Flagellation, whipping or lashing is the act of beating the human body with special implements such as whips, rods, the cat o nine tails, the sjambok, etc. Typically, flogging is imposed on a subject as a punishment, however, it can be submitted to willingly, or performed on oneself. The strokes are usually aimed at the back of a person. For a moderated subform of flagellation, described as bastinado, the soles of a persons feet are used as a target for beating. In some circumstances the word flogging is used loosely to any sort of corporal punishment. However, in British legal terminology, a distinction was drawn between flogging and whipping, in Britain these were both abolished in 1948. In Sparta, young men were flogged as a test of their masculinity, Jewish law limited flagellation to forty strokes, and in practice delivered thirty-nine, so as to avoid any possibility of breaking this law due to a miscount. In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used.
Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye, in addition to causing severe pain, the victim would approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood. The Romans reserved this treatment for non-citizens, as stated in the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, the poet Horace refers to the horribile flagellum in his Satires. Typically, the one to be punished was stripped naked and bound to a low pillar so that he could bend over it, two lictors alternated blows from the bare shoulders down the body to the soles of the feet. There was no limit to the number of blows inflicted—this was left to the lictors to decide, Livy and Josephus report cases of flagellation where victims died while still bound to the post. Flagellation was referred to as death by some authors, as many victims died shortly thereafter. Cicero reports in In Verrem, pro mortuo sublatus brevi postea mortuus, the Whipping Act was passed in England in 1530.
Under this legislation, vagrants were to be taken to a populated area and there tied to the end of a cart naked. In England, offenders were sentenced to be flogged at a carts tail along a length of public street, usually near the scene of the crime. In the late century, the courts occasionally ordered that the flogging should be carried out in prison or a house of correction rather than on the streets. From the 1720s courts began explicitly to differentiate between private whipping and public whipping, over the course of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the proportion of whippings carried out in public declined, but the number of private whippings increased
To counterfeit means to imitate something. Counterfeit products are fakes or unauthorised replicas of the real product, counterfeit products are often produced with the intent to take advantage of the superior value of the imitated product. Counterfeit products tend to have company logos and brands, have a reputation for being lower quality. This has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, due to automobile and aviation accidents, the counterfeiting of money is usually attacked aggressively by governments worldwide. Paper money is the most popular product counterfeited, counterfeit money is currency that is produced without the legal sanction of the state or government and in deliberate violation of that countrys laws. The United States Secret Service, mostly known for its guarding-of-officials task, was organized primarily to combat the counterfeiting of American money. Forgery is the process of making or adapting documents with the intention to deceive and it is a form of fraud, and is often a key technique in the execution of identity theft.
Uttering and publishing is a term in United States law for the forgery of documents, such as a trucking companys time. Questioned document examination is a process for investigating many aspects of various documents. Security printing is a printing industry specialty, focused on creating legal documents which are difficult to forge, the spread of counterfeit goods has become global in recent years and the range of goods subject to infringement has increased significantly. Apparel and accessories accounted for over 50 percent of the goods seized by U. S Customs. A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development indicates that up to US$200 Billion of international trade could have been in counterfeit and illegally copied goods in 2005. In November 2009, the OECD updated these estimates, concluding that the share of counterfeit and that represents an increase to US$250 billion worldwide. In a detailed breakdown of the counterfeit goods industry, the total loss faced by countries around the world is $600 billion, when calculating counterfeit products, current estimates place the global losses at $400 billion.
Some see the rise in counterfeiting of goods as being related to globalisation and these new managers of production have little or no loyalty to the original corporation. They see that profits are being made by the brand for doing little and see the possibilities of removing the middle men. Certain consumer goods, especially expensive or desirable brands or those that are easy to reproduce cheaply, have become frequent. The counterfeiters either attempt to deceive the consumer into thinking they are purchasing a legitimate item, or convince the consumer that they could deceive others with the imitation
Rite of passage
A rite of passage is a celebration of the passage which occurs when an individual leaves one group to enter another. It involves a significant change of status in society, in cultural anthropology the term is the Anglicisation of rite de passage, a French term innovated by the ethnographer Arnold van Gennep in his work Les rites de passage, The Rites of Passage. The term is now fully adopted into anthropology as well as into the literature, in English, Van Genneps first sentence of his first chapter begins, Each larger society contains within it several distinctly separate groupings. In addition, all these groups break down into still smaller societies in subgroups, the population of a society belongs to multiple groups, some more important to the individual than others. Van Gennep uses the metaphor, as a kind of house divided into rooms, a passage occurs when an individual leaves one group to enter another, in the metaphor, he changes rooms. Van Gennep further distinguishes between the secular and the sacred sphere, many groups in modern industrial society practice customs that can be traced to an earlier sacred phase.
