shot at dawn

[Roxy]

The last 'poor souls' to be`executed were Pte Ernest Jackson (Royal Fusiliers) and Pte Louis Harris (West Yorkshire Regiment). Pte Harris was found not gulity of cowardice, but guilty of desertion. His record showed 10 previous offences (including a previous FGCM) and sentences including 6 periods of FP No1 ranging from 5 days to 3 months. (According to 'Blindfold and Alone - there are other books about SAD available )

Roxy

[Ron Clifton]

The decision as to verdict in a court martial is made by a board of officers headed by the president (who will have a prescribed minimum rank relative to the level of the court martial). After the hearing of evidence in the court the president and board members retire to consider the evidence and formulate their opinion as to guilt or otherwise. If the accused is found guilty, then the president weighs up the evidence to enable him to hand down a sentence. Sentencing is the sole responsibility of the president who will refer to relevant regulations and statutes for guidance.

Nigel

This may possibly be the case today, but not in WW1.

ALL of the members of a court-martial had a vote on both verdict and sentence (the latter even if the officer had voted for acquittal) and the votes started with the junior officer, the president voting last, precisely so that the president could not exercise undue influence owing to his rank. The evidence was summarised by a judge-advocate where one was appointed. This is all spelled out quite explicitly in the Army Act, the Manual of Military Law and, specifically, Rule 69 of the Rules of Procedure.

SRe Squirrel's post #177: There was even a specific note in the MML that officers should remember the presumption of innocence. The fact that nearly 90% of CMs resulted in conviction might be thought to cast doubt on this but remember that men were not sent for CM unless a fairly strong prima facie case existed.

The current law on CMs has been amended to accord with the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge-advocate now acts more as a judge, and the officers as a jury, as I understand it.

Ron

[squirrel]

Ron,

perhaps I should have put "apparent presumption of guillt"...............................

[Ron Clifton]

Ron,

perhaps I should have put "apparent presumption of guillt"...............................

The presumption of innocence reminder was a footnote in very small print.......

And, incidentally, I believe that the jury of one's peers mentioned in Magna Carta meant, in practice, that the jury were men from the same village or town, who could reasonably be assumed to know the accused and be aware of his previous good, or bad, character or any earlier convictions.

Ron

[Nigel Marshall]

Thanks for the correction Ron, I got my wires well and truly crossed there!

Here is the rule you made reference to from the 1907 MML

Cheers,

Nigel

69. (a) Every member of a court must give his opinion on every question which the court has to decide, and must give his opinion as to the sentence, notwithstanding that he has given his opinion in favour of acquittal.

(b ) Subject to the provisions of the Army Act, every question shall be determined by an absolute majority of the opinions of the members of the court, and in the case of an equality of opinions the president's second or casting vote will be reckoned as determining the majority.

( c ) The opinions of the members of the court should be taken in succession, beginning with the junior in rank.

(d ) Absolute majority. Otherwise, a punishment might be imposed by a minority. .For instance, if the punishment proposed by four members was penal servitude, by three imprisonment, and by two a forfeiture, the penal servitude might be imposed, although five members were opposed to it. In order to obtain the absolute majority, it will be desirable first to take the opinion of the members of the court as to the nature of the punishment to be awarded, that is to say, penal servitude, imprisonment, detention, cashiering, forfeiture, or other punishment. Where opinions differ as to the nature of punishment, the most lenient should be put first, then the next most lenient, and so forth, the most severe being put last. Any member who is in favour of the most lenient punishment, if overruled, will, of course, give his opinion in favour of the next most lenient, and will not oppose this because he is desirous of having the punishment still more lenient. For example, if the court consist of nine members, of whom four are in favour of penal servitude, three of imprisonment, and two of a forfeiture, the forfeiture will be put first to the court, and when negatived, the imprisonment will be put next. The members who were in favour of forfeiture will, of course, vote for imprisonment as against penal servitude, and thus five votes will be given in favour of imprisonment, being an absolute majority of the court. When the nature of the punishment has been determined, the quantum of punishment must be ascertained; that is to say, in the case of imprisonment or detention, the number of months or days of imprisonment or detention. As before, the most lenient proposal will be put first, and a member who is in favour of the shortest term of imprisonment will, of course, support the next shortest term, rather than support a longer term, and will not give his opinion against the next shortest term merely because he desires to have a term shorter still. For example, if in a court of nine members two members desire to award three months' imprisonment, two others four, another six, and the other four ten months, the three months will be put first, and, when negatived, the four

months will be put next, and will be supported by the members who wished for three months, but will be opposed by the members who desire a longer term. The six months will next be put, and will be supported by those who desire to award three months and four months, so that the ultimate sentence will be six months' imprisonment. It is not a proper course of proceeding to take the terms of imprisonment or other punishment proposed by each member, and strike an average ; but

naturally in the course of discussion among the members of the court, some punishment intermediate between the most severe and most lenient punishment proposed by the different members will usually be arrived at, without necessarily resorting to actual voting, as in the above examples.

( b ) The provisions of the Army Act referred to are those contained in s. 48 (8), where the concurrence of two-thirds is required for a sentence of death ; in s. 53 (8), where an equality of votes on the finding is declared to be an acquittal; and in s. 51 (3) and (5), under which an objection to the president allowed by one-third of the members, and an objection to an officer allowed by one-half of the members is to be allowed.

( c ) Junior in rank, i.e., rank in which they take their seats (Rule 58). The opinion of each member is taken separately on each charge (rule 48 ( b )). If there is a judge-advocate, the opinions are taken by him; if there is not, then by the president.

