Philosopy
01-06-2006, 12:16
It's always interesting when enough time passes for previously classified documents to be released, and this article talks about the way that executioners were selected. I've snipped it for space reasons here so I suggest you follow the link and read the whole thing; the kind of person you might expect to have the job is the kind of person they would deny the job to.
Fortunately, this profession no longer exists in this country. I couldn't even serve on a jury that was to sentence someone to death, let alone actually carry it out myself. Could you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5035690.stm
They called it "the profession" - and it was one of the hardest jobs in the world to get.
Previously secret documents released from deep within the British justice system reveal the rules, ethics and code of being an executioner in the 20th century.
The job was not as simple as having a strong stomach - and the strength to pull a lever when it mattered.
According to the papers in the National Archives, not only did candidates need skill under pressure, they also had to be judged psychologically sound.
Beyond the clinical guidelines of how to efficiently hang a prisoner, the critical element was the conduct of the hangman himself, and it was Albert Pierrepoint who was considered in the late 1930s to uphold the standard of "complete reticence".
According to the rulebook, the hangman "should avoid attracting public attention in going to or from the prison; he should clearly understand that his conduct and general behaviour must be respectable and discreet, not only at the place and time of execution, but before and subsequently; in particular he must not give to any person particulars on the subject of his duty for publication."
Both the prison governor and medical officer were expected to keep records of the hangman's conduct which would have some bearing on his pay.
As for pay, during the 1930s, it was left open to local agreement, although Prison Commission officials recommended 10 guineas plus a third class railway fare.
Assistants received a fixed £1, 11 shillings and six pence with the same amount again two weeks after the execution - providing they had not broken the code of secrecy.
Fortunately, this profession no longer exists in this country. I couldn't even serve on a jury that was to sentence someone to death, let alone actually carry it out myself. Could you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5035690.stm
They called it "the profession" - and it was one of the hardest jobs in the world to get.
Previously secret documents released from deep within the British justice system reveal the rules, ethics and code of being an executioner in the 20th century.
The job was not as simple as having a strong stomach - and the strength to pull a lever when it mattered.
According to the papers in the National Archives, not only did candidates need skill under pressure, they also had to be judged psychologically sound.
Beyond the clinical guidelines of how to efficiently hang a prisoner, the critical element was the conduct of the hangman himself, and it was Albert Pierrepoint who was considered in the late 1930s to uphold the standard of "complete reticence".
According to the rulebook, the hangman "should avoid attracting public attention in going to or from the prison; he should clearly understand that his conduct and general behaviour must be respectable and discreet, not only at the place and time of execution, but before and subsequently; in particular he must not give to any person particulars on the subject of his duty for publication."
Both the prison governor and medical officer were expected to keep records of the hangman's conduct which would have some bearing on his pay.
As for pay, during the 1930s, it was left open to local agreement, although Prison Commission officials recommended 10 guineas plus a third class railway fare.
Assistants received a fixed £1, 11 shillings and six pence with the same amount again two weeks after the execution - providing they had not broken the code of secrecy.