Passage between these requires an ceremony, or ritual hence rite of passage. He is able to find some universals, mainly two, the separation between men and women, and the magico-religious separation between the profane and the sacred. He refuses credit for being the first to recognize type of rites, in the work he concentrates on groups and rites individuals might normally encounter progressively, childbirth, betrothal, marriage and the like. He mentions some others, such as the passage, a crossing of borders into a culturally different region. Rites of passage have three phases, separation and incorporation, as van Gennep described, in the first phase, people withdraw from their current status and prepare to move from one place or status to another. The first phase comprises symbolic behavior signifying the detachment of the individual or group, from an earlier fixed point in the social structure. There is often a detachment or cutting away from the self in this phase. For example, the cutting of the hair for a person who has just joined the army and he or she is cutting away the former self, the civilian.
The transition phase is the period between states, during which one has one place or state but has not yet entered or joined the next. The attributes of liminality or of liminal personae are necessarily ambiguous, in the third phase the passage is consummated the ritual subject. Having completed the rite and assumed their new identity, one society with ones new status. Laboratory experiments have shown that severe initiations produce cognitive dissonance and it is theorized that such dissonance heightens group attraction among initiates after the experience, arising from internal justification of the effort used
Eye for an eye
The principle is sometimes referred using the Latin term lex talionis or the law of talion. The English word talion means a retaliation authorized by law, in which the punishment corresponds in kind, some propose that this was at least in part intended to prevent excessive punishment at the hands of either an avenging private party or the state. The most common expression of lex talionis is an eye for an eye, legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common, prescribed fitting counter punishment for a felony. In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of reciprocity is very clearly used. For example, if a person caused the death of another person, the simplest example is the eye for an eye principle. In that case, the rule was that punishment must be equal to the crime. Conversely, the tables of Rome merely prescribed particular penalties for particular crimes. Under the British Common Law, successful plaintiffs were entitled to repayment equal to their loss, in the modern tort law system, this has been extended to translate non-economic losses into money as well.
The exact Latin to English translation of this phrase is actually The law of retaliation, the root principle of this law is to provide equitable retribution. This body was the state in one of its earliest forms, the principle is found in Babylonian Law. If it is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, the retribution might be worse than the crime, perhaps even death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim, as with blasphemy or lèse-majesté, crimes against ones social betters were punished more severely. Roman law moved toward monetary compensation as a substitute for vengeance, in cases of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries, although talio was still permitted if one person broke anothers limb. In the Code of Hammurabi and Hebrew Law, the “eye for eye” was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss, thus, it might be better read only one eye for one eye.
For example, a passage in Leviticus states, And a man who injures his countryman – as he has done, so it shall be done to him fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he has injured a person, so it shall be done to him, isaac Kalimi explains that the “lex talionis was humanized by the Rabbis who interpreted an eye for an eye to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation. As in the case of the Babylonian lex talionis, ethical Judaism and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner
The Mapuche are a group of indigenous inhabitants of south-central Chile and southwestern Argentina, including parts of present-day Patagonia. Their influence once extended from the Aconcagua River to the Chiloé Archipelago, today the collective group makes up over 80% of the indigenous peoples in Chile, and about 9% of the total Chilean population. They are particularly concentrated in Araucanía, many have migrated to the Santiago area for economic opportunities. The Mapuchen is used both to refer collectively to the Picunche and Moluche or Nguluche from Araucanía, or at other times, the Mapuche traditional economy is based on agriculture, their traditional social organisation consists of extended families, under the direction of a lonko or chief. In times of war, they would unite in larger groupings and they are known for the textiles woven by women, which have been goods for trade for centuries, since before European encounter. The Araucanian Mapuche inhabited at the time of Spanish arrival the valleys between the Itata and Toltén rivers, South of it, the Huilliche and the Cunco lived as far south as the Chiloé Archipelago.
