More handpicked essays just for you.
Punishment during the Elizabethan era
Punishment during the Elizabethan era
Punishment during the Elizabethan era
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Punishment in Elizabethan England was some of the most unforgiving and harsh consequences that the world has ever seen. It was also some of the most biased and unfair punishment we have ever seen. There were 2 classes of social standings, nobility and commoners. Social standings had so much influence that it was basically a different criteria for defining crime and punishment between offenders from each class. Crimes committed during these times was divided into 3 different categories, treason being the most serious, felonies being the second tier and finally misdemeanours being the least violent and most lightly punished. We still use the words felony and misdemeanour in our justice system today. Treason was the most heavily punishment
Crimes was mostly committed by the lower class, the ones who were poor and unable to work. The working class however were not thieves because they are able to afford the necessities of life. Highwaymen, murder, and theft of property were all common crimes committed by males unlike females whose crimes were infanticide, prostitution, and theft. The Ordinary of Newgate’s Account describes how “William Spiggot was indicted for four several Robberies on the High-Way, and found Guilty, with Thomas Cross otherwise Phillips, and William Burrows” (Ordinary’s Account, 4). As described in the lectures those offences were considered crimes without qualification because they were crimes with victims. Social crime was considered a victimless crime, and has no capital punishment tied to it. Highwaymen were hanged for their crimes because they robbed on the King’s highway and that was considered a capital crime. Crimes committed by people like Ethrinton Wrathan who “was condemned…for breaking open the Warehouse of John Hide, Esq; and taking thence 1080 Yards of Sail-Cloth, value £90.” (Ordinary’s Account, 4) This offence was punishable by death due to the reason that any crime over a shilling was a capital crime. Crime was considered a bad path to go on due to the reason that it was easy to commit crime again once that path was
...ments. Through the public humiliation of hundreds of criminals, public squares became lively areas full of excitement and joy. Even if it did not effectively deter crime, the cruel and unusual punishments of the Elizabethan Era helped citizens keep occupied. When punishments were not deadly, they were still painful enough to strike fear into the citizens of England. Obviously, the Elizabethan Era was a very violent time in England.
Throughout the late 17th century and into the early 18th century witchcraft prosecutions had been declining. This trend was the result of a multitude of social developments which altered the mentality of society. One of the predominant factors in this decline was the Scientific Revolution, the most important effect of these advances was making society question concepts of witchcraft. Along with this new mental outlook, we see that the Reformation had a similar effect on social opinion concerning witchcraft and magic. These two developments changed societies view on the occult and this led to a wider scepticism concerning witchcraft, this favoured those who had been accused and therefore caused a decline in prosecutions. Beyond the two trends mentioned however, it is important to consider judicial reforms and an improved socio-economic situation which reduced tensions within society. These two changes were certainly not as influential as the Scientific Revolution and the Reformation but heavily altered the circumstances in which accusations were normally made. With the altered social attitudes and mental outlook these changes in living situations all contributed to bring about the decline in witchcraft prosecutions.
"During the Elizabethan era, crimes of treason and offenses against the state were treated with the same severity that murder is today” (Beyer 1). Some crimes in the Elizabethan era wouldn’t even be considered crimes today. Punishments were not extreme. Minor crimes such as begging would result in public beatings until they ran to the town’s border. If any simple crimes were repeated, they would be sent to jail, or possibly hanged.
The Renaissance time period was a very unique era that has influenced our world greatly today. However, some things were not passed down and have yet to be passed down to today’s society from that unique time period. The punishments used in the Renaissance are one thing that fits on both sides of the plane. The types of punishments that were used have changed drastically since the Renaissance. The punishments used were very harsh but also very creative.
Every person has a right and responsibility to be a citizen of their own country, living at the best as they can be. People have the responsibilities to become leaders, like Queen Elizabeth I, to rule Great Britain. Some people under the queen are struggling to live; people like the poor or the paupers in the 17th century. Queen Elizabeth attained recognition as an absolute monarch and a responsible Tudor queen at that time. She achieved numerous goals that helped herself and her people prosper. There was one achievement that affected many people, especially the poor, which was the Elizabethan Poor Law. It organized the poor and affected future poor laws after that.
