the strategies behind the reactions and the counterstrategies to wear either solemn or festive clothes, more or less identifying the condemned as a martyr going to heaven. Such clothes came to be forbidden in several countries, quite early in Sweden by the Royal ordinance of December12th1741prohibiting the useofspecial clothing for thecondemned prisoner.845 However, even after the ordinance it occurred that some emphatically desired the forbidden special clothing. Around 1750 in Stockholm Brita Wadström was sentenced to death for murdering the child of another woman while they both were in gaol. She put much effort in preparing such special clothes for her execution and also put her trust in them. When informed, by her fellow prisoners and by the priest in charge of her preparation, that she would not be allowed to wear them, her reaction to these news was perceived as very useful for her preparation.846 Thus the authorities won this struggle over Wadström, but often they lost. The condemned possibly also used violence against chaplain or executioner, or failed to weep enough to fulfil the expectations, or made insufficient public confessions.847 There were many ways a delinquent given enough time in the public eye could – voluntarily or involuntarily – sabotage the images and the message the executions were supposed to convey. This possibility was probably instrumental in the process of first shortening the time in the public view and then ending it altogether. When the authorities sought to end this kind of crimes by replacing the death sentence with another penalty there was a possible and clear strategy to parry this with: to evade giving up the motive. Already in early nineteenth century Anders Sandøe Ørsted noted this problem with that type of legislation.848 In Denmark, it resulted in some who wanted to be executed proclaimed another motive, while those not wanting to be executed told the courts that their motive was precisely to be executed.849 Confessing a lie so became a counterstrategy. 845 Kongl. Maj:ts Förordning s a. 846 Odhelius 1842 p 50 sqq, see also Hellerstedt 2011 p 503 sqq. 847 See e g McKenzie 2007 p 198 sqq. 848 Ørsted 1819 p 141 sq. 849 See e g Juridisk Arkiv 1806 vol 10 p 41 sqq, Juridisk Arkiv 1808 vol 14 p 149 sqq, Juridisk Arkiv 1812 vol 30 p 216, 228, Nyt Juridisk Arkiv 1812 p 175 sqq. 236
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=