More handpicked essays just for you.
Crime and punishment in the medieval times discussion
Short essay on Elizabethan era (150-200 words)
Introduction to the Elizabethan Age
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What would be going through you mind if you were punished by being whipped, hung, burned to death, or starved during the Elizabethan Era? During the Elizabethan Era, there were different types of crimes committed and punishments faced. This paper will explain to readers the significance of the crimes and punishments .
There were multiple punishments faced for every little thing you had done. For example, if you lied during the Elizabethan Era, the bigger authority had the right to cut your tongue off. Although being whipped wasn’t something to be proud of, that was the smallest punishment to face. Having burn marks all over your body because you committed a crime was very pitiful and shameful. How would you feel if you had to carry scars on your body for life just for committing a crime?
“In Elizabethan Era, committing a crime was the worst mistake of all, depending on how big your crime was, people had to know that their lives were at risk.” Criminal actions were divided into three main categories: treason, felonies, and misdemeanors. Treason was far by the most serious of all crimes. High treason was acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its master. Felonies
…show more content…
The worst punishment for the upper classmen was the death sentence. Hanging was the worst punishments for the middle classmen during the Elizabethan Era. Burning was critically a problem for the lower classmen. “Punishments were different from one another because some crimes were harsher than others.” The lower classmen didn’t try to commit big crimes like the upper classmen committed. The upper classmen often thought they were big and bad, so they committed serious crimes and thought they couldn’t be punished like everyone else because they were wealthy, but that wasn’t always the
Its rulers were unable to govern, its social institutions were ill-defined, its economy was undeveloped, its politics were unstable, and its cultural identity was indistinct.” Yet despite this near-anarchic atmosphere, David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (1989), concludes that the legal system was fairly effective because it succeeded in fulfilling its main purpose, to strictly enforce the colony’s hierarchical system. Therefore, the proliferation of moral crimes or violence committed among colonists of lower status was irrelevant in determining the deterrent effect on society because that was never the primary intent of the colony’s legal system. The Virginia courts enforced this hierarchical/patriarchal idea of showing deference and respect to one’s “superiors,” whether it involved the relationship between master and slave, father and son, or husband and wife. Violent crimes which threatened this social system were therefore savagely punished, and as a result “there was remarkably little violence by the poor against the rich, or by the humble against the elite.” A defendant’s position within those relationships played an important role in assigning their punishment. Virginia law considered the murder of a patriarch treason, punishable by death. Moreover, literate members of society belonging disproportionately to the elite class could always
"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.
During seventeenth century flogging was a popular punishment for convicted people among Boston's Puritans. Fortunately, those times have passed and brutal and inhuman flogging was replaced by imprisonment. Columnist for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby in his essay "Bring back flogging" asserts that flogging is superior to imprisonment and advocates flogging as an excellent means of punishment. He is convinced that flogging of offenders after their first conviction can prevent them from going into professional criminal career and has more educational value than imprisonment. He also argues that being imprisoned is more dangerous than being whipped, because the risk of being beaten, raped, or murdered in prison is terrifying high. Unfortunately, Jeff Jacoby made some faulty assumptions and his article "Bring back flogging" is filled with misconceptions.
Progressing forward, Jeff Jacoby, columnist for The Boston Globe, provides readers with his view of “Boston’s Forefathers’” system of punishment in his essay, “Bring Back Flogging.” Within the contents of his work, Jacoby describes how flogging was utilized as punishment in its day. One such example he utilizes involves a woman who pleaded guilty to committing adultery. He writes that her punishment was “fifteen stripes severally to be laid on upon her naked back at the Common Whipping post” (Jacoby 1). In his piece, Jacoby argues for the revival of flogging and Puritan style punishment in the United States.
In his essay “Bring Back Flogging,” columnist Jeff Jacoby attempts to convince his audience that flogging is an effective method to punishing criminals. He begins by bringing his audience back the 17th century and describes a time when Puritans punished any wrong-doers, listing the names of the victims, their crimes, and their punishments. Jacoby then compares and contrasts the two methods of punishment, flogging and incarceration, thus effectively luring the audience further into his argument. Although his argument appears to persuade his readers into seeing the advantages of flogging, his essay as a whole is ineffective due to lack of knowledge on the justice system, poor essay structure, and disrespect toward his audience.
