& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð
Eccentric English Laws
hfSf er tracts hate been taken directly from the old. dusty '^ngluh Statute collection.
T for jggj session of Parliament, the men of rhe
. L'on, considered a very gallant piece of legislation
, ,nnv endorsed by lames I. which became known as AN CONCERNING WOMAN CONVICTED OF SMALL
like men o™1 children, were being executed nly for small crimes English society was slowly evolv sum n(J a segment found the execution of woman for sm.all (such as of something of small value), disgrace fill or barbaric.
That segment found the ear of Parliament and the rest is ^'Whereas by the laws of this realm ... many women do suffer death for small causes:
’Be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that any woman be lawfully convicted by her confession or by the verdict of 12 men, of or for the felonious taking of any money, goods or chattels above the value of 12 pence and under the value of 10 shillings, or as accessory to any such offence, the said offence being no burglary nor robbery in or near the highway, shall for the first offence be branded and marked in the hand, upon tire brawn of the left thumb with a hot burning iron having a Roman T upon the said iron, the said Mark to be made by the gaoler openly in the court before the judge: and also to be further punished by imprisonment, whipping, stocking or sending to the house of correction in such sort, manner and form, and for so long time (not exceeding the space of one whole year) as the judge ... before whom she shall be so convicted ... shall in their discretion think meet according to the quality of the offence...."
Bullcrap, I say. Bullcrap!
1623 would see more wild and crazy laws as James I also approved a bill put forward by his Parliament. AN ACT TO PREVENT AND REFORM PROFANE SWEARING AND CURSING.
The legislation implemented harsh justice upon foulmouthed offenders, especially the kids:
'Forasmuch as all profane swearing and cursing is forbid den by the Word of God, be it therefore enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, but no person or persons shall from henceforth profanely swear or curse. /Ind that if any person or persons shall at any time or times hereafter offend herein... or shall therefore be convicted by the oaths of two witnesses or by confession of the party... every such offender shall for every time so offending forfeit and pay to the use of the poor of that parish where the same offence is or shall be committed, the sum of 12 pence.
'The offender, if he or she be above the age of 12 years, shall by warrant from such justice of the peace or head officer be set in the stocks by three whole hours: but if the offender be under the age of 12 years, and shall not forthwith pay the said some of 12 pence, then he or she... shall be whipped by the Constable, or by the parents or master in his presence."
Please, no malicious maiming and wounding Because intentional meaning and wounding was still a part of the English law of sentencing, in particular statute had to prohibit “malicious" maiming and wounding
The context was a serious assault upon the person of John Coventry, who was a Knight and a member of the House of Commons. The old boys club quickly rounded up the members of the House of Commons and they struck a law which the King. Charles II signed into law.
The statute was unique and not just because of its name: AN ACTTO PREVENT MALICIOUS MAIMING AND WOUNDING
Symptomatic of the charged an emotional context in which it was drafted, the statute had a long preamble which refers to the suspects as having "fled from justice, not daring to abide a legal trial".
What was particularly quaint about this statute was section VII, inserted almost as an afterthought and presumably out of an abundance of caution, and which contains a requirement that the prosecuting attorney prove that the accused intended to maim whilst cutting the victims tongue:
’For the prevention of like mischiefs for the time to come, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that any person or persons... on purpose and of malice forethought, and by lying in wait, shall unlawfully cut out or disable the tongue, pull out and it. slit the nose, cut off a nose or lip, or cut off or disable any Liam or member of any subject of his Majesty, with intention in so doing to maim or disfigure in any the manners the before mentioned such his Majesty's subjects, that band and every such case the person or persons so offending... shall be and are hereby declared to be felons, and shall suffer death...."
Source www.duhaifne.org