Capital punishment in Themiclesia

Capital punishment was once practiced in Themiclesia as a mandatory punishment for a number of political and personal crimes, but it has been abolished in 1853; as of 2018, it is no longer a penalty stipulated for any crime in Themiclesia. Its abolition was politically motivated during a period of national confusion resulting from rapid industrialization, in order to enhance the government's reputation and national morale, by appealing to both the traditional portrayal of a utopian society and the ideals of Enlightenment. Though many cautioned against it initially, few dared to oppose it openly. However, in at least one case, the House of Lords gave a capital sentence through the process of impeachment, last in 1948.

History

Capital punishment has been practiced as a punishment for those committing for a wide range of offences and those who are related to said perpetrators. Such crimes include, as an incomplete enumeration:—

• Sedition
• High treason against the emperor, empress, dowager empress, or crown prince
• Lèse-majesté
• Sabotage
• Murder
• Rape (including consensual sex with minors under 15)
• Abduction of minors
• Injuring certain civil servants
• Advocating for enemy states during war
• Trespassing in the palace hall
• Opening or closing palace, citadel, and city gates without authorization
• Raising or dispatching militia units over 50 in strength without authorization or emergency
• Taking of bribes resulting in miscarriage of justice
• Perjury on an accusation of sedition or high treason
• Counterfeiting or clipping and debasing of coins
• Counterfeiting the imperial seals and rescripts
• Counterfeiting official seals
• Burglary (armed and involving more than three persons)

Most other crimes not listed above are of a nature likely to lead to the destabilization of the government, either through assembly, force, or misinformation.

Gradual remittance

The extent of capital punishment was first reduced when the Meng dynasty was restored in Themiclesia, under Emperor Ngjon, who wanted to appear magnanimous to those who opposed him and to appeal to the populace, which was doubtful of his rule. Though unable or unwilling to reform the penal code with hundreds of capital crimes, he did insist on clothing the condemned. However, later in the dynasty heavy taxation and frequent expropriation encouraged revolts, which were dealt with harshly; this resulted in an expansion of capital offences.

Under the Dzi dynasty (752 – 1185), capital punishment was prohibited for minors under 7, the elderly over 80, and the disabled, in observance of Confucian ethics and the development of a "caring state" that responded to its people's feelings. The number of capital crimes also decreased, and the practice of capital punishment by association was limited to sedition and the perpetrator's immediate family after 818. Methods of execution were limited to decapitation and strangulation in the same year, with bisection and dismemberment deprecated. The final development occurred in the 18th century, when Casaterran concepts of humanism reached Themiclesia. The ancient prerogative of suicide, originally for the aristocracy, was extended to commoners.

End of public executions

In 1580, the prime minister Lord of Go-ljang was implicated in a scandal where his 12-year-old son imitated a public execution to strangle another child. Due to the unpopularity of Go-ljang, the incident was propagated as an example of the corruptive influence of his government. While Go-ljang could claim privilege for his son and avoid trial, he forced his son to commit suicide in a futile effort to appease public emotions. Go-ljang then outlawed public executions in the capital city Kien-k'ang to the same end. In the decades following, many counties moved execution grounds to remote areas or into prisons instead. By 1700, public executions occurred only for cases attracting public attention and was soon considered distasteful amongst the political classes.

Accompanying punishments

If an individual was sentenced to death, then his household was subject to seizure (孥, na), whereupon his spouse and children became public slaves (隸臣妾, rjebh-gjin-ts′jap) and his property confiscated. This is comparable to the medieval notion of felony. According to some authorities, seizure was a more effective deterrent than capital punishment itself, since seized individuals and their offspring are not released. The government sometimes granted amnesties to prevent slave populations from growing beyond control, but this was not a regular occurrence. Public slaves were a considerable economic resource used for construction and manufacture, to the extent that some historians describe a "criminal economy" in Themiclesian history. Initially, public slaves could be sold by the state and were treated as chattel; after the Slave Rebellion of 382, they acquired retained certain rights and liberties. Seizure was abolished in 1508.

Abolition

In 1853, the government led by the Lord of Rjai-lang enacted a major reform to the Penal Code. Capital punishment was replaced completely with penal servitude, which was argued by Rjai-lang as a way for criminals to repay their debts to society. This form of servitude was always for life and was considered as harsh as capital punishment, and records show that many were worked to death, on public projects dredging canals, building roads, and mending city walls. Parliament permitted leases on such labourers to complete private projects. While many argued that capital punishment should be restored, penal labour replaced many local services that peers were expected to perform at their own expense, so they were largely in favour of retention. In 1895, Liberals argued that penal servitude resembled slavery and was prejudicial to national reputation and so advocated for its abolition. In 1912, penal servitude as a separate form of punishment was replaced with imprisonment with hard labour. While penal slaves could be required to perform hazardous and painful work, hard labour in prison was more constrained and, in some cases, voluntary. Better regulations also existed to protect the health and prospect for resocialization, which were not extended to penal slaves.

