summary 287 and the third are further divided. Following this the methods used to avoid the success of the use of such strategies by the authorities are studied. Strategy I is aiming to deter everybody by changing the execution so that it is only deterring and nothing else. Important in this strategy is to deprive both liturgical actions and the person of the condemned any visibility. I have divided it into three parts: Ia ”Seeking to reduce the importance of spirituality at the execution.” Ib ”Pursuing the dehumanisation of the condemned.” Ic ”Let as much as possible of the execution and its ceremonies fade out, leaving only death.” Whenever intramural executions had been introduced and no crowds were present some of the actions in these strategies no longer were necessary and could be abolished. StrategyII is primarily aimed to deter those that plan to commit crime in order to be executed by constructing more gruesome executions. Often added were regular corporal punishments some days or weeks prior to the final execution. StrategyIII in all its variation is just the abolishment of executions, for some criminals, for some crimes, or for all. IIIa ”(In conjunction withII) Aprolonged and painful punishment not ending in an execution.” IIIb Not executing those committing this kind of crimes. IIIc “Because the crimes are understood to be committed by mentally deranged persons they should be treated by psychiatrists.” Naturally counterstrategies were decided by the individuals but still some common lines can be described. Because the executions can be and has been seen as the ultimate spectacle displaying the power of the state everything questioning the execution and its messages from the state could be seen as very serious, as was the case with at least some counterstrategies. Both those that in British style were toʼdiegameʼ and those that sought martyrdom or some similar death more and more came to be seen as questioning the authority of the state.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=