In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Mapuche groups migrated eastward into the Andes and pampas and establishing relationships with the Poya and Pehuenche. At about the time, ethnic groups of the pampa regions. The Tehuelche adopted the Mapuche language and some of their culture, historically the Spanish colonizers of South America referred to the Mapuche people as Araucanians. However, this term is now considered pejorative by some people, the name was likely derived from the placename rag ko, meaning clayey water. The Quechua word awqa, meaning rebel, enemy, is not the root of araucano. Some Mapuche mingled with Spanish during colonial times, and their descendants make up the group of mestizos in Chile. But, Mapuche society in Araucanía and Patagonia remained independent until the Chilean Occupation of Araucanía, since Mapuches have become subjects, and nationals and citizens of the respective states. Today, many Mapuche and Mapuche communities are engaged in the so-called Mapuche conflict over land, archaeological finds have shown the existence of a Mapuche culture in Chile and Argentina as early as 600 to 500 BC.
Genetically Mapuches differ from the adjacent indigenous peoples of Patagonia and this suggests a different origin or long lasting separation of Mapuche and Patagonian populations. Troops of the Inca Empire are reported to have reached the Maule River and had a battle with the Mapuches between the Maule River and the Itata River there. The southern border of the Inca Empire is believed by most modern scholars to have been situated between Santiago and the Maipo River or somewhere between Santiago and the Maule River, thus the bulk of the Mapuche escaped Inca rule. Through their contact with Incan invaders Mapuches would have for the first time met people with state organization and their contact with the Incas gave them a collective awareness distinguishing between them and the invaders and uniting them into loose geo-political units despite their lack of state organization
It was used in Vietnam. In this form of execution, a knife was used to remove portions of the body over an extended period of time. Lingchi was reserved for crimes viewed as especially severe, such as treason, patricide. Some Westerners were executed in this manner, even after the practice was outlawed, the concept itself has still appeared across many types of media. The term lingchi first appeared in a line in Chapter 28 of the philosophical text Xunzi. The line originally described the difficulty in travelling in a carriage on mountainous terrain. Later on, it was used to describe the prolonging of a persons agony when the person is being killed, the process involved tying the condemned prisoner to a wooden frame, usually in a public place. The flesh was cut from the body in multiple slices in a process that was not specified in detail in Chinese law. The punishment worked on three levels, as a form of humiliation, as a slow and lingering death. According to the Confucian principle of filial piety, to ones body or to cut the body are considered unfilial practices.
Lingchi therefore contravenes the demands of filial piety, in addition, to be cut to pieces meant that the body of the victim would not be whole in spiritual life after death. This method of execution became a fixture in the image of China among some Westerners, Lingchi could be used for the torture and execution of a living person, or applied as an act of humiliation after death. It was meted out for offences such as high treason, mass murder. Emperors used it to people and sometimes ordered it for minor offences. There were forced convictions and wrongful executions, some emperors meted out this punishment to the family members of their enemies. If the crime was serious or the executioner merciful, the first cut would be to the throat causing death. Art historian James Elkins argues that extant photos of the execution clearly show that the death by division involved some degree of dismemberment while the subject was living. Elkins argues that, contrary to the version of death by a thousand cuts
Henry Burton (theologian)
Henry Burton, was an English puritan. Along with John Bastwick and William Prynne, Burtons ears were cut off in 1637 for writing pamphlets attacking the views of Archbishop Laud. He was born at Birstall, a parish in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His father, William Burton, was married to Maryanne Homle on 24 June 1577 and he was educated at St. Johns College, where he graduated M. A. in 1602. His favourite preachers were Laurence Chaderton and William Perkins, on leaving the university he became tutor to two sons of Sir Robert Carey. He complains that Richard Neile, who was clerk of the closet to King James, opposed his advancement, however, on 14 July 1612 he had been incorporated M. A. at Oxford, and was again incorporated on 15 July 1617. He tells us that at the age of thirty he resolved to enter the ministry, Thomas Fuller says that he was to have attended Prince Charles to Spain for the Spanish Match, and that for some unknown reason the appointment was countermanded. He had, in fact, thrust himself into a discussion going on between Fisher and George Walker, minister of St.
Johns, Watling Street. On the accession of Charles, Burton took it as a matter of course that he would become clerk of the royal closet, Burton lost the appointment through an indiscretion. On 23 April 1625, before James had been dead a month, Burton presented a letter to Charles, inveighing against the tendencies of Neile. Charles read the letter partly through, and told Burton not to attend more in his office till he should send for him and he was not sent for, and did not reappear at court. He deplored the death of James, for the influence he saw the king had had in regarding the nascent high-church movement. He was almost immediately presented to the rectory of St. Matthews, Friday Street and he began to deviate from the set ceremonies, and was cited before the Court of high commission in 1626, but the proceedings were stopped. Bishop after bishop became the subject of his attack and his Babel no Bethel in reply to the Maschil of Robert Butterfield, earned him a temporary suspension from his benefice, and a spell in the Fleet Prison.