In the armed forces, the situation was less transparent. The militias were not subject to military law except when active beyond their home prefectures, and the reform of the Penal Code is understood to prohibit capital punishment in that context. This is because military law transfers judicial authority to the commander in charge but does not prescribe additional penalties. However, in one case case in the South Army, a murderer were still subject to capital punishment by stabbing in 1854. Naval law away from shore permitted captains and the Naval Tribune to throw "dangerous and violent" men overboard in an emergency, but in 1856 captains were directed to order marines to suppress such an incident first, before that action could be taken. The actual number of those thrown overboard is hard to estimate, since the navy recorded such deaths as "missing". There is at least once instance of throwing marines overboard for the same reasons since 1856. In other cases, capital punishment was replaced by penal servitude.

Procedures

Ordinary law

Judicial independence developed relately late in Themiclesia, as judicial power was formally held by local magistrates; however, magistrates were usually trained in jurisprudence. Additionally, justiciars (執法, tjep-pjap) were also appointed to answer commoners' legal queries and assist the local magistrate. If a judgment was believed illegal, a litigant could request a retrial or ask the justiciar for an appeal. However, in case of a capital crime, the prisoner was not permitted to request a retrial; instead, his relatives must appeal on his behalf. The rationale for this rule is not clear.

Most courts, excluding those of special jurisdiction, could try capital crimes. Under the principle of restraint and in view of the irreversibility of capital punishment, the retrial system showed a general trend towards more caution and safeguards. Early in the Tsjinh dynasty, a capital sentence could only be passed by an administrator of the 2,000 bushel rank. After this, the judgment was submitted to the Court Justiciar (廷尉, lêng-′judh). If he was satisifed that the judgment stands, he then submits it to the Vice Chancellor, Chancellor, and Council of Peers. The Council of Peers would seek the emperor's approval before ordering an execution. After 1845, the House of Lords reviewed capital crimes by a majority vote, and the emperor's role was reduced to a ceremonial one.

Martial law

While there was no specialized military law code until fairly recently, specific offences were only applicable to military officials and soldiers in specific positions. Early Themiclesia had no standing military, and it seems militiamen in their home prefectures breaking ordinary laws were tried by the prefecture's marshal and punished as civilians. When units were sent across prefectural borders, the court usually appointed a general to oversee their actions, who tried and punished them likewise. Cowardice (懦, sno) was punished by penal servitude for militiamen, but a cowardly petty officer would suffer death, since his cowardice impaired his entire unit.  Prefectural marshals and generals were at the 2,000 bushel rank and could pass capital sentences in their own right, though generals' commissions usually contained more specific provisions regarding their judicial powers.

In many cases generals were not required to submit their capital sentences for review before execution; however, certain checks still existed to prevent abuse. Whenever a general was appointed, a tribune (監御史, k.ram-ngjah-srje′) was ordered to follow and monitor the general. The tribune was invariably a highly-trained jurist. While this was done most likely to prevent treacherous negotiations with the enemy, the tribune's purview extended over all of the general's actions. While tribunes may not prevent the general from taking decisions, they could report them after the fact; such reports were taken quite seriously by the court, and even victorious generals may be executed if found grossly violating laws. Additionally, a general's commission included a staff, one of which department focused on judicial affairs. Generals relied on jurists in this office to inform his decisions, if they were later contested by the tribune.

The Themiclesian navies possessed distinct rules relating to capital punishment. Save in battle, killing on board was prohibited, as it was deemed a curse. To lift it, crew members ironically killed prisoners of war and painted their sails with human blood, which was supposed to appease the restive spirits; this practice was recorded by astounded travellers in the 6th century as a barbaric nautical tradition. Later, other ceremonies were substituted. Maritime law permitted ship captains to throw individuals overboard if they were dangerous and violent. After the military navy was founded, this authority was retained above judicial powers the captain held over his crew. Since captains were not sufficiently senior to pass capital sentences, they relied this ancient power to rid the ship of troublemakers. Without a prison, this in the early navy was frequent. In the 10th century, naval tribunes were appointed to give additional oversight in the fleet, in much the same way over generals.

In the Colonial Army, the generalship and staff offices were made standing components.

Execution

Themiclesia executed prisoners publicly in most contexts before the 16th century. Most executions occurred in the jurisdiction where the sentence was initially passed, since the prisoner would be held there. When an execution has been approved, warrants were issued by the Chancellor to the prefectural magistrate and tribune, who would set the date of execution and notify the county where the prisoner is held. Executions took place near the seat of the magistrate for convenience. After the county magistrate receives the warrant, the prisoner's limbs were restrained to prevent suicide or escape. Public executions were stopped in 1584 in the capital city due to a scandal involving a prominent minister.

Dismemberment, as the most severe form of capital punishment, was always carried out in public. Since the law provided that dismemberment implied strangulation of the prisoner's family, this was done first. The prisoner would be fastened to a wooden frame in the spreadeagle position. After being caned, the prisoner's nose and ears were first sliced off. The left leg, right leg, left arm, and right arms would be severed in this order. Then, the prisoner was cut in half along his waist, and his organs were pulled out and scattered. After this, his eyes and tongue were cut out. When the prisoner is almost dead, his head is severed, and what remains of his body was chopped into pieces so that a complete burial was impossible.

Bisection and decapitation were carried out by axe. The axe was made by the Department of Instruments (內官, nubh-kwar), which otherwise produced standardized weights and measures. Measuring from an unissued one, the axe head weighed 9.5 kg and had a curved blade around 33 cm. There is no record of the lenght of the pole to which the axe head was mounted, though such regulations are likely to have existed. A wooden block (質, tjit) was used to position the prisoner's waist or neck. In some periods, it was customary to display decapitated heads in public places, particularly for highly-anticipated cases; after a given interval, displayed heads would be retrieved and united with the body.

Strangulation was performed with a rope fastened around the prisoner's neck and twisted taut to cause asphyxiation.

When an execution took place, a tribune must be present to record it. Prisoners in the counties were usually executed at the end of the fiscal year starting from the middle of the eighth month to the end of the ninth, so that the county would not budget their rations in the following year. The prefectural tribune would tour the counties during this period and record executions occurring before him. In the capital city, executions occurred year-round. The court acquiesced to suicide to avoid an offical execution; poison would have been provided by prison officials for a small fee.

Themiclesia did not employ professional executioners. The identity of the executioner depended on the court passing the sentence and the site of the execution. If the sentence was meted out by the Privy Treasurer or Comptroller of the House, a slave in their respective departments performed the execution.  If the prisoner was in a county or prefectural magistrate's court, the sentence was carried out by one of the prison guards. Since prison guards were drawn from the local militia, any militiaman could be selected to execute prisoners if they happened to be positioned in prison on the day of execution. Traditions indicate that this was an undesirable assignment, though there is little record of public shame or ostracism as a result. In a marching army, a soldier would be selected ad hoc for this purpose; likewise in the navy, the captain can order any person onboard to throw a dangerous criminal into the sea. According to early Casaterran visitors' accounts, botched executions were not infrequent.

Aliens

Unless spying in Themiclesia on behalf of an enemy state, aliens were rarely executed even if convicted of a capital crime. This is generally because Themiclesia found it risky to execute individuals of unknown origins. Some jurists also considered it unlawful to punish foreigners for crimes and under laws unique to Themiclesia. After conviction, alien criminals were usually deported. This policy continued up to the abolition of capital punishment.

Vestiges

As the abolition of capital punishment was advertised as a manifestation the emperor's love for his subjects, few dared contest such a policy; however, this did not prevent parliament from sentencing individuals to death beyond the judicial system, via the process of impeachment. Under the Casaterran principle of parliamentary sovereignty, this formerly-infrequent measure was imposed several tiems in the 18th and 19th centuries, and for the final time in 1948, but not on ordinary criminals by consensus. With the passing of the pre-war generation of politicians, it was gradually accepted that parliamentary sovereignty had its limits.

Case of M′rjang

M′rjang, a Major-General, was implicated in an alleged rape case while he was in Dayashina in 1947. The alleged victim committed suicide before she was able to present evidence, but her family insisted that she had been sexually assaulted by the implicated officer and committed suicide out of shame. There was no inquest into the death due to the degraded Dayashinese administration in consequence of the war, and an internal inquiry later exonerated him of the charge. The story then circulated, finding particular resonance as an example of the Allies' recklessness and lack of consideration during the occupation. M′rjang was impeached by the House of Commons on May 6, 1948 after the Secretary of State for War told the house that a "thorough inquiry was able to recover no evidence of wrongdoing of that nature." The House of Lords unexpectedly sentenced him to death on Jun. 22, after several peers alleged M′rjang's low regard for the aristocracy; the house further attainted (confiscated) his estate and deprived him of all dignities and emoluments, as well as forbidding his heirs from inheriting. While the House of Commons convened almost immediately to discuss a reprieve through the Government, M′rjang was not so informed and found to have committed suicide by hanging himself in Dayashina. In his will, he described his death to have occurred "purely for the defence of the reputation of the country, not in respect of any crime committed." The judgment shocked the nation and sparked discussion about the future role of the House of Lords in the judicial system.

In popular culture

Historical drama frequently depicts individuals being sentenced to death and executed instantly; however, there are no historical records of such occurrences. As state above, there is a complex procedure around capital punishment that, for reasons of dramatic portrayal, would be of little interest to the audience. There is also a tendency to depict executioners shirtless and wearing a mask of some kind, for which there is no historical basis in Themiclesia. Authorities regard this an example of influence from Casaterran theatre, where executioners have this stock appearance.

See also

• Themiclesia