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.

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.

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-defined.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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