Severe and Physical Punishment Necessary in Ships in the Royal Navy
868 Words
4 Pages
The manner, in which crime was punished in the Royal Navy, during the Georgian period, has often been the subject to great controversy and debate. When answering this question, it is important to consider contemporary sources so as to develop an accurate analysis. After examining various sources, it seems clear that the use of physical punishment was indeed necessary so as to constitute power over the seamen, particularly with limited alternatives available. It also becomes apparent that the Royal Navy’s reputation for flogging has been exaggerated, as N. Rodger observes, the violence used, ‘by the standards of Eighteenth Century.... were generally acceptable and even enlightened’.
When assessing whether physical punishment was necessary …show more content…
When assessing whether physical punishment was necessary …show more content…
This was primarily due to the fact that the Navy ‘lacked a developed legal code’ and thus those that dispensed punishments were unsure of the correct protocol. Captains were however, not allowed to give more than twelve lashes at a time. The problem was that due to the public nature, time to assemble and inconvenience of punishments, twelve lashes would normally always be given out, so as to not be seen as a misuse of time.
It seems clear that the notoriety of the Royal Navy has been somewhat embellished. As D. Pope remarks, an offence committed at sea may result in a flogging, however ‘his brother on land’ may ‘spend a year in jail or be transported for life’ he claims that this ‘provides some much-needed perspective on discipline in the Navy’. Whilst this may be true, contemporary sources clearly demonstrate that unnecessary violence did occur, perhaps best shown by John Smiths appeal to the court. This seems to illustrate that due to the subjective nature of punishment within the Navy the degree of violence ‘did vary greatly’. However, the court-martial of Captain Corbet clearly confirms that ‘it was not tolerated’. It was also true, that flogging was justified due to the Navy’s preference of it instead implementing a court-martial; this was due to the lack of a coherent ideology in operating a hearing.
The Eighteenth century bore witness to great changes in human
It seems clear that the notoriety of the Royal Navy has been somewhat embellished. As D. Pope remarks, an offence committed at sea may result in a flogging, however ‘his brother on land’ may ‘spend a year in jail or be transported for life’ he claims that this ‘provides some much-needed perspective on discipline in the Navy’. Whilst this may be true, contemporary sources clearly demonstrate that unnecessary violence did occur, perhaps best shown by John Smiths appeal to the court. This seems to illustrate that due to the subjective nature of punishment within the Navy the degree of violence ‘did vary greatly’. However, the court-martial of Captain Corbet clearly confirms that ‘it was not tolerated’. It was also true, that flogging was justified due to the Navy’s preference of it instead implementing a court-martial; this was due to the lack of a coherent ideology in operating a hearing.
The Eighteenth century bore witness to great changes in human