My Idea = Add 'banishment' to prison sentences.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes, the definitions in post 44.
We had none here than I know of.

OK. Well, do you agree that convicts came from overcrowded debtor prisons in England and were auctioned off to plantation owners in Georgia to do hard labor as mentioned in the wikipedia article I quoted?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, I said so several times. In England anyone not obviously useful was at risk of being tossed out. But it costs money to ship people across the ocean, and they couldn't make the people pay because if they had the fare they probably wouldn't be thrown out. The solution, sentence them to indentured servitude, usually for seven years, but it varied.

Then they would sell the contracts to sea captains who in turn would sell them to people for enough to cover what they paid, plus passage, and a profit, if possible. Very clever scheme to get you to pay for your own deportation plus profits for several, with your future.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes

Alright. Then, I got no beef with you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Nor I, with anyone.

[richlevy]

You know, banishment might serve a purpose. In the case of a powerful defendant, it could provide a way to avoid a costly and divisive trial.

Maybe instead of a pardon, the next administration will offer GWB and Cheney a plane ticket. Of course, the next question is what country will take them, but I'm pretty sure Dubai would. It's welcoming Haliburton, so this would be a natural extension.

Just image a state dinner in the palace with the host at the head of the table, GWB and Cheney on his left, and Michael Jackson on his right.

BTW, historically speaking, England sent convicts to Australia, debtors and politicals to America, and bastards to Canada.

[suncrafter]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

Way to kill your own thread, sun. I thought your idea had some potential.

Your one of the few people to say so. Still, the more I think of it the less I like it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by suncrafter

After reading the posts on this forum (and on my own forum where I posted the same idea http://forum.normandcompany.com/ ) I've decided that my idea is not so great after all. As one person put it: "It's like tossing dog poop out of your yard into someone else's yard". Thank you for your posts everyone.

I'd say it was a pretty fair shot at killing it. Saying you changed your mind a thanking the contributers. That's quite often more than enough.



btw, the commercial in your sig line is pushing the envelope.

[TheMercenary]

Banishment would never work. Some ACLU nut would stand up and sue for the child molesters.

[cowhead]

on a side note, suncrafter... that's some damn slick orctacular stuff. only 15 copper! a bargain at any price!

anywhoo, I'm still in favor of exile. siberia needs people. yeah, I know. old hat.. but sometimes you just have to go with the traditional approach.

[TheMercenary]

Put them in the tundra of Alaska.

[DanaC]

Just out of interest:

Transportation to America and the West Indies, 1615-1776
Legal Records Information 16
1. What Was Transportation?
Transportation was a system that exiled convicts to the American and West Indian colonies for a period of years.

2. Why Was It Introduced?
Until the Restoration in 1660, the only punishment available for people convicted of treason or felony was, with one exception, the death penalty. The exception was petty larceny for which the punishment was to be whipped. Large numbers of those convicted had their lives saved by a legal fiction called benefit of clergy. This originated in the claims of churchmen to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the king's courts, even if they had been accused of ordinary crimes. Benefit of clergy provided a compromise solution, whereby churchmen were tried in the king's courts but were handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities for punishment. After 1576, those who had successfully claimed benefit of clergy were simply discharged.

As early as the fourteenth century, the king's courts were prepared to accept that any male who could read must be a clergyman. Similar privileges were extended to women during the seventeenth century. Claiming benefit of clergy became something of a formality, and it was often granted to illiterate convicts even before the literacy test was formally abandoned in 1706. Even those who were denied benefit of clergy and were therefore sentenced to death had a good chance of securing a royal pardon - which also meant that they would be discharged without further punishment.

Transportation provided a useful compromise for the authorities ensuring that individuals could be punished without actually killing them.

3. When Was It Introduced?
Although benefit of clergy and unconditional pardons continued to be used, after 1615 it became increasingly common for convicted individuals to be offered a pardon on condition of transportation. After 1718 transportation was to America and was standardised at 14 years for those entitled to conditional pardons. Transportation for 7 years was also introduced as a sentence in its own right for non capital offences.

Transportation to the Americas was ended on the outbreak of the rebellion in 1776.

Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.

[TheMercenary]

That is very interesting. It is interesting to note how people could get what essentially was a commuted sentance if they could read and earlier, were a part of the church. The power of religion in those days was great.

I wonder when they started sending them to Aussie land, after 1776?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Just out of interest:



Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.

You didn't say where that quote was from.

[DanaC]

Transportation was for non capital crimes, not just debt related, or political crimes, but was usually accompanied by a conditional pardon.

That last bit was not a quote, it was my summation of the information I'd just posted. The information was from the National Archives.
.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c...ets/ri2234.htm

[xoxoxoBruce]

Trial records do not usually contain useful genealogical information; nor do they contain transcripts of evidence. They may contain copies of pre-trial witness statements. The indictments were written in Latin, and in a distinctive legal handwriting, until 1733. Pre-trial witness statements are in the ordinary hand of the day, but if you are not familiar with seventeenth century handwriting you may find it difficult to read.

Sound like trying to understand a greek bible.