Punishments in colonial days were a lot harsher than they are today. There were extreme punishments for minor things like lying, name calling, or rude comments. In colonial times there ideas of punishments were different than ours. They didn't use a jail very often, but instead punished them publicly to shame them. Some of their not so pleasant punishments were to whip you, put you in the stock, which meant that people could throw things at you all day long, or burn your crime onto your hand. If the criminal stole the formidable punishments could become as extreme as a hanging, for things as small as taking a silly silver spoon!. Although punishments for woman and children
The Penal system is described in the novel as “…. An inadequate and crude instrument by which to regulate the countries affairs, even in the view of contemporaries” (Rees 38). Crimes which theoretically are considered capital offenses range from Burglary to Unlawful Shooting. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as a list of crimes that are considered felonies. Stealing objects that hold a total value of 39 shillings was a felony. Despite this, theft can be deemed a felony under certain circumstances even if less than 39 shillings of are stolen. One example given in the novel is that “Housebreaking (breaking and entering was a double felony, whatever the value of goods taken”. Felonies are punishable by death, fortunately, Judges usually did not follow this. When a woman is charged with a double felony then the judges will convict them of only one felony and sentence them to transportation rather than sending them to death for mere theft. Transportation was always given because of the serve limitations on sentencing. Overall, the penal system of England described in the early chapters of the novel is flawed system with convicts living in poor conditions in addition. The idea of how terrible the penal system and Gaol living conditions are is rereinforced by the negative reception and reactions of people and groups
Some are harsher than others, but we get punished for sinning no matter what. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester got punished for committing adultery. Her punishment was to stand on the scaffold for three hours holding Pearl and the ‘A’ on her chest. The people would humiliate her because of her sin. Hester’s punishment was not as harsh, but standing in front of everyone is embarrassing. Dimmesdale, Pearls father, confesses that he i the father. Everybody is surprised about the new news that he says that God has punished him “by giving[him] this burning torture to bear upon [his] breast! By bringing [him] hither, to die this death… He will be done! Farwell”(229). His punishment was not as harsh as Hester’s, but Hester’s was worse because people saw the Scarlet Letter, unlike Dimmesdale. He knew that he committed the sin, so he was fine with the punishment they gave him. He then dies and leaves Hester and Pearl alone because he could not live with he guilt of sinning. In The Crucible Proctor’s sin lead to punishment. Danforth interrogated him and was asking him if he was lying about his confession: : I will not accept it [if it is a lie]” (143). Since Proctor ripped the paper, they punished him by hanging him. His punishment was to be hung in front of the people. Not only did he suffer but so did Elizabeth, his wife. She had nothing to do with this, but even she got punished because they took her husband away from her. There are
The death penalty, created in the Eighteen Century B.C by King Hammurabi of Babylon, was a way to punish those who went against the laws and committed crimes. Back in the B.C. era and all the way until the late Tenth Century the methods of the death penalty were being crucified, beaten to death, burned alive, and drowned. The methods of execution died down in the Tenth Century, the execution methods became less heinous and over the top. Hanging became the most used method of execution, but that soon changed in the Sixteenth Century. Henry VIII of Britain brought back all the horrible and gruesome methods of execution and also implementing more ghastly methods. Over 72,000 people were executed either by being boiled to death, burned at the stake, hanged, beheaded, and drawing and quartering. Drawing and quartering is where the accused is tied to a horse and dragged to the gallows where he is hung by the neck for a...
"Today's system, where imprisonment is a common penalty for most crimes, is a historical newcomer." Many crimes during 1718 and 1776 were punishable by death. This was usually done by hanging, sometimes by stoning, breaking on the rack and burning at the stake. Towards the end of the 1700's people realized that cruel punishment did little to reduce crime and their society was changing the population grew and people started to move around more frequently. There had to be a search for new punishments. "New punishments were to rely heavily on new ideas imported from Europe in the writing of such social thinkers of the Enlightenment as the baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Pain and Cesare Beccaria". These thinkers came to believe that criminals could be rehabilitated."
The servants of the town were brutally tortured and appeared as though no one had even an ounce of morals. “They were hung by the thumbs or by the head, and corselets were hung on their feet. Knotted ropes were out on their heads and twisted till they penetrated to the brains” The events described in “Anarchy of 12th Century England” may have influenced morality plays being that morality plays are meant to represent morals or teach a lesson. In the last lines of the passage, you can see how the people were punished for the sins similar to the way that Everyman was being held accountable for his. “Wherever cultivation was done, the ground produced no corn, because the land was all ruined by such doings, and they said openly that Christ and his saints were asleep. Such thing too much for us to describe, we suffered nineteen years for our
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.
The Elizabethan era was especially not the time to act out against the law. For the poor, there were all sorts of "physical and rather gruesome" (Elgin, 22) punishments one could receive. They dealt with crime in a much more brutal way than we do now, but this was necessary. England had an exceptional amount of crime at the time and people needed to know that their lives were at stake. Unlike today, prison was hardly considered a punishment during the Elizabethan era. It was merely just the place where people that had been accused would stay until they had been tried, and claimed either guilty or innocent. Beside prison, the stocks and the pillories were the next least brutal way to serve for your crimes. They were big wooden planks that the convict
Crime and punishment during the Elizabethan era was also affected by religion and superstitions of the time.
Crime and punishment in the Elizabethan era where split into two different classes. The upper class consisted of the nobility,courtiers, and the Royal family etc. The lower class consisted of every one else.( Elizebethean-era.org.uk)Crimes and punishments would vary between each class. If someone was in the upper class they could be charged with a more sever crime than the lower class. Punishment would dramatically be different if both an upper and lower class people committed the same crime. For example if someone were in the upper class and they Murdered some one they could be charged a death sentence. If a lower class person murdered someone they would be tortured then killed if not already dead. Many crimes that an upper class person did where not common for the lower class and same for the upper class.