|
|
|
|
|
by NeedMoreTea
2333 days ago
|
|
The penalties were fairly stiff too -- if anyone is unsure if harsher sentencing cuts crime, Medieval times are a pretty strong argument against: Hanging was the penalty for dozens of crimes, not just murder. Hanging was public and a slow hang unless you bribed the hangman. Serious crimes would see you hanged, drawn and quartered -- dragged through the town, hanged almost to unconsciousness, emasculated and gutted (while conscious if the hangman did his job right), then beheaded and chopped into 4 bits. The head and parts usually went on prominent display like at the gates of the city. Then there's the religious offences, which get ugly. Theft from the church would see you flayed alive (skinned). The skin was sometimes nailed to the church door. Apostasy (rejecting your required religion) might see you slow burned alive -- publicly of course. and so it goes on. Medieval Christians seem like a vengeful lot. Forgot one: Boiling alive -- the penalty for coin counterfeiting. |
|
But it sure was 100% effective against repeat offenses. Not like for instance the French system where someone can plot a terror attack, get sentenced to 8 years of prison (a shamefully low duration to begin with) and then do it again (possibly one the attacker role this time). In a way death penalty exists, but is reserved to the victims of previous convicts.