Were medieval punishments fair
In medieval times, the punishments were often very harsh, compared to the modern ones. Some were very unfair, and often did permanent harm. On the other hand, some were good, eg. humiliation. This essay shows both sides of the story, if they were fair or unfair. Medieval punishments were fair, because the punishment often fitted the crime, like if you got seriously drunk, you had to wear a beer barrel for a day. There was a saying that they used. It goes 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', meaning if you, for example, take someone's eye out, they have the right to take yours out. So if you stole, they would cut your hand off
If it had healed, you were innocent. When you were pulled up they checked to see if you were alive. Medieval punishments were also very unfair, because some trials were just inhumane. If you were you were guilty, and were burned at stake. This is very unfair because you could be a slow healer. Personally, I think there are lots of fair things, and lots of unfair things. Also, for things like treason, you deserve to be killed, and humiliated in the process, so you were hung, drawn and quartered, meaning you were hung by your neck, had a rope tied round your legs, and were pulled by a horse. If you were accused of witchcraft, You were tied up and ducked. Like the ordeal by fire, which is where you either put your hand in a pot of boiling water, or held a red-hot iron for three steps. I think they should have stuck with humiliation, not permanent damage, or these ordeal trials. Then you were laid down, your stomach was split open, and all your insides were pulled out, except your heart, so you were still alive, then they chopped your arms and legs off, then your head. If you were dead you were innocent! If you stole, your hands were chopped off.
Common topics in this essay:
,
medieval punishments,
medieval punishments fair,
punishments fair,
|
Acceptance Essays