More serious troubles were to come, on 5 November 1636 he preached two sermons in his own church on Proverbs xxiv. 21,22, in which he charged the bishops with innovations amounting to a popish plot and his pulpit style was perhaps effective, but certainly not refined, he calls the bishops caterpillars instead of pillars, and antichristian mushrumps. Next month he was summoned before Arthur Duck, a commissioner for causes ecclesiastical and he refused the oath, and appealed to the king. Fifteen days afterwards he was cited before a high commission at Doctors Commons, did not appear
Emperor of Ethiopia
The Emperor of Ethiopia was the hereditary ruler of the Ethiopian Empire, until the abolition of the monarchy in 1975. The Emperor was the head of state and head of government, with executive, judicial. A National Geographic Magazine article called imperial Ethiopia nominally a constitutional monarchy, the title of King of Kings, often rendered imprecisely in English as Emperor, dates back to ancient Mesopotamia, but was used in Axum by King Sembrouthes. However, Yuri Kobishchanov dates this usage to the following the Persian victory over the Romans in 296-297. The consort of the Emperor was referred to as the ətege, empress Zauditu used the feminized form nəgəstä nägäst to show that she reigned in her own right, and did not use the title of ətege. At the death of a monarch any male or female relative of the Emperor could claim succession to the throne, brothers. Practice favoured primogeniture but did not always enforce it, Ethiopian traditions do not all agree as to exactly when the custom started of imprisoning rivals to the throne on a Mountain of the Princes.
Taddesse Tamrat argues that this began in the reign of Wedem Arad. The potential royal rivals were incarcerated at Amba Geshen until Ahmed Gragn captured that site in 1540 and destroyed it, from the reign of Fasilides until the mid-18th century, rumors of these royal mountain residences were part of the inspiration for Samuel Johnsons short story, Rasselas. His claim to the throne was helped by his marriage to that kings daughter, while the surviving records of these kings fail to shed light on their origins, this genealogical claim is first documented in the 10th century by an Arab historian. Interpretations of this vary widely. Some accept it as evident fact, at the other extreme, others understand this as an expression of propaganda, attempting to connect the legitimacy of the state to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Some scholars take an approach in the middle, attempting to find a connection between Axum and the South Arabian kingdom of Saba, or between Axum and the pre-exilic Kingdom of Judah.
Due to lack of materials, it is not possible as of 2006 to determine which theory is the more plausible. The restored Solomonic dynasty, which claimed descent from the old Aksumite rulers, ruled Ethiopia from the 13th century until 1974, the most significant usurper was Kassa of Kwara, who in 1855 took complete control over Ethiopia and was crowned Tewodros II. After his defeat and demise, another Solomonic dynasty, Dejazmatch Kassai took over as Yohannes IV, the most famous post-Theodorean Emperors were Yohannes IV, Menelik II and Haile Selassie. Emperor Menelik II achieved a military victory against Italian invaders in March 1896 at the Battle of Adwa. Menelik lost Eritrea to Italy and Djubouti to France, after Menelik, all monarchs were of distaff descent from Solomonics
The pillory is related to the stocks. The word is documented in English since 1274, and stems from Old French pellori, itself from medieval Latin pilloria, of origin, perhaps a diminutive of Latin pila pillar. Pillories were set up to people in marketplaces, crossroads. They were often placed on platforms to increase visibility of the person. Often a placard detailing the crime was placed nearby, these punishments generally lasted only a few hours, in being forced to bend forward and stick their head and hands out in front of them, offenders in the pillory would have been extremely uncomfortable during their punishment. However, the purpose in putting criminals in the pillory was to publicly humiliate them. On discovering that the pillory was occupied, people would gather in the marketplace to taunt, tease. Those who gathered to watch the punishment typically wanted to make the experience as unpleasant as possible. In addition to being jeered and mocked, those in the pillory might be pelted with food, offal, dead animals.
