Showing posts with label burning alive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label burning alive. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Burning Alive

Burning

In the Middle Ages burning was used both as a form of torture and as a capital punishment.

As a form of torture the victims feet could be held to a fire, or trapped into metal boots that were heated up, or they could be strapped into an iron chair with a fire lit underneath, or red hot irons could be applied. Metal torture instruments were often heated - pincers, pliers and so on. Burning or molten liquids could also by used, the victims being forced to dip limbs in them or even having them poured down their throats.

According to the Talmud, the "burning" mentioned in the Bible was done by melting lead and pouring it down the convicted person's throat, causing immediate death. The particular form of execution by burning in which the condemned is bound to a large stake is more commonly called burning at the stake.

As a form of capital punishment, burning has a long history for crimes such as treason (heresy, blasphemy and witchcraft being regarded by the Christian Churches as treason against God). Sodomy was also punished by burning alive, again because it was seen as a crime against God.


The Burning of two "sodomites" at the stake outside Zürich, 1482 (Spiezer Schilling)


Adopting an old Roman practice, the Christian Church adopted burning as a favoured form of capital punishment. Under the Byzantine Empire, burning was introduced as a punishment for Zoroastrians because of the erroneous belief that they worshiped fire. The Christian Emperor Justinian (r. 527-565) ordered death by fire, and confiscation of all possessions by the State as the punishment for heresy against the Christian faith in his Codex Iustiniani (CJ 1.5.), ratifying the decrees of his predecessors the Christian Emperors Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius.

In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona confirmed this form of punishment, legislating that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy, as Church policy was against the spilling of blood. It was also widely believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the afterlife. This decree was reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual leaders up to the nineteenth century.


Civil authorities burnt persons judged to be heretics under the medieval Inquisition, Burning was also used by Protestants during the witch-hunts of Europe. [1]




Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Cruel and Unusual 1878



Such is the general statement of that commentator, but he admits that in very atrocious crimes other circumstances of terror, pain, or disgrace were sometimes superadded. Cases mentioned by the author are, where the prisoner was drawn or dragged to the place of execution, in treason; or where he was embowelled alive, beheaded, and quartered, in high treason. Mention is also made of public dissection in murder, and burning alive in treason committed by a female. History confirms the truth of these atrocities, but the commentator states that the humanity of the nation by tacit consent allowed the mitigation of such parts of those judgments as savored of torture or cruelty, and he states that they were seldom strictly carried into effect. Examples of such legislation in the early history of the parent country are given by the annotator of the last edition of Archbold's Treatise. Arch. Crim. Pr. and Pl. (8th ed.) 584.

Many instances, says Chitty, have arisen in which the ignominious or more painful parts of the punishment of high treason have been remitted, until the result appears to be that the king, though he cannot vary the sentence so as to aggravate the punishment, may mitigate or remit a part of its severity. 1 Chitt. Cr. L. 787; 1 Hale, P. C. 370.

Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness [99 U.S. 130, 136] the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by the commentator referred to, and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that emendment to the Constitution. Cooley, Const. Lim. (4th ed.) 408; Wharton, Cr. L. (7th ed.), sect. 3405. 
~WILKERSON v. UTAH, 99 U.S. 130 (1878) [1]