the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 92 cated there to the king to confirm in autumn 1611.259 However, as this particular letter from the late king contained answers on the punishing of a range of different crimes with aggravated penalties in the case of recidivists, it was probably considered particularly useful and authoritative. It was referred to by the Court of Appeal in the summer of 1614 – apparently after the summer assizes had been held – when it received a round of letters from provincial officials such as bailiffs, governors, judges or surrogate judges (lagläsare) regarding the use of the royal prerogative of pardon in a number of cases of heinous crime. In the first of these, from the bailiff and surrogate judge of Tjust in Småland, the Court of Appeal recorded that it had “carefully reviewed and considered” (nogsampt öfuersedt och öfuerwägit hafue) and sentenced after “careful consideration and the explanation given by the late departed and respected King Charles himself” (efter noga betänkiande och den förklaring, som S. Konung Carll) in such cases.260 Nevertheless, the practice of the Court of Appeal demonstrates how legalistic the mitigation practice in Sweden already was at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Royal letters categorizing fines for certain crimes tended to standardize practice, and mitigating circumstances such as age, reduced culpability or the pleadings of the injured party were often mentioned, as they had already been for decades. Thus, even in its darkest hour, the Swedish king and his Court of Appeal attempted to follow certain existing practices in administering criminal justice. The worst offenders were executed, not pardoned against fines, even if this would have brought more revenues to the empty coffers of the crown. As mentioned above, Sweden was in crisis in 1613-1614. The crushing economic burden of the ransoming of Älvsborg supplemented by the maelstrom of war constantly requiring more troops and taxes, obliged the government to lend a careful ear to the grievances of provinces and the complaints of individuals. 259 Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, pp. 130-131. 260 RA, SHA, B I a:1, 5 July 1614, fols. 21v-22r. Administering Justice in War and Economic Hardship: Legitimizing the Rule
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=