In this essay I will be discussing what law and order was seen as in
Henry V, like most characters created by Shakespeare, is very complex, and cannot by defined in black and white or as good or bad. However, he is the sum of his actions, and his actions and decisions during the campaign during the campaign in France lead him to be classified as a war criminal. A politician who works for his own good and through that, the good of his country, Henry’s decisions are often cold and calculated, designed to manipulate those around him.
The aim of this lesson will be to develop students understanding of crime and punishment in Medieval Europe. As outlined in AUSVELS, this will include investigating different kinds of crime and punishment utilised and the ways the nature of crime and punishment has either stayed the same throughout history, or changed over time.
Punishment dates back to early human history. To maintain the laws that were created for social living, penalties were developed for the individuals who could not abide by them. Authoritarianism changed the reasons behind punishment; instead of protecting society from the criminal, it became a way for the "Chiefs to control the Indians." It placed the leaders above everyone else, preventing the people's opinions from counting; an antidemocratic society. As illustrated by Dreikurs and Grey, "Those in command were superior and therefore right; those whom they ruled were inferior and therefore wrong if they disagreed with the rulers" (66).
Justice is done in very different ways from country to country or from era to era. The Elizabethan era had a particular way of doing justice and advising their Queen. From 1558 to 1603, the inner circle also known as the Privy Council helped and advised the queen. The court members were handpicked by Elizabeth which naturally led to favorites among them. Other than justice, the culture was very different. More specifically, the etiquette in my lady’s chamber - practiced by Queen Elizabeth I - portraits a very different image from an ordinary bedroom in the 21st century.
In medieval Europe, determination of guilt and innocence experienced numerous change and continuity throughout laws and trials. Before King Henry II’s reign, the local lord generally decided law cases, however this was later changed by King Henry II (Johndclare.net, 2018). King Henry II was responsible for introducing the court system as well as introducing the use of juries as opposed to trial by ordeal (Johndclare.net, 2018). By 1215, trial by ordeal was abolished and replaced by trials with juries as the church found this a fairer and more rational way to determine someone’s guilt or innocence. (History Learning Site, 2018). Despite these changes, trial by jury continued throughout the medieval era, enduring the use of punishments to people
When discussing who the English justice system favoured in the early modern period it is important to remember that first and foremost, the justice system was there to keep social order. As a result, we can suggest that the justice system was weighted in favour of keeping this order and aspects of the system were in favour of the criminal or victim is merely circumstantial. As the Early Modern period was one of such fast-paced change it is hardly surprising that the justice system would come down so hard on criminality that would threaten the increasingly dwindling peace. A defining feature of the early modern justice system was that its punishments were reactionary and served to form as deterrence for the crime. George Saville demonstrates this concept when he states "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen” .
In colonial times, before the thought of American independence, the juries that handled all of the criminal cases were very important and considered tangible sentencers with a great amount of power. Many of the crimes committed were capital offenses such as murder. The result had two options, guilty and death or not guilty and freedom. There were certain situations that had set factors to determine the severity of the punishment or punishments that involved terms of many years. This was set in place because penitentiaries were not common until the eighteenth century. Jurors understood the basics of the criminal justice system and the impact of a guilty verdict on the defendant because of the relativity and straightforwardness of the criminal law and its penalty
According to Michael Kronenwetter, punishment of any kind stems from the fact that “[...] [t]here must be a penalty for wrongdoing”. Prior to governments taking over the administrative role, people “[...] were expected to take their own revenge on those who had wronged them. If a man robbed or killed another person, or raped a woman, it was up to the victim or the victim's family to exact a price from the wrongdoer”. This created major problems in the fact that it left those who were weak in power at the mercy of the strong. False accusations could go unchecked and unjust punishment would be given to those who could not properly defend themselves. Death was used a penalty for crimes that were “applied […] sparingly and only for the most terrible of crimes. Others imposed it for minor offenses” such as under the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets death was the penalty for publis...