The question of capital punishment
and whether it is a humane punishment is one of the most controversial
questions of human history. In America today, the country is truly torn as to
whether it should be legal. It has been left up to the discretion of each individual
state to decide if they will administer the death penalty in special cases. Many
argue that is violates our Eight Amendment right of not being subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment, while others do not see death as cruel and
unusual since we all experience it. It is non-the-less an extremely sensitive
topic in the US.
Sentencing criminals to the death
penalty was also a sensitive topic during the Roman Empire. Many great leaders
felt differently about the matter and each sought to attack the issue in their
own right. Though Rome never fully ruled it out certain leaders would not permit
it. Roman leaders became more worried with privileges given to the elite after
they had committed a crime. Though leaders could not agree as to whether
capital punishment should be administered during their regime, they all felt as
though the status of an individual should not protect them from the penalty
they deserve. Each also thought that discretion should be exercised, truly
weighing all the elements of the crime. Writers have noted that many citizens
did not worry about the safety of the criminal but for the character of the man
administering the punishment and his true intention.
China on the other hand, recommended
it to discourage deviant behavior. They had no issue with mitigating harsh
punishments to maintain order. Chinese
leaders felt as though consistency in sentencing and upholding punishments was
the key to an orderly society. The relied heavenly on general deterrence being
the fundamental principle of social order. The Chinese also believed in
fairness, ensuring that every punishment administered truly fit the crime.
China's willingness to administer the death
penalty did not surprise me; nor, did Rome's skepticism to do so. Each of these
empires were founded and governed on different principles with different
ideals. Rome sought to have a republic style of leadership while China's
emperor could be easily be compared with a dictator. These empires clearly had
different approaches to many aspects of their societies they were both
successful in their own right.
I don't really agree with this statement as regards to Rome that many elites had issues with the death penalty; maybe it showed up more in the later years of the empire but definitely would not have been common during the early years. While yes, Rome did have many other options as to what to do with prisoners such as exile or other forms of punishment, this was usually kept to prominent leaders who could not be executed as a result of how the public would react. But still the death penalty would have been regarded as an appropriate penalty given then crime, especially if it was some unknown petty criminal. Look at Jesus and the criminals crucified with him; the Romans clearly had no problem executing them. The Romans developed even the very act of crucifixion as a way for them to execute people. If they can come up with by far one of the most gruesome ways to execute someone, and then use it, I don't think they would have a problem with the idea of killing someone.
ReplyDeleteRoman execution did not even end just at criminals but also to their own soldiers. If a Roman legion lost a battle, it was an acceptable punishment to kill every tenth man in what was known as decimating the legion. The earliest recorded practice of this was in the 400's BC and with the latest recorded one by Augustus in 17 AD. Even Julius Caesar is recorded as decimating one of his legions. So for the first 500 years of the Roman Empire they had no problem killing a tenth of their own soldiers in their army. As a result of this I don't believe that they would have had a problem with giving out the death penalty unless killing the person would have angered the masses and caused trouble in the empire, and if this did happen they would have just given the death penalty to the instigators once order was settled.
The majority of Roman disagreement with the death penalty would have probably occurred more towards the end of the empire when it became Christianized. But it would appear to me, that for at least the first half of the empire, they would have had no problem with giving someone the death penalty unless under special circumstances.
I think you are probably right, Kenny, about exercising caution in assuming that Roman rulers had much hesitation about using the death penalty (except in cases involving elites). I think Turner probably understated this.
DeleteBut I wonder whether the death penalty did decline significantly in the era after adoption of Christianity as Rome's dominant and then official religion? Future reading and discussion will likely shed a little light on this.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair to the rulers of Han China, although they clearly did wield immense power and made somewhat regular use of capital punishment. But likening them to dictators, when they clearly felt a responsibility to protect social harmony feels unfair to me.
ReplyDelete