The bloody code

The thought processes behind the action of hanging during the Bloody Code were that the harsher the punishment the ultimate result in the reduction of crime.  Therefore  acting as a deterrent.  The hanging was performed as a sort of ritual ceremony in the presence of a priest (the upholder of the ultimate law – god) and large crowds.  The death penalty clearly controlled the criminal and acted as a deterrent.  However, it was obviously by nature steadfast and did not allow for reform of the offender or perfecting of mistakes that had been made.

There was a lack of humanitarianism and a lack of civilisation in this era.  It was seen as the crime merited punishment and terrible crime merited terrible punishment.  Since the rich made the laws they made laws that protected their interests.  Any act which threatened their wealth, property or sense of law and order was criminalised.  The law makers thought that crimes may not be committed if people knew that they could be sentenced to death.  Minor crimes from earlier periods had suddenly became major crimes.  Hanging was seen as the befitting punishment in shaming the offender.  

There was a major social class divide at this time.  There was rebellion taking place due to men that had returned at the end of the Napoleonic war with no jobs to go to and therefore had no money.  There was a larger population then at this time so therefore there were more crimes committed as the men had to steal or commit crime in order to survive.  Policing couldn’t be relied upon so hanging was the “best” alternative.

Finally in 1810 Sir Samuel Romilly spoke to the House of Commons on capital punishment and began the process of ending the Bloody Code.  As time passed by capital punishment became less important.  Transportation and imprisonment became viable alternatives to the death sentence and the gradual abandonment of old school beliefs.  Reform became a more of a priority with the option of imprisonment as a form of punishment.