated how difficult it was for a member of the medical profession to make an accurate diagnosis of mental disorder.
Eight psychiatrically 'normal' people presented themselves to eight different mental hospitals in the USA, complaining of hearing voices saying 'empty', 'hollow', and 'thud'. Apart from their names and addresses, these symptoms were the only falsehoods involved. All were admitted, and after admission claimed that the voices had stopped. All were eventually discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission.
For the second part, these findings were presented to the staff of another hospital, and told that the same experiment would be carried out on them. Each member of staff was asked to rate each new admission, as to whether they rated the patient genuine or fake. Out of the 193 new admissions over three months, 41 were alleged to be fake by at least one staff member; 23 were suspected by one psychiatrist and a further 19 by one psychiatrist and one other member of staff. All were genuine patients.
The term 'insane' is itself inaccurate and open to wide and varied interpretation. Typically, the image of an insane person is that of one whose grip on reality is chronically loosened or severed; incapable of coherent thought or speech; unable to make logical, rational decisions; the old-fashioned image of the 'village idiot' is the prevalent one. No jury would have trouble finding a plea of insanity unreasonable when faced with someone who looked like that. But consider these three different types:
One who is of above average intelligence, who is charming and socially skilled; disarming, amoral, manipulative, insensitive to the feelings of others, unable to tolerate frustration, callous, unable to settle or make commitment.
One who is jumpy, irritable, finds it difficult to concentrate or make decisions; has trouble sleeping, has a poor appetite, and suffers from vague feelings of panic or nausea that leaves them exhausted.
One who has decreased sexual desire, loss of appetite, a slowing of the mental processes, a general feeling of hopelessness and despair, worthlessness and unattractiveness, delusions of physical decay and an expectation of punishment.
The first is a typical sociopath or borderline psychopath, the second suffers from an anxiety neurosis, and the third a depressive disorder. None of these, put before a jury, would conform to the 'insane' image portrayed earlier. Yet all these three types are categorised as mental disorders by the two leading psychiatric diagnostic manuals, DSM-III-R (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Revision (1987))) and ICD10 (International Classification of Diseases).
At his trial, Peter Sutcliffe, the notorious 'Yorkshire Ripper' told of the voice he was hearing that explained to him that he was the instrument of God's will. He was instructed to kill prostitutes by the voice, which he described as benign and reassuring. He was found guilty of the murders of 13 women, and the attempted murders of seven more. Schizophrenia is rated probably the most serious mental disorder, and for a diagnosis of schizophrenia a patient must exhibit one of the seven 'first rank' symptoms and have no physical brain damage (Schneider, 1957). Sutcliffe openly exhibited four out of the seven. He was considered sane enough to stand trial for his crimes, for which he received 20 concurrent life sentences. He served a token period in prison but, like his famous predecessor Daniel McNaughton, was soon moved to Broadmoor Special Hospital. On reflection, it would appear that Sutcliffe was sane enough to stand trial for his crimes, but not sane enough to serve the punishment for them.
1 Regina refers to the British crown/monarch. When the monarch is a king, the title becomes Rex.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A304228
The Innocence Project
The Innocence Project, established by lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, began in 1991 as a clinic for students at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law.
Prisoners who maintain their innocence write to the Project through their lawyers, and students in the law school assess each case brought to them. These cases are screened using the clinic's criteria. Questions include: was identity one of the key issues when the case was originally tried? Was biological evidence taken1?
The next problem is gaining access to the biological evidence, which is often in the possession of the same prosecutors who gained the conviction. Certain they have their man (or woman), these prosecutors will likely not be hard-pressed to cooperate - even though roughly 60% of the samples tested exonerate the clinic's client.
As time passes, however, there will be fewer cases suitable for the Innocence Project. Most of its cases are old ones, prosecuted before DNA testing was common or even available. But the question still remains, why is the justice system making so many mistakes?
One answer is that juries will often convict on astonishingly little evidence. For instance, one exonerated client, Dennis Fritz, was convicted despite there being no evidence linking him to the crime scene. He spent 12 years in prison. And in the case of Tim Durham, the jury ignored 11 alibi witnesses! Durham served six years of his 3220-year sentence before being released. One final problem is that - contrary to popular belief - eyewitness testimony is less than reliable. One reason, it turns out, is that people can have trouble distinguishing between two individuals in an ethnic group other than their own.
