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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A738821