An Analysis of the Historical Institution of Public Execution

The iconic British rock band The Smiths open their hit 1987 song “Panic” with the line: “there’s panic on the streets of London.” While the song goes on to bemoan the state of British pop at the time, the opening could also easily pertain to the atmosphere created by public executions at Tyburn Tree, a set of gallows located at the center of London, where at least 50,000 criminals were hanged over a period of 650 years.¹ These public executions, which were attended by “thousands of sorrowful spectators,”² beg the question: why do we as humans publically kill each other? And, why do we watch? Although public execution may be viewed as dated and barbaric today, throughout societies across history, the act of watching someone else die was an everyday occurrence, and at times even a celebratory event. This essay looks to understand why this is the case. Through analysis of three groups (the victim, the executor, and the spectator), across three historical time periods, (Ancient Rome, Tudor England, and the Jim Crow South), I aim to elucidate some of the reasons behind the perpetuation, reactions to, and attendance of public executions. These reasons are as follows: for a hegemonic power, public execution served as a visceral representation of said power. For the accused, public execution served as a final opportunity for reclamation of religious dignity. And, for the spectator, public executions were an opportunity to participate in a day of deeply gothic revelry. 

My historical inquiry begins with Roman gladiatorial fighting. For context, Roman gladiator fights were extremely popular fights to the death between slaves or criminals.³ The gladiator games were very well-attended, and “rare occasions when ruler and ruled encountered each other face-to-face.”⁴ One of the most famous attendees of the gladiator games was legendary Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger. 

Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (Seneca for short), was a brilliant philosopher, and councilor of Emperor Nero. Seneca’s most famous work, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium (Letters from a Stoic), enumerates a great many ways a Stoic should live their lives in relation to greater Roman society. In Epistle Seven, Seneca discusses crowds, and speaks on how he feels about gladiator sport. Seneca states: “By chance I attended a midday exhibition, expecting some fun, wit, and relaxation.”⁵ Seneca’s casual mention of attending the games “by chance” demonstrates just how everyday and banal public execution was in Roman society. When one was bored, they could just stop by the arena, to watch slaves or criminals fight to the death. However, Seneca appeared to be less of a fan of the daily entertainment, condemning the games as “pure murder.”⁶ Seneca goes on to argue about the immorality of the games, and the letter concludes with Seneca advising the recipient of the letter, Lucilius, to not follow crowds. 

Here, Seneca argues that the games are barbarous and amoral. And, this passage from Epistle 7 is the most cited example of Seneca’s views on the games, leading many historians to argue that Seneca looked down upon and rebuked gladiatorial fighting.⁷ However, further investigation proves that Seneca’s relationship with the games was far more nuanced than previously thought. In his writing, Seneca alludes to many of the intricacies of the games, demonstrating an intimate knowledge of the functionings of the games themselves; knowledge that could reflect a sense of fandom towards the bloodsport. Throughout his writing, Seneca refers to the Lanistae,⁸ the trainers of the gladiators, who he referred to as “death’s middlemen,” the Essedarii,⁹ gladiators who fought on chariots, and the Ferula,¹⁰ a paddle used to punish young gladiators. This intimate knowledge of the games disproves the widely accepted thesis that Seneca was not an active spectator of the games, and demonstrates the intellectual and class diversity of attendees of those games. Seneca’s attendance of the gladiator games shows that, historically, members of all classes have viewed public executions as a source of entertainment.

Tudor England provides much opportunity for rich historical analysis regarding public execution. The rhetoric of the executed at the gallows demonstrates both the governmental rationale for public execution, and the religious aspects of execution for the executed. Furthermore, the raucous atmosphere of the crowds watching public executions demonstrate the “everyday” nature of public executions during the time period.

Public executions in Tudor England primarily attracted crowds that numbered in the thousands.¹¹ In London, hangings were done at Tyburn Tree, and later, due to the overflow of crowds, at Newgate Prison.¹² Hangings in Tudor England were massively raucous events, not somber in the slightest, where citizens from the countryside would converge on London to witness a member of their society die.¹³ This raucous atmosphere again demonstrates the everyday nature of public execution, as citizens of Tudor England viewed public execution as an opportunity for drunken revelry.