As a result, criminals were often very dirty by the end of their punishment, their faces, sometimes people were killed or maimed in the pillory because crowds could get too violent and pelt the offender with stones and other dangerous objects. However, when Daniel Defoe was sentenced to the pillory in 1703 for Seditious libel, after 1816, use of the pillory was restricted in England to punishment for perjury or subornation. The pillory was formally abolished as a form of punishment in England and Wales in 1837, the last person to be pilloried in England was Peter James Bossy, who was convicted of wilful and corrupt perjury in 1830. He was offered the choice of seven years penal transportation or one hour in the pillory, in France, time in the pilori was usually limited to two hours. It was replaced in 1789 by exposition, and abolished in 1832, two types of devices were used, The poteau was a simple post, often with a board around only the neck, and was synonymous with the mode of punishment.
This was the same as the schandpaal in Dutch, the carcan, an iron ring around the neck to tie a prisoner to such a post, was the name of a similar punishment that was abolished in 1832. Like other permanent apparatus for physical punishment, the pillory was placed prominently. It served as a symbol of the power of the judicial authorities, in Portugal, it is called Pelourinho, and there are monuments of great importance because they are known since the Roman times. Usually, they are located on the square of the town
William Prynne was an English lawyer, author and political figure. He was a prominent Puritan opponent of the policy of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although his views on church polity were presbyterian, he known in the 1640s as an Erastian. A prolific writer, he published over 200 books and pamphlets, born at Swainswick, near Bath, William Prynne was educated at Bath Grammar School and Oriel College, Oxford. He graduated with a B. A. on 22 January 1621, was admitted a student of Lincolns Inn in the same year, and was called to the bar in 1628. According to Anthony à Wood, he was confirmed in his militant puritanism by the influence of John Preston, in 1627 he published his first book, a theological treatise, followed in the next three years by three others attacking Arminianism and its teachers. In the preface to one of them he appealed to parliament to suppress anything written against Calvinist doctrine and this book led to the most famous incidents in his life, but the timing was accidental.
About 1624 Prynne had begun a book against stage-plays, on 31 May 1630 he obtained a license to print it, and about November 1632 it was published. By chance, the queen and her ladies, in January 1633, took part in the performance of Walter Montagus The Shepherds Paradise, William Noy as attorney-general instituted proceedings against Prynne in the Star-chamber. Prynne was pilloried on 7 May and 10 May, on 11 June he addressed to Archbishop Laud, whom he regarded as his chief persecutor, a letter charging him with illegality and injustice. Laud handed the letter to the attorney-general as material for a new prosecution, in the Tower Prynne wrote and published anonymous tracts against episcopacy and against the Book of Sports. In one he introduced Noys recent death as a warning, elsewhere he attacked prelates in general. An anonymous attack on Matthew Wren, bishop of Norwich brought him again before the Star-chamber, on 14 June 1637 Prynne was sentenced once more to a fine of £5,000, to imprisonment for life, and to lose the rest of his ears.
At the proposal of Chief-justice John Finch he was to be branded on the cheeks with the letters S. L. signifying seditious libeller, Prynne was pilloried on 30 June in company with Henry Burton and John Bastwick, and Prynne was handled barbarously by the executioner. He made, as he returned to his prison, a couple of Latin verses explaining the S. L. with which he was branded to mean stigmata laudis. His imprisonment was closer, no pens and ink, and allowed no books except the Bible, the prayer-book. To isolate him from his friends he was removed first to Carnarvon Castle, the governor, Sir Philip Carteret, treated Prynne well, which he repaid by defending Carterets character in 1645 when he was accused as a malignant and a tyrant. He occupied his imprisonment by writing verse and he was released by the Long Parliament in 1640
The Karen, Kariang or Yang people refer to a number of individual Sino-Tibetan language speaking ethnic groups, many of which do not share a common language or culture. These Karen groups reside primarily in Karen State and southeastern Myanmar, the Karen make up approximately 7 percent of the total Burmese population with approximately 5 million people. A large number of Karen have migrated to Thailand, having settled mostly on the Thailand–Myanmar border, some of the Karen, led primarily by the Karen National Union, have waged a war against the central Burmese government since early 1949. The aim of the KNU at first was independence, since 1976 the armed group has called for a federal system rather than an independent Karen State. Karen legends refer to a river of running sand which ancestors reputedly crossed, many Karen think this refers to the Gobi Desert, although they have lived in Myanmar for centuries. The Karen constitute the third biggest ethnic population in Myanmar, after the Bamars, the term Karen is an umbrella term that refers to a heterogeneous lot of ethnic groups that do not share a common language, religion or material characteristics.
