During the few hours that remain to the murderer after sentence, he is confined in a solitary cell, set apart for that purpose. If visited at all, it is only by a clergyman, and that by stealth, as it were, since it is understood that the offices of religion are denied the murderer. In the same unostentatious way he is taken to the scaffold, and is put to death without any religious ceremonies or other formal observances, – a mode of treatment widely different, it will be seen, from that pursued towards most other persons under sentence of death.585 different realities and reactions Act of 1791 stated that the executions of murderers must take place within four days of their conviction.584 To deter potential murderers, less possibilities and a short timespan were to be given thereby not boasting their reputation and self-esteem, and the execution itself could be less exalted through the actions taken against the dead body. Although spiritual preparation was not excluded in Britain, the primary motive behind the iteration of the confinement and separation of the prisoner was to inspire terror: the condemned prisoner was not set apart for celebration but as an example of the wrath and might of the state. The impression was clearly given that a murderer was placed outside normal pastoral care. Some eighty years later Edward Gibbons Wakefield wrote of the condemned murderer: The two laws of the United Kingdom and Hanover shared many similarities and were promulgated by the same ruler, but their aims differed. In terms of aims there were, however, German parallels to the British law, though not in Hanover but in legislation in Prussia from the 1760’s, while the Hanover restrictions was continued elsewhere, for example in Württemberg where in a Royal Order given May 1st 1816 it was regulated that during the last three days before the execution the priest preparing the condemned would have unlimited access to the condemned. Others would need a special permit, though it should not be denied close relatives and friends.586 584 Henry 1994 p 35. 585 Wakefield 1831 p 87. Referring to Wakefield of course is problematic as he at least sometimes had a very strained relationship with truth, see e g Burns 1989 p 30, 37, 89, 105. 586 Reyscher 1839 p 474 (Royal Order §§ 3 sq). 167
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=