For the accused, public execution provided an opportunity to die a dignified Christian. Commonly, the accused would extensively confess to their crimes on the gallows, explaining how they came to commit their barbaric crimes, showing themselves to be an example for why one should be wary of sin. Thomas Savage, a sixteen-year-old servant hung at Tyburn in 1668 for murdering another servant, stated on the gallows: “The first sin I began with, was sabbath-breaking, thereby I got acquaintance with bad company, and so went to the alehouse and to the bawdy house: there I was persuaded to rob my master and also to murder this poor innocent creature, for which I am come to this shameful end.”¹⁴ Religious confessions at the gallows like Savage’s demonstrate how the public nature of executions in Tudor England allowed the accused to religiously repent, and die with Christian dignity. 

However, the rhetoric of the “normal” criminal executed in Tudor England deeply differed from the rhetoric of high-born nobles killed for treason. Whereas the last words of the average criminal executed, like the words of Savage’s, served as a public confession, for high-born criminals executed by the Tudor England monarchy, the gallows served as a place where the monarchy could reestablish their visceral power over their subjects. The deferential rhetoric of those high-born traitors executed at the gallows demonstrates the reinforcement of this power. Even though they were being executed by the Tudor monarchy, traitors who were important political pawns were usually extremely courteous towards the monarchy executing them. Take, for example, the last words of the Former Queen of England, Anne Boleyn. Anne Boleyn was the second wife of King Henry VIII, who was executed on likely trumped up charges of adultery.¹⁵ At Anne’s execution, which took place on the north side of the White Tower (within the Tower of London), Anne states: “Good Christian people, I am come hither to die, for according to the law, and by the law I am judged to die, and therefore I will speak nothing against it. I am come hither to accuse no man, nor to speak anything of that, whereof I am accused and condemned to die, but I pray God save the king and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord. And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. And thus I take my leave of the world and of you all, and I heartily desire you all to pray for me. O Lord have mercy on me, to God I commend my soul.”¹⁶ Anne’s stating of, “I pray God save the king and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord,” is fascinating, and necessitates historical analysis. While it can be understood that Anne likely complimented Henry in her last moments to ensure the safety of her infant daughter Elizabeth,¹⁷ Anne’s obsequious rhetoric towards her executioner demonstrates how the executions of high-born “traitors” served as a physical re-establishment of Tudor power. Anne’s stating of “I pray God save the king and send him long to reign over you,” conflates the power of the Tudor Monarchy with God, reestablishing Tudor power in a religious context. Furthermore, Anne’s rhetoric also endorses the ruling monarchy by stating that Henry VIII was a, “gentle and sovereign lord.” By thanking the hand that swings the sword, Anne tells all watching that her executioners are moral and correct in their actions, and not to oppose the actions of that monarchy. Through her rhetoric, Anne demonstrates just how powerful the Tudor Monarchy is, as the monarchy can compel religious and personal gratitude from even those they are executing. Anne Boleyn’s rhetoric at the gallows served as an opportunity for the Tudor Monarchy to physically broadcast their power to all of England, and shows how, for governments, public executions are an opportunity to remind a population of that government’s hegemonic power.

Public executions and lynchings of African Americans in the Jim Crow South are also a historical phenomena ripe for analysis. Lynchings and public executions in the Jim Crow South share many similarities to gladiatorial combat in Rome, and executions in Tudor England. For the spectator, like in Rome and in England, public executions provided for raucous entertainment. For the predominantly African American accused, like in England, public executions were an opportunity to die with religious dignity. And, similary to England, for the white power structure of the South, public executions (and subsequently, lynchings), were an attempt to regain power over an oppressed African American population.