Karen is an Anglicisation of the Burmese word Kayin, whose etymology is unclear, the word, which was originally a derogatory term referring to non-Buddhist ethnic groups, may have come from the Mon language, or is a corruption of Kanyan, the name of a vanished civilization. The total number of Karen is difficult to estimate, the last reliable census of Myanmar was conducted in 1931. A2006 VOA article cites an estimate of seven million in Myanmar, there are another 400,000 Karen in Thailand, where they are by far the largest of the hill tribes. Some Karen have left the camps in Thailand to resettle elsewhere, including in North America, New Zealand. In 2011, the Karen diaspora population was estimated to be approximately 67,000, following British victories in the three Anglo-Burmese wars, Myanmar was annexed as a province of British India in 1886. Baptist missionaries introduced Christianity to Myanmar beginning in 1830, and they were successful in converting many Karen, some Christian Karens began asserting an identity apart from their non-Christian counterparts, and many became leaders of Karen ethno-nationalist organisations, including the Karen National Union.
In 1881 the Karen National Associations was founded by western-educated Christian Karens to represent Karen interests with the British, despite its Christian leadership, the KNA sought to unite all Karens of different regional and religious backgrounds into one organisation. They argued at the 1917 Montagu–Chelmsford hearings in India that Myanmar was not yet in a fit state for self-government, three years later, after submitting a criticism of the 1920 Craddock Reforms, they won 5 seats in the Legislative Council of 130 members. The majority Buddhist Karens were not organised until 1939 with the formation of a Buddhist KNA, in 1938 the British colonial administration recognised Karen New Year as a public holiday. During World War II, when the Japanese occupied the region, as a consequence, many villages were destroyed and massacres committed by both the Japanese and the Burma Independence Army troops who helped the Japanese invade the country. Among the victims were a pre-war Cabinet minister, Saw Pe Tha, a government report claimed the excesses of the BIA and the loyalty of the Karens towards the British as the reasons for these attacks.
The intervention by Colonel Suzuki Keiji, the Japanese commander of the BIA, after meeting a Karen delegation led by Saw Tha Din, appears to have prevented further atrocities
As a form of execution, it was used from classical times into the 18th century, as a form of post mortem punishment of the criminal, the wheel was still in use in 19th-century Germany. The wheel was typically a wooden wagon wheel with many radial spokes. The condemned were lashed to the wheel and their limbs were beaten with a club or iron cudgel, with the gaps in the wheel allowing the limbs to give way, a wheel was sometimes used for the actual bludgeoning. During the execution for parricide of Franz Seuboldt in Nuremberg on 22 September 1589, the executioner used wooden blocks to raise Seuboldts limbs, broke them by slamming a wagon wheel down onto the limb. The survival time after being broken could be extensive, accounts exist of a 14th-century murderer who lived for three days after undergoing the punishment. In 1348, during the time of the Black Death, a Jew named Bona Dies underwent the punishment, the authorities stated he lived for four days and nights afterwards. In 1581, German serial killer Christman Genipperteinga lived for nine days on the wheel before expiring, having been deliberately kept alive with strong drink.
Pieter Spierenburg mentions a reference in sixth-century author Gregory of Tours as an origin for the punishment of breaking someone on the wheel. In Gregorys time, a criminal could be placed in a deep track, the latter practice could be seen as a symbolic re-enactment of the previous penalty in which people were literally driven over by a wagon. In France, the condemned were placed on a cartwheel with their limbs stretched out along the spokes over two sturdy wooden beams. The wheel was made to slowly, and a large hammer or an iron bar was applied to the limb over the gap between the beams, breaking the bones. This process was repeated several times per limb, sometimes it was mercifully ordered that the executioner should strike the condemned on the chest and abdomen, blows known as coups de grâce, which caused fatal injuries. Without those, the man could last hours and even days. Eventually and dehydration caused death, in France, a special grace, the retentum, could be granted, by which the condemned was strangled after the second or third blow, or in special cases, even before the breaking began.
In the Holy Roman Empire, the wheel was punishment reserved primarily for men convicted of aggravated murder, less severe offenders would be cudgelled top down, with a lethal first blow to the neck. More heinous criminals were punished bottom up, starting with the legs, the number and sequence of blows was specified in the courts sentence. Corpses were left for carrion-eaters, and the criminals heads often placed on a spike, the wheel is slammed two times on each arm, one blow above the elbow, the other below. Then, each leg gets the treatment and below the knees