My Idea = Add 'banishment' to prison sentences.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No penal colonies to show me?
As you could see from the link, we are clearly superior.

[TheMercenary]

Banishment would never work. Some ACLU nut would stand up and sue for the child molesters.

[cowhead]

on a side note, suncrafter... that's some damn slick orctacular stuff. only 15 copper! a bargain at any price!

anywhoo, I'm still in favor of exile. siberia needs people. yeah, I know. old hat.. but sometimes you just have to go with the traditional approach.

[TheMercenary]

Put them in the tundra of Alaska.

[DanaC]

Just out of interest:

Transportation to America and the West Indies, 1615-1776
Legal Records Information 16
1. What Was Transportation?
Transportation was a system that exiled convicts to the American and West Indian colonies for a period of years.

2. Why Was It Introduced?
Until the Restoration in 1660, the only punishment available for people convicted of treason or felony was, with one exception, the death penalty. The exception was petty larceny for which the punishment was to be whipped. Large numbers of those convicted had their lives saved by a legal fiction called benefit of clergy. This originated in the claims of churchmen to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the king's courts, even if they had been accused of ordinary crimes. Benefit of clergy provided a compromise solution, whereby churchmen were tried in the king's courts but were handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities for punishment. After 1576, those who had successfully claimed benefit of clergy were simply discharged.

As early as the fourteenth century, the king's courts were prepared to accept that any male who could read must be a clergyman. Similar privileges were extended to women during the seventeenth century. Claiming benefit of clergy became something of a formality, and it was often granted to illiterate convicts even before the literacy test was formally abandoned in 1706. Even those who were denied benefit of clergy and were therefore sentenced to death had a good chance of securing a royal pardon - which also meant that they would be discharged without further punishment.

Transportation provided a useful compromise for the authorities ensuring that individuals could be punished without actually killing them.

3. When Was It Introduced?
Although benefit of clergy and unconditional pardons continued to be used, after 1615 it became increasingly common for convicted individuals to be offered a pardon on condition of transportation. After 1718 transportation was to America and was standardised at 14 years for those entitled to conditional pardons. Transportation for 7 years was also introduced as a sentence in its own right for non capital offences.

Transportation to the Americas was ended on the outbreak of the rebellion in 1776.

Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Just out of interest:



Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.

You didn't say where that quote was from.

[TheMercenary]

That is very interesting. It is interesting to note how people could get what essentially was a commuted sentance if they could read and earlier, were a part of the church. The power of religion in those days was great.

I wonder when they started sending them to Aussie land, after 1776?

[DanaC]

Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.

That last bit was not a quote, it was my summation of the information I'd just posted. The information was from the National Archives.
.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ets/ri2234.htm

[xoxoxoBruce]

Trial records do not usually contain useful genealogical information; nor do they contain transcripts of evidence. They may contain copies of pre-trial witness statements. The indictments were written in Latin, and in a distinctive legal handwriting, until 1733. Pre-trial witness statements are in the ordinary hand of the day, but if you are not familiar with seventeenth century handwriting you may find it difficult to read.

Sound like trying to understand a greek bible.

[DanaC]

Not necessarily. The stuff in the ordinary hand of the day is legible, it just requires a little practice reading 17th century handwriting. The latin stuff I woudn't be able to read, as I have only minimal latin.