Firstly, a bit of context regarding public executions in the Jim Crow South. Following the Civil War, three-quarters of public executions in the South were perpetuated against African Americans.¹⁸ Due to the disproportionate nature of public executions of African Americans, African American communities looked to “reclaim” the public execution, to ensure that those victimized by the execution would die with a sense of dignity, surrounded by members of their community. Large crowds would flock to witness public executions, with many in the crowd being African American.¹⁹ A newspaper reporting on the execution of a Black man in 1893 states: “Three thousand people witnessed the spectacle, and we are informed that cotton picking was entirely suspended for three days in four counties. The negro field laborers for many miles around Mount Vernon went there the day for the execution and camped out.”²⁰ These executions, like Roman gladiator games or Tudor England executions, were also not as somber as one might expect. On March 28, 1878, the Atlanta Constitution wrote how public executions “never fail to draw a rough or disorderly crowd.”²¹ The newspaper went on to say, “Whisky always flows freely on these occasions, and feeds the passions . . . The day generally closes with a series of fights and a general display of rowdyism.”²² The lack of a somber nature at these public executions demonstrates an incongruence between the deeply gothic nature of public executions themselves, and the everyday nature of celebrations surrounding the executions. Unlike today, where the witnessing of public execution finds itself outside of the popular zeitgeist, citizens of the Jim Crow South would view executions as entertainment, traveling miles to watch one of their countrymen die. 

Like in Tudor England, the gallows served as a pulpit of sorts for the executed. In front of largely African American crowds, African American executees would commonly religiously proclimate, and tell their countrymen that they were to die good Christians. The final words of a Black man accused of murder in Louisiana in 1893 were as follows: “I’m gwine home to Jesus. I tell you, my brothers, I am going home; yes, I am I going home. Take ye no fear, for he that believeth in me shall have everlasting life. But I tell you must believe, and if you don’t believe, you will be damned!”²³ Proclamations like these, whilst a little bit different to the more confessional nature of the last words of executed in Tudor England, were still deeply religious in nature, and allowed for the executed person to die a dignified, good Christian. These religious proclamations by African American victims, towards largely African American crowds, led to a “reclaiming” of the act of public execution. By stating that they were dying good Christians, African American victims were able to reclaim their dignity in their final moments, and die with their heads held high. This reclamation was an attack against the white Southern power structure that attempted to utilize public execution to strike fear into the oppressed Black Southern population.²⁴ But, when the white power structure realized that public executions were no longer viewed as a brutal, corporeal event, and instead had been “reclaimed” by African Americans, this white power structure turned to even more violence, and started to perpetuate lynchings against African Americans in the South.²⁵

The white power structure of the Jim Crow South was deeply upset with the nature of Southern public executions, where African Americans had essentially “reclaimed” a space that had been used to discriminate against them. Because of this, white Southern intellectuals advocated for the death of public executions, in favor of private ones. An op-ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch from October 14, 1908 reads: 

The Times Dispatch has long contended that the publicity, the excitement and the general hurrah-and-holiday air attending the old-time hanging were a positive allurement to the negro. His strong theatrical sense reveled in the final melodrama in which he was the conspicuous central figure. The electric execution wholly does away with that. The time set for turning on the death current is unannounced, the public is rigorously eluded, and the whole affair is conducted with secrecy and mystery, well calculated to inspire terror in the heart of the superstitious African.²⁶

The logic displayed in the (deeply racist) excerpt above both explains why public executions are not a part of the fabric of our modern reality today, and also explains how private executions were an attempt to fight against the “reclaiming” of the public execution. 

The other way that the white power structure reacted against the reclaiming of public executions was through lynchings. For context, lynchings were horrific mob murders, where a white mob would usually extrajudicially murder an African American (though Jews and Italians were also lynched) on supposed “criminal” charges. These lynchings were usually perpetuated based on flimsy evidence at best, and would often end up killing innocent people. While it needs not be said that both public executions and lynchings are deeply barbaric in nature, there was a profound difference between a public execution and a lynching in the Jim Crow South. Whereas public executions were primarily attended by African Americans, lynchings were essentially white-only events, where violent white mobs would both participate in, and watch the death of an African American person.²⁷ And, while public executions unquestionably featured mistreatment of the Black victim, as they were done by the United States Government, there was a sense of “sanctioning” how a victim was to be treated.²⁸ This differed from lynchings, where the body of the victim of the lynching would traditionally be deeply defiled by the mob executing them.²⁹ Public executions and lynchings were both barbaric, but lynchings took this barbarism a step further, in an attempt to fight back against the reclamation of public executions by African American victims. 

