Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Peine forte et dure (Law French for "hard and forceful punishment") was a method of torture formerly used in the common law legal system, in which a defendant who refused to plead ("stood mute") would be subjected to having heavier and heavier stones placed upon their chest until a plea was entered, or death resulted.
Peine forte et dure (Law French for "forceful and hard punishment") was a method of torture formerly used in the common law legal system, in which a defendant who refused to plead ("stood mute") would be subjected to having heavier and heavier stones placed upon his or her chest until a plea was entered, or as the weight of the stones on the chest became too great for the condemned to breathe ...
[5] [2] On 30 June 1598, in line with peine forte et dure, Jane was sentenced to be stripped naked "except for a linen cloth about the lower part of her body", given "the worst bread and water of the prison next her" on alternating days (i.e. she could not drink on the day she ate nor could she eat on the day she drank), and pressed by "stones ...
The grand jury failed to indict William Proctor, who was re-arrested on new charges. On September 19, 1692, Giles Corey refused to plead at trial, and was killed by peine forte et dure, a form of torture in which the subject is pressed beneath an increasingly heavy load of stones, in an attempt to make him enter a plea. Four pleaded guilty and ...
Making a list of your absolute musts will help you choose between the varieties of word-processing substitutes on the market. Take advantage of trial periods -- more than once Take it for a 90-day ...
The punishment peine forte et dure for a refusal to plead in London. Engraving published in the 1780 edition of the Malefactor's Register or Newgate Calendar During the 13 January 1721 session at the Old Bailey Court, William Spiggot and Thomas Phillips (alias Cross) were judged for highway robberies and violent thefts.
The Constitution of Australia contains no specific provision permitting the Commonwealth Parliament to pass bills of attainder. The High Court of Australia has ruled that bills of attainder are unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for any body to wield judicial power other than a Chapter III court—that is, a body exercising power derived from ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us