Blackstone condemned the execution of Algernon Sidney for high treason

“Treason, proditio, in its very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, faith the mirror [footnote] : for treason is indeed a general appellation, made use of by the law, to denote not only offences against the king and government, but also that accumulation of guilt which arises whenever a superior reposes a confidence in a subject or inferior, between whom and himself there subsists a natural, a civil, or even a spiritual relation ; and inferior so abuses that confidence, so forgets the obligations of duty, subjection, and allegiance, as to destroy the life of any such his superior or lord.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 6

Algernon Sidney

Algernon Sidney was executed some four decades before Sir William Blackstone was born

Algernon Sidney was executed some four decades before Sir William Blackstone was born. Specifically, our subject Algernon Sidney was executed in 1683, and Sir William Blackstone would not be born until 1723. (But I’m getting ahead of myself here.) Blackstone was in his forties when he wrote his “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This was a four-volume work, which gave a general overview of its chosen subject. Its fourth and final volume was published in the year 1769. This is the volume that I will be quoting from here. (Incidentally, all quotations from Blackstone’s “Commentaries” in this particular blog post will be from Book 4, Chapter 6 – a chapter entitled “Of High Treason.”)

Statue of Sir William Blackstone

The most serious crimes that anyone can commit (according to Blackstone)

“Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, the most principal and important is the offence of taking away that life, which is the immediate gift of the great creator; and which therefore no man can be entitled to deprive himself or another of, but in some manner either expressly commanded in, or evidently deducible from, those laws which the creator has given us; the divine laws, I mean, of either nature or revelation. The subject therefore of the present chapter will be, the offence of homicide or destroying the life of man, in its several stages of guilt, arising from the particular circumstances of mitigation or aggravation which attend it.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 14

So I recently finished reading William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work that influenced our Founding Fathers. For me, the most interesting of these volumes was the last one, which was entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” It contains a number of notable chapters, among them a chapter entitled “Of Homicide.” Like the rest of this volume, this chapter was first published in 1769.

Alexander Hamilton, a fan of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

A review of “The Declaration of Independence” (audiobook)

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

– The Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776)

A new country was created on July 4th, 1776. This is the aspect of the day that people remember most, of course. But people seldom quote the part of the document that actually declares our independence. Rather, they are more likely to quote from the famous second paragraph. This paragraph reads in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Source: text of the document). I will not endeavor to quote the rest of these words in this post. But suffice it to say that they are filled with ideas and philosophy. People remember these ideas better than the legal phrases that separated us from the mother country. That’s how important these ideas are.

What is “corruption of blood, or forfeiture” from an attainder of treason?

“The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.”

– Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

The Constitution prevents Congress from “extending the consequences of guilt” beyond those who have actually committed the crimes …

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison once quoted a portion of the Constitution saying that the Congress shall have power “To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) He then commented upon this section, saying that “As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) Corruption of blood just meant impeding someone from inheriting, or passing on property to their own descendants as heirs, on account of a crime that they had committed (usually treason). It thus punished others besides the person guilty of the crime.

James Madison

Actually, the death penalty IS constitutional (as the Fifth Amendment makes clear)

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

- Coffin et al v. United States (1895), the Supreme Court case which codified the presumption of innocence for people accused of crimes

People are innocent until proven guilty, and do not have to "prove" their innocence

There's a saying in America that is often quoted in these contexts, which is that people are "innocent until proven guilty." This saying is so familiar to Americans that we often take it for granted, I think. We may not always realize how rare it is in the world to have this kind of default assumption. In this country, the burden of proof is on the prosecution - or in civil cases, the "plaintiff" - rather than the defendant. The defendant is not even required to open his or her mouth to "prove" his or her own innocence. This is not written explicitly into our Constitution, but it is implied by a number of amendments, and was codified by the Supreme Court case quoted above. Moreover, a jurist from a previous century named Sir William Blackstone - a man who is quoted in the Federalist Papers - proclaimed that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." (Source: Blackstone's "Commentaries," Book IV, Chapter 27) This doctrine is sometimes known as "Blackstone's formulation" or "Blackstone's Ratio."

William Blackstone

William Blackstone thought it "better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"

John Adams expounded on "Blackstone's Ratio" in the "Boston Massacre" trial, when he said that "We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever." (Source: Adams' Argument for the Defense, 3-4 December 1770) When a person really is guilty of a crime (as sometimes happens), this can still make it somewhat difficult to bring criminals to justice, of course. Thus, the police force and prosecutors have to possess a high degree of skill to provide the necessary proof of these actions. But if these protections are not in place (and many countries don't have them), then innocent people are vulnerable to an arbitrary tyranny that can punish them at will; and there are few things that Americans fear more than an absolute government with unlimited power. Thus, there must be a balancing act in any free country between individual protections and criminal justice, where the people are protected against both unlimited government and violent criminals. Thus, it might be helpful to go over some of these constitutional protections from our Bill of Rights.

John Adams, the defense attorney in the "Boston Massacre" trial