The evolution of public execution in the Jim Crow South is a deeply informative historical phenomena that shows continuities from past examples of public execution. Similarly to Ancient Rome and Tudor England, public executions in the Jim Crow South were widely attended events that served as popular entertainment. And, like in Tudor England, for the accused, public execution allowed for religious confession, and a chance to die with Christian dignity. However, also like in Tudor England, the dominant power structure (in this case, the white populace) used public execution to reestablish power over an oppressed African American population. And, as a side note, the shift from public to private executions, which were motivated by a white Southern power structure attempting to control a Black populace, help explain why public executions are now a relic of the past.

Public executions throughout history have been a deeply nuanced historical phenomena, which allow us to learn much about humans’ relationship to public death. Public executions first exhibited in the form of gladiatorial combat demonstrate how public executions featured deeply into the everyday lives of all members of Roman society, and were viewed in far less morbid terms than they are today. The rhetoric of the victims of public executions in Tudor England show how for the accused, the public execution served as an opportunity for religious confession, and for the accuser, an opportunity to reinforce sovereignty over a populace. Similarly to Tudor England, in the Jim Crow South, victims of public execution would use their last words to religiously proclimate, and ensure that they died with Christian dignity. And, like in Tudor England, the entity with the most hegemonic power (the white Southern populace) used the public execution to strike fear into African Americans, and reinforce their racist control over the lives and bodies of African American people. Furthermore, the shift from public to private executions in the Jim Crow South help explain why public executions don’t feature into our daily lives anymore. This study of public execution in the Jim Crow South also contextualizes the use of the death penalty in the United States today. Racial disparities³⁰ in the perpetuation of the death penalty towards African American people are better understood through the context of public executions in the Jim Crow era. This context allows us to identify disproportionately harsh sentencing towards African American people today as a continuation of past racist policies that were enacted in the form of public execution in the Jim Crow era, and allows us to better understand the history behind disproportionate sentencing of the death penalty towards African Americans today.

Public executions may not feature into our lives today. However, the scope and nuance of public executions throughout history helps us understand how public executions provided opportunities for governments to exhibit their carceral power over a population, opportunities for oppressed peoples to regain religious dignity in their final moments, and opportunities for entertainment for the masses. Through this study of public execution, we can start to understand why, throughout history, humans have killed each other publically, and why other humans have watched.

1. Yi-Fu Tuan, “Public Humiliation and Execution,” In Landscapes of Fear (University of Minnesota Press, 1979), 182
2. J. A. Sharpe, “‘Last Dying Speeches’: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England,” Past & Present, no. 107 (1985): 145
3. Pierre Cagniart, “The Philosopher and the Gladiator,” The Classical World, vol. 93 no. 6 (2000): 609, JSTOR
4. Leonard L. Thompson, “The Martyrdom of Polycarp: Death in the Roman Games,” The Journal of Religion, vol. 82, no. 1 (2002): 27,. JSTOR
5. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, “Letter Seven: On Crowds,” Letters From a Stoic, trans. Francis Gummere (William Collins, 2022),12.
6. Seneca, “Letters From a Stoic,” 13.
7. Cagniart, “The Philosopher and the Gladiator,” 607.
8. Cagniart, “The Philosopher and the Gladiator,” 608.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Tuan, “Public Humiliation and Execution,” 184.
12. Ibid.
13. Tuan, “Public Humiliation and Execution,” 183.
14. Sharpe, “Last Dying Speeches’: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England,” 151.
15. G. W. Bernard, “The Fall of Anne Boleyn,” The English Historical Review 106, no. 420 (1991): 584
16. Lisa Allen, “19th May – Anniversary of Anne Boleyn’s Execution,” Hever Castle, Mar. 14, 2024
17. “Anne Boleyn | Tower of London | Historic Royal Palaces,” Hrp.Org, Historic Royal Palaces
18. Michael A. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” Journal of Social History, vol. 45, no. 1 (2011): 195, JSTOR
19. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 195.
20. Ibid.
21. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 204.
22. Ibid.
23. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 198.
24. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 195.
25. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 208.
26. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 205.
27. Trotti, “The Scaffold’s Revival: Race and Public Execution in the South,” 207.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Wendy Sawyer, “Visualizing the Racial Disparities in Mass Incarceration,” Prison Policy Initiative, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep27319, 7.