How Effective were Public Executions?

[GlobalHumanism]

I've always wondered about this, though I admit it may be difficult to get an accurate measure of what I'm about to ask:

But how effective were public executions, gore-ings, shame-ings, etc, at actually detering would-be criminals from committing unlawful acts?

Aside from the political motivations that were undoubtedly linked to the way criminals (political opponents) were sentenced to their punishment, how effective was it from a purely judicial standpoint?

 

[Reydan]

The majority of recent research on this suggests they were highly ineffective, although it does depend on how you judge effectiveness.

They were good for attracting large crowds but, as early as the 1600s, there were major concerns that they were simply glamorizing criminals. Also there was often considerable crime going on in an execution day crowd (pickpockets, illegal gambling, confidence tricksters etc) that undermined the moral lesson trying to be put across.

It was also undermined by a very haphazard justice system - Monarchs routinely pardoned prisoners on their way to the scaffold, leading to accusations of arbitrary justice. Likewise research on England in the early 1800s suggests that juries were increasingly unhappy about executing women and would either plead with the judge for mercy on their behalf or try to commute the sentence themselves.

This is without even considering miscarriages of justice...

 

[zoomar]

Effective at what? And how do you really assess effectiveness when most public executions took place prior to the 20th century.

Were they effective in deterring crime? Perhaps. But that is not the reason public executions (as well as other forms of public punishment like flogging or stocks) were done.

They were done for two main reasons: (1) to demonstrate to all citizens/subjects that the monarch or state had the ultimate and sole authority over life and death, and (2) to create a spectacle in which the monarch/state could show that its authority was supported by the church (there was always a church presence) and the public will (as demonstrated by the festive atmosphere in which citizens/subjects were encouraged to degrade and insult the convict).

 

[Salvador79]

They were often effective at killing the convicted
In all other ways, they were not. Neither does this deter crime (otc, it lowers the psychological threshold against violence), nor was it very good at cementing state authority (it was among the first things criticised by enlightenment philosophers, a road that led straight to the American and the French Revolution, where, ironically enough, the king and many aristocrats ended their lives in public executions - in France, I mean), nor were they excellent entertainment (quite bleak in comparison to ancient gladiator fights) effective at killing the terrible boredom everybody suffered from prior to the age of mass media and the internet

 

[gochisox]

I dont think many were for detering crime, I alway saw them as a way to show the people who was in charge and for many to satisfy them if something bad happened. In those areas I think they were successful.

 

[Mike Stearns]

I dont think many were for detering crime, I alway saw them as a way to show the people who was in charge and for many to satisfy them if something bad happened. In those areas I think they were successful.

No there was definitely was an aspect of deterrence in public executions, especially in high profile executions. That's why public executions were often really gory. Think Joffery beheading Ned Stark because Lannisters pay their debts.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

No there was definitely was an aspect of deterrence in public executions, especially in high profile executions. That's why public executions were often really gory. Think Joffery beheading Ned Stark because Lannisters pay their debts.

Indeed.
Also think about the assassination of Henry VI of France.
The Catholic fanatic who did the deed was executed in such a gruesome public spectacle (drawn and quarter) as a means to exact monarchical revenge as well as deter other such Catholic revolutionaries from doing the same.

 

[Tripledot]

Perhaps they weren't that good for deterrent, but they did have a social purpose- to serve as small morality plays and as a catharsis for the populace. In fact if a monarch failed to kill enough people, pardoning them for serving in the army or similar, the civilian population would get angry and demand for more executions. So I'd say pressure to publicly execute comes from both sides.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

The fact itself that public executions were necessary shows that public executions weren't very effective - as long as there is crime, punishment isn't effective enough.

 

[Penny for The Guy]

Great Enertainment

I have (had) a relative who was present at one of the last public hangings in America. (A man named Charlie Birger.)
He said it was like a carnival, hawkers selling drinks and sandwiches, just like a county fair (only no kids under 21) and even the fellow who was going for the long drop got into the spirit of things, joking with the crowd.
I doubt in the hanging, drawing, quartering, disemboweling, and beheading of William Wallace was any different.

 

[dean6294]

There was an excellent characterization of an early 18th Century public execution in the in Neal Stephenson's trilogy, The Baroque Cycle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Shaftoe

As illustrated therein, I would absolutely say that public executions served very specific purposes; justice, revenge, retribution, morality and entertainment.

 

[Draeger]

I put 'very effective' with the caveat that its effectiveness wore off in tandem with the rise of humanism.

 

[King Thomas]

There was a case where one woman poisoned another whilst standing under a dead body hanging from a gibbet.

 

[CalBear]

Please keep this discussion in the pre-1900 arena. I don't want to lock it but I will if it wanders into modern politics.

 

[Meshakhad]

Well, I think they generally worked. I mean, whether you execute someone in private or in public, they're usually dead either way...