different realities and reactions nal-Instructionof Braunschweig-Lüneburg of 1736, approved in London, ruled that prisoners who were condemned to die should not be visited by anyone other than priests or relatives. This rule was motivated by the perceived need of the prisoner to prepare for death. The state felt an obligation that no prisoner should be executed while in an unrepentant state: if prisoners failed to repent, executions could be postponed for a few days to give the priests more time to carry out their work.581 The BritishMurderAct of 1752 also contained restrictions on visits to the condemned. However, it differed from the Criminal-Instruction for example in that the restrictions of visitors to those having permits from the judge or the sheriff included everybody. Thereby also priests required an official permit for their visits, and preparation for death and pastoral care were only mentioned in a reference to Holy Communion as an exception to the rule that condemned prisoners could only receive bread and water. In addition, executions were to take place two days after sentencing, unless this was a Sunday in which case the execution would be postponed until Monday. In the statute itself there are also other provisions such as the body to be dissected or to be hung in chains if the judge so ordered.It would never be buried.582 It is however hard to argue strongly for the MurderAct as closely related to legislation in other countries. Much have been written about different reasons for the Act and Richard Ward has argued not least due to the very fast preparation of the Act that the spreading of the news of recent shocking murders created a panic important for understanding the creation of the Act.583 AnIrishMurder 581 Krause 1991 p 30, 178 sq, Chur-Braunschweig-Lüneburgische Landes-Ordnungen 1740 p 880 sq, 884, Criminal-Instruction Cap 13 §§ 1–3. The Criminal-Instruction is in this area almost completely a copy of the Criminal-Ordnung vor die Chur- und Renmarck of 1717, Mylius saII, 3 col 107 chapter XII §2sq. 582 25Geo. II, c. 37 ss 1, 6–8 in Pickering 1765 p 380 sqq. In regard to the English legislation and its application, see e g Potter 1993 p 19, Radzinowicz 1948 p 206 sq. In Scotland however the quick executions of theMurderAct did not become reality as older legislation giving a respite for 30 days south of River Forth and 40 days north of the river was valid, Bennett 2018 p 16 sq. The study by Bennett is rare among the modern studies of the Murder act as others generally only focus on the post-execution penalties. Concerning dissection as additional penalty in the English colonies in Northern America see Banner 2002 p76sqq. 583 Ward 2014 p 157 sqq, 201 sqq. 166
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=