But the Innocence Project is helping. Since 1992, 70 prisoners have been released thanks to the Innocence Project - eight of whom were on death row. With any luck, they'll continue changing lives for years to come.
1 The source is not always an obvious one (eg, skin, hair or blood); for instance, in the case of the World Trade Center bombing, saliva on the back of a postage stamp provided DNA.
Prisoners who maintain their innocence write to the Project through their lawyers, and students in the law school assess each case brought to them. These cases are screened using the clinic's criteria. Questions include: was identity one of the key issues when the case was originally tried? Was biological evidence taken1?
The next problem is gaining access to the biological evidence, which is often in the possession of the same prosecutors who gained the conviction. Certain they have their man (or woman), these prosecutors will likely not be hard-pressed to cooperate - even though roughly 60% of the samples tested exonerate the clinic's client.
As time passes, however, there will be fewer cases suitable for the Innocence Project. Most of its cases are old ones, prosecuted before DNA testing was common or even available. But the question still remains, why is the justice system making so many mistakes?
One answer is that juries will often convict on astonishingly little evidence. For instance, one exonerated client, Dennis Fritz, was convicted despite there being no evidence linking him to the crime scene. He spent 12 years in prison. And in the case of Tim Durham, the jury ignored 11 alibi witnesses! Durham served six years of his 3220-year sentence before being released. One final problem is that - contrary to popular belief - eyewitness testimony is less than reliable. One reason, it turns out, is that people can have trouble distinguishing between two individuals in an ethnic group other than their own.
But the Innocence Project is helping. Since 1992, 70 prisoners have been released thanks to the Innocence Project - eight of whom were on death row. With any luck, they'll continue changing lives for years to come.
1 The source is not always an obvious one (eg, skin, hair or blood); for instance, in the case of the World Trade Center bombing, saliva on the back of a postage stamp provided DNA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A666164
How to Have Fun while Writing your Will
This entry is not about how to write your will. The only thing it says on the subject of how to write your will, and it says it again and again, is go to a lawyer or other professional. There are few pieces of paperwork that you want to be perfect for sure, and one of those is your will because you won't be around to make corrections. In the UK, lawyers can charge from as little as Ј25 for reviewing a will. They can charge from Ј125 for drafting it. Compare the costs with insuring your car or buying your family presents at Christmas. This is not something you need to do every year, and it begins to look like a bargain1.
No - this entry is how to make the experience fun!
This may seem a strange concept - after all, wills are about what happens after you are dead, and therefore they must be full of doom and gloom, embarrassed silences and soggy sausage rolls. It may seem bizarre to consider that writing your will could be in any way entertaining at all.
However, consider this - what is the best thing about Christmas? Surely it is choosing presents for those you love? What is the best thing about giving to charity? Isn't it the warm glow you get inside from knowing that your donation will buy food for a week, or stamps for a year, or a tree in a forest?
Your Estate
Your Estate is the sum total of your possessions2. You don't need to accumulate masses of paperwork to calculate this as your net worth is likely to change on a day-to-day basis. The fluid value of your estate means that you will normally need to make approximate divisions when divided up your worldly goods in a will.
To make life simpler you could simply divide any money you have (from the sale of your house perhaps, or from cashing in on those old Railtrack shares) between charities and specified survivors on a percentage basis and let the lawyers work it out after you've died.
Individual Legacies
You can of course leave fixed sums, and add conditions about what they are to be spent on. It might be worth making the conditions non-binding, because circumstances change. However, there is something very satisfying about stipulating that your legacy to a niece or nephew should be spent on travel or training on the grounds that both expand the mind. Of course, there is a glorious ambiguity about whether or not their minds actually need expanding.
If you have a will, you can make sure that your possessions go to the people who are best able to deal with them - not everyone would greet your collection of cool Norwegian Jazz CDs or a whole load of books on extra-terrestrial zoology with the pleasure and respect they deserve. It is a nice gesture to return special gifts like jewellery or pictures to the people who gave them to you.
