AUS-Tasmania-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-Tasmania > 2005-03 > 1109804408


From: "Lesley Uebel" <>
Subject: Branding of convicts
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:08 +1100
In-Reply-To: <000001c51f1c$cad8ac30$0100000a@thomas377142dd>


Hi Peter

It was proposed by Captain Alexander Maconochie in 1840 that convicts be
branded.


In my private letters to Lord Howick and Mr. Crawford, I have suggested the
fixing on all criminals under the new System a small private brand (as between
the toes or elsewhere) which shall be invisible unless specifically sought for,
but yet shall identify cases of second conviction in any part of the World. And
this may be worthy now of offical consideration. If approved of, it should be
affixed immediately on conviction, in which case it would add much to the dread
of conviction, and it should not be lawful to seek for it on a man's person
until after conviction on any subsequent charge, so that it may not operate to
his prejudice on trial, though it should affect his treatment afterwards, and
probably also his sentence. With this reservation, I think that it would be
useful and not improperly harsh. The object of detecting renewed conviction in a
reformatory system is very important; and however minute the mark were made, and
the more minute the better, it yet might be so varied as to express degrees of
offence, and thus not bear unnecessarily harshly on minor offenders.

Source: HRA Series I Vol XX

Regards

Lesley Uebel
mailto:

CLAIM A CONVICT
http://users.bigpond.net.au/convicts/index.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Thomas [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:42 PM
To:
Subject: [AUS-Tas] RE: Convict sentencing surnames


There was another thread on this recently.

In the olden days, prior convictions, or outstanding warrants, could
only be proved if either -
A. the prisoner admitted them; or
B. there was an available witness who knew & recognized the prisoner,
and whose testimony to those matters was accepted by the court.

>From the 1890s (well after the convict era), Fingerprinting improved the
presentation of evidence to the court, but only in the limited
circumstances where the prisoner had previously been 'printed, and
someone knew his alias. It has only been possible to match prints to
names, when the prisoner was unco-operative, since the 1980s.

For these reasons, it was the practice, at various times to brand (M for
manslayer; T for thief; D for deserter) or otherwise disfigure convicted
criminals. As I understand it, in Merrie Olde England, branding by
civil courts was sometimes on the face, but more often on the hand, at
the base of the thumb.

Those of you who have seen enlistment papers for the first AIF will note
that the Certificate of Medical Examination makes reference to "...
traces of corporal punishment, or evidence of having been marked with
the letters D. or B.C.; ...". Apparently, at different times, tattoos
were preferred to brands. Usually, the Army placed these marks on the
left side of the chest.

I don't know what "B.C." signifies.

If you read "The Surgeon of Cawthorne" by Simon WINCHESTER, he refers to
the practice, in the American Civil War, of branding deserters on the
face, to impose a lifetime of very public ostracism.


Peter THOMAS
Darwin, AUSTRALIA
<>


This thread: