Category: 

Did Condemned Criminals Really Pay Executioners?

When the guillotine was first introduced, some condemned criminals are reported to have paid executioners to sharpen the blade.
Article Details
  • Written By: Mary McMahon
  • Edited By: Bronwyn Harris
  • Last Modified Date: 12 December 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
Hydrox Cookies were chocolate sandwich cookies created in 1908, four years before Oreos.  more...

December 17 ,  1903 :  The Wright brothers made their first successful flight.  more...

Depending on the nation and the era, condemned criminals did in fact pay executioners, typically in an attempt to prevent a botched execution. The popular legend that criminals tipped the executioner is not true, however, and the custom of paying the executioner has waxed and waned historically. More commonly, condemned criminals bribed guards and prison wardens to have access to more comfortable cells and to secure permission to import special food, books, and other diversions to entertain while waiting for the day of execution.

When the guillotine was first introduced, some condemned criminals would pay executioners to sharpen the blade, ensuring a quick and relatively merciful end. Prisoners sentenced to beheading in certain eras in England would also pay their executioners, requesting execution in a single blow. In both of these senses, the payment was more like a bribe than a specific fee for services rendered, as it were. Hangmen, as a general rule, were not paid, and likewise with firing squads.

At times, family members have also received bills for execution, most commonly in the case of military executions in the 18th and 19th centuries. In these instances, the family might be ordered to pay for the hanging rope or bullets used by the firing squad, along with the soldier's uniform. Sending out a bill for execution was designed to act as an extra deterrent to members of the military considering crimes punishable be execution.

Ad

In the modern era, it is not customary for condemned prisoners to pay executioners. In fact, some criminals never meet their executioners. In the Western nations which retain the death penalty as punishment, such as the United States, the process is shrouded in anonymity due to social stigma, with executioners typically concealing the nature of their jobs from all but a few close friends and family. In nations where the death penalty is more openly practiced, such as some Asian and Middle Eastern countries, it would still be unusual for criminals to pay executioners.

Executioners historically were usually paid by their clients, for lack of a better term, when their regular rate of pay was generally very low. The idea that some criminals could pay while others could not raises the interesting and horrific specter of classism enduring even at the gallows, because it suggests that if criminals didn't pay executioners, the execution might be less humane.

Ad

More from Wisegeek

You might also Like

Discuss this Article

Cageybird
Post 2

@AnswerMan, I think if a scenario like that played out in real life, the government would probably work out some sort of financial reparation with the innocent man's family. It would probably be kept as quiet as possible, though. I've seen it happen with prisoners who were released after being found innocent 20 or 30 years after their convictions. The government might give them some compensation for all the years of potential income they were denied behind bars.

AnswerMan
Post 1

I can't even imagine how billing a modern family for a lethal injection would even work. They've already suffered enough with the conviction and sentencing of their family member, so I would think receiving a bill in the mail for the cost of the drugs and the executioner's services would be cruel and unusual. I'm so glad we don't do that in the United States.

I wonder if that same logic would apply in reverse. What if a person were executed by the government and later found not guilty because of new evidence? Could that person's family sue the government for the unknown costs of incarceration and execution?

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email