Grim But Sometimes Interesting Reading

Grim But Sometimes Interesting Reading

I'm not quite halfway through Daniel Allen Hearn's Legal Executions in New England: A Comprehensive Reference, 1623-1960 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1999). Much of it is very, very grim, as people are executed for rape (more often than you might expect for the Colonial period--of children), murder, burglary, bestiality, treason, espionage, sedition, sodomy, and witchcraft.

There are some surprises here and there. On p. 47 and p. 111, Hearn recounts both petit jury and grand juries consisting of whites and Indians in cases with Indian defendants. One was the execution of Indian Tom in 1674 Massachusetts for the rape of another Indian, Sarah Jempson. (The names alone suggest that the Jempsons were Christians.) The trial jury was half white, half Indian.

The other was the execution of Waisoiusksquaw, who disemboweled her husband with a butcher knife. As you might expect from the name, she was an Indian, of the Mohegan-Pequot tribe. The grand jury that indicted Waisoiusksquaw included "six of her fellow tribesmen." She was tried at Hartford, Connecticut, convicted, and hanged on May 15, 1711. (If Waisoiusksquaw was really her name, it casts some question in my mind whether "squaw" was really an Indian word for "whore.")

I am not surprised that the legal systems were concerned about crimes committed against Indians. I was already aware of the executions of Arthur Peach, Thomas Jackson, and Richard Stinnings in 1638 Plymouth for the murder and robbery of a Narragansett Indian who survived long enough to give a deathbed deposition to fellow Indians. But I was a bit surprised to find mixed race juries! I'll try and find out if this was created by statute, or simply local custom.

Another surprise was the failure of deterrence. One of the theories of harsh punishment is that it should discourage criminal behavior. Pretty obviously, it works for some, and doesn't work for others. The story of Isaac Frasier, executed in 1768 for being a habitual criminal, is one of the examples of someone who clearly didn't learn from punishment.

He was repeatedly arrested for theft and burglary (often breaking jail). In New Haven, he was branded for burglary, "severely whipped and also had his earlobes cut off." He stole a horse in New York (a capital crime there). Worcester County whipped him for robbery. Fairfield County, Connecticut cut off the rest of his ears for burglary "and was again branded with a hot iron. He was also whipped until his back was raw."

As soon as he was loose, he went to Boston, committed three burglaries in one night. Then he went back to Worcester, committed three more burglaries where he was already learned the harshness of Connecticut justice. He was arrested, tried, sentenced to death, broke jail again, went to Middletown, Connecticut, "committed four burglaries in one night." Then he burglarized a merchant in Norwalk, then Fairfield again, then stole a horse.

While awaiting trial--he set the jail on fire, burning down the courthouse. He was then taken to jail in New Haven, from which he escaped. He did some more burglaries in Middletown, Charlestown, Massachusetts, and committed a robbery in Shrewsbury. Then he was whipped in Worcester again for being a thief. And then Connecticut got hold him, brought him back to Fairfield, and finally hung him. [pp. 148-9]

This guy was a one man crime wave.

I also found an early hate crime--but I rather doubt many liberals will be pleased with knowing about it. John Jacob, an Indian of tribe uncertain, murdered James Chokerer, by his own admission, because Chokerer was a "damn Schatacook"--a tribe with which Jacob's tribe apparently did not have a warm relationship. [p. 150]