The Only Certainty is Change
Another good reason for making a will is that things change! Even if you look at the intestacy3 rules and think 'that's fine, I don't need to bother with a will', the risk is that you will put it out of your mind. Then maybe some years later you run off with a racing-driver, or have a child, or get married, or divorced, or something... If you already have a will you are more likely to revisit it and change it than if you have just taken a look at the intestacy rules and think 'that'll do - more or less'.
'Find the Lady' - or 'How Your Estate Can be Wasted Counting Black Sheep'
Quite apart from the fact that your collection of Northumbrian apostle spoons may end up with some brute of a cousin who won't appreciate them, there are three other major problems with dying intestate:
Even if things go smoothly, it takes much longer to deal with an intestacy than if there is a will.
A common-law husband or wife4 is not recognised, and separation is not treated in the same way as divorce. For example, your separated spouse could inherit the house that you share with your partner.
The rules of intestacy will be followed officiously. So if there is a long-lost sibling last heard of entering the Bermuda Triangle who inherits under the rules, that person must be traced and contacted, or at the very least thorough and exhaustive enquiries made. If they are dead and had children, they will all have to be traced. And so on. All this can take years, and it might all be for a person who you would never have wanted to inherit under your will.
Getting Your Will Drawn Up and Checked
Whatever you do, don't try this at home without any kind of guidance or advice. There are will writing kits available in stationery stores in the UK (and, presumably, elsewhere), and of course it is easy to avoid the pitfalls you know about. However, the reason for not using one of these kits and going to a professional instead is because of the large number of pitfalls you don't know about.
Step One - Think about what you want to do for the people and the causes you care about.
Step Two - Write it down in your own words as simply as possible.
Step Three - Deliver this to a lawyer, or other will-writing professional for their input.
There - that was nice and easy, wasn't it?
The letter to your lawyer is not a will5. If you have children or grandchildren; if you are separated or if you are living with someone you are not married to; if you own a property with someone else; or, if you want to leave money to young children, or to adults who are not capable of managing their own affairs - go to a lawyer.
A lawyer can draw up your will with the herinafters and heretofores for you. They are paid not just to know about pitfalls, but to know all the long words too.
Where There's a Will, There's a Way
The best bit for you is having the pleasure and warm feeling of generosity of deciding who gets what, and why. The best bit for your relations and for anyone who is important to you, but not related, is that it is substantially easier - and cheaper all round - if you have taken this important step and prepared in advance. Of course, if you don't make a will, it isn't you who lives to regret it.
1 Mind you, a will is not necessarily a once-in-a-lifetime thing, you might have to re-visit it or change it completely or add what is called a codicil, which is a supplement or appendix.
2 Not to be confused with the domain of the landed gentry as it is unlikely your estate will include tens of thousands of acres of rolling countryside.
3 Someone dies 'intestate' if they have not written a will, or if the will they have written is invalid for some technical reason, like being incorrectly witnessed. Even if they have written a will it is possible to die 'partially intestate' if they have not made arrangements which cover their whole estate.
4 This phrase is used in the UK to denote a long-term live-in partner. It makes the relationship sound as if it has a legal status. In fact you probably have a greater legal relationship with your lodger than you do with your common-law spouse.
5 There are all sorts of rules about signatures, witnesses and who will carry out your wishes for you, and these need to be followed correctly so that there will be no problems later.
No - this entry is how to make the experience fun!
This may seem a strange concept - after all, wills are about what happens after you are dead, and therefore they must be full of doom and gloom, embarrassed silences and soggy sausage rolls. It may seem bizarre to consider that writing your will could be in any way entertaining at all.
However, consider this - what is the best thing about Christmas? Surely it is choosing presents for those you love? What is the best thing about giving to charity? Isn't it the warm glow you get inside from knowing that your donation will buy food for a week, or stamps for a year, or a tree in a forest?
Your Estate
Your Estate is the sum total of your possessions2. You don't need to accumulate masses of paperwork to calculate this as your net worth is likely to change on a day-to-day basis. The fluid value of your estate means that you will normally need to make approximate divisions when divided up your worldly goods in a will.
To make life simpler you could simply divide any money you have (from the sale of your house perhaps, or from cashing in on those old Railtrack shares) between charities and specified survivors on a percentage basis and let the lawyers work it out after you've died.
Individual Legacies
You can of course leave fixed sums, and add conditions about what they are to be spent on. It might be worth making the conditions non-binding, because circumstances change. However, there is something very satisfying about stipulating that your legacy to a niece or nephew should be spent on travel or training on the grounds that both expand the mind. Of course, there is a glorious ambiguity about whether or not their minds actually need expanding.
If you have a will, you can make sure that your possessions go to the people who are best able to deal with them - not everyone would greet your collection of cool Norwegian Jazz CDs or a whole load of books on extra-terrestrial zoology with the pleasure and respect they deserve. It is a nice gesture to return special gifts like jewellery or pictures to the people who gave them to you.
The Only Certainty is Change
Another good reason for making a will is that things change! Even if you look at the intestacy3 rules and think 'that's fine, I don't need to bother with a will', the risk is that you will put it out of your mind. Then maybe some years later you run off with a racing-driver, or have a child, or get married, or divorced, or something... If you already have a will you are more likely to revisit it and change it than if you have just taken a look at the intestacy rules and think 'that'll do - more or less'.
'Find the Lady' - or 'How Your Estate Can be Wasted Counting Black Sheep'
Quite apart from the fact that your collection of Northumbrian apostle spoons may end up with some brute of a cousin who won't appreciate them, there are three other major problems with dying intestate:
Even if things go smoothly, it takes much longer to deal with an intestacy than if there is a will.
A common-law husband or wife4 is not recognised, and separation is not treated in the same way as divorce. For example, your separated spouse could inherit the house that you share with your partner.
The rules of intestacy will be followed officiously. So if there is a long-lost sibling last heard of entering the Bermuda Triangle who inherits under the rules, that person must be traced and contacted, or at the very least thorough and exhaustive enquiries made. If they are dead and had children, they will all have to be traced. And so on. All this can take years, and it might all be for a person who you would never have wanted to inherit under your will.
Getting Your Will Drawn Up and Checked
Whatever you do, don't try this at home without any kind of guidance or advice. There are will writing kits available in stationery stores in the UK (and, presumably, elsewhere), and of course it is easy to avoid the pitfalls you know about. However, the reason for not using one of these kits and going to a professional instead is because of the large number of pitfalls you don't know about.
Step One - Think about what you want to do for the people and the causes you care about.
Step Two - Write it down in your own words as simply as possible.
Step Three - Deliver this to a lawyer, or other will-writing professional for their input.
There - that was nice and easy, wasn't it?
The letter to your lawyer is not a will5. If you have children or grandchildren; if you are separated or if you are living with someone you are not married to; if you own a property with someone else; or, if you want to leave money to young children, or to adults who are not capable of managing their own affairs - go to a lawyer.
A lawyer can draw up your will with the herinafters and heretofores for you. They are paid not just to know about pitfalls, but to know all the long words too.
Where There's a Will, There's a Way
The best bit for you is having the pleasure and warm feeling of generosity of deciding who gets what, and why. The best bit for your relations and for anyone who is important to you, but not related, is that it is substantially easier - and cheaper all round - if you have taken this important step and prepared in advance. Of course, if you don't make a will, it isn't you who lives to regret it.
1 Mind you, a will is not necessarily a once-in-a-lifetime thing, you might have to re-visit it or change it completely or add what is called a codicil, which is a supplement or appendix.
2 Not to be confused with the domain of the landed gentry as it is unlikely your estate will include tens of thousands of acres of rolling countryside.
3 Someone dies 'intestate' if they have not written a will, or if the will they have written is invalid for some technical reason, like being incorrectly witnessed. Even if they have written a will it is possible to die 'partially intestate' if they have not made arrangements which cover their whole estate.
4 This phrase is used in the UK to denote a long-term live-in partner. It makes the relationship sound as if it has a legal status. In fact you probably have a greater legal relationship with your lodger than you do with your common-law spouse.
5 There are all sorts of rules about signatures, witnesses and who will carry out your wishes for you, and these need to be followed correctly so that there will be no problems later.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A738821
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)