The oath taken by the members of the court operates, as a general rule, to prevent the opinions of the individual members being disclosed. See note to sub-section (1) of s. 52 of the Army Act.

[Guest tafski]

A friend sent this , he heard it on the mike harding show on bbc2 AND JESUS WEPT

i have never heard this before so i thought i would share

the moon is slowly sinking the final moon i’ll see

my head is tired of thinking there’s just the rosary

an empty place at table and my mother’s eyes are wet

the hand of god came down last night

and jesus wept

if i’d been a captain they would have sent me home

but i am just a private condemned to die alone

the firing squad’s been drinking it’s a dawn they won’t forget

the hand of god came down last night

and jesus wept

sound the drum for their young precious years

but no glory will shine on my poor mother’s tears

a soldier’s good for fighting that’s what my father said

and if the man’s not fighting he might as well be dead

shame has drawn the curtains and the neighbours won’t forget

the hand of god came down last night

and jesus wept

i got the shakes on tuesday i cannot go i said

they sent me down on wednesday by thursday i was dead

i fought for king and country 2 years without regret

the hand of god came down last night

and jesus wept

we all fall in the cause of the free

when the sun sets on england will you think of me?

in unmarked graves in flanders lie 300 boys and men

killed un-loved and frightened by those they thought were friends

a nation’s guilty secret is this generation’s debt

the hand of god came down last night

and jesus wept

tafski

[Chris_Baker]

I rather think that, if Jesus wept, it was for the millions and not just 300.

[Guest tafski]

Agree chris just thought i would add this as it was on the radio and i thought appropriate to post if not feel free to remove

tafski

[IanA]

300 unmarked graves??

[Steven Broomfield]

And thechnically, some (at least) are not in unmarked graves.

[SiegeGunner]

I understood that all the executed men were originally buried in marked graves, some of which were lost in later fighting, and that all surviving graves are now marked with CWGC headstones identical to those of other casualties.

[IanA]

all surviving graves are now marked with CWGC headstones identical to those of other casualties.

There are certainly quite a few around Poperinge.

[Nigel Marshall]

Hi,

I'm sure Mick is Right. The book 'The Ypres Salient' by Michael Scott makes mention of the SAD graves in the write-up for each cemetery where there is one. Marked indentically to the others there, and not buried at any odd angles to the rest as some rumours might suggest from time to time.

Cheers,

Nigel

[PhilB]

And, incidentally, I believe that the jury of one's peers mentioned in Magna Carta meant, in practice, that the jury were men from the same village or town, who could reasonably be assumed to know the accused and be aware of his previous good, or bad, character or any earlier convictions.

Ron

I didn't get that impression, Ron, when reading a transcript of Magna Carta. Where does that assumption come from?

[John_Hartley]

300 unmarked graves??

It's a poem. No need for accuracy.

At a guess, I'd suggest that there's possibly a higher proportion of marked graves for the executed than there is for combat deaths, what with the burials being behind the lines.

John

[IanA]

It's a poem. No need for accuracy.

Ooh, you are awful!

But I like you.

(Pace, Richard Gilbert Emery)

[truthergw]

Blin' Harry was a stickler for accuracy. Inclined to the baroque in his spelling but when he tells you that Wallis murthered 500 Sassunachs that day, tween peep o' day and gloamin', you can put your sporran on it.

[baorbrat]

Blin' Harry was a stickler for accuracy. Inclined to the baroque in his spelling but when he tells you that Wallis murthered 500 Sassunachs that day, tween peep o' day and gloamin', you can put your sporran on it.

Wallis was a sassunach. Everyone who isnt a Highlander is a sassunach.

[Gunner Bailey]

Not exactly an unmarked grave?

Gunner Bailey

[horatio2]

Even if Dyett was not a lieutenant but a sub lieutenant.

[nigelcave]

My father served as a lowly second lieutenant on a court martial in WWII in Italy, for a sentry asleep. At the end of the (damning) evidence he was required to give his recommendation on sentence. Having discovered that it went from death very much to minimal, he went for minimal and that was what was awarded.

We need to be careful re all this business about Magna Carta - the times about which we talk related to a period when there was no Legal Aid and Police Courts, all quite unacceptable (and rightly so) today. We also need to remember that all the Australian operational generals, I gather, asked for the death penalty to be brought back - I gather there was an exception, one BG. And in WWII, in the Italian campaign (again, no chapter and verse here) there was a considerable push to restore the death penalty in practice during the Italian campaign, when AWOl reached an astronomical figure - somewhere around the 15% mark. Then of course there were the 15,000 Russians executed at Leningrad by their own side - according to my guide there back in 1981.

[Kate Wills]

Two questions:

Why is dawn the traditional time for executions?

Were all WW1 executions enacted at dawn?

[PhilB]

We need to be careful re all this business about Magna Carta - the times about which we talk related to a period when there was no Legal Aid and Police Courts, all quite unacceptable (and rightly so) today.

I suspect that Magna Carta was designed to apply to all subjects - including soldiers? I don`t think Legal Aid or Police Courts had much bearing on capital WW1 FGCMs and I can see that wartime CMs are a special case - I just wonder how much relevance there is between Magna Carta and FGCM?

[John_Hartley]

Why is dawn the traditional time for executions?

Bearing in mind that it is not necessarily the universal time across the world, but two things spring to mind

Firstly, the practical issue that, otherwise, it is simply too dark to carry out the execution efficiently.

Second, perhaps, that justice is "seen to be done" if you like. Not carried out in secret in the depths of the night.

[Kate Wills]

Two good reasons for executing at high noon John!