Anyone who writes crime fiction set in the past has to deal with the fact that capital punishment existed. I was surprised to find myself squeamish about this when deciding who my villain would be and how he or she would be discovered.
I'm usually the one arguing that things were different in the past and we must not judge by present day standards.
I don't have a problem with killing characters by other means. I've killed off good characters and bad ones.
There are ways to avoid the issue. Have the villain run in front of a train as he tries to avoid capture; have such strong mitigating circumstances that it can be suggested that the death penalty will almost certainly be commuted (according Old Bailey Online, many death sentences were never carried out); make the villain so irredeemably evil that no-one could feel any sympathy for him; write about crimes that did not carry the death penalty.
But that would feel like cheating (and in the case of the irredeemably evil villain, two-dimensional characterisation). And if one is going to write historical crime, one can't avoid the issue forever.
However I choose to approach it, it must remain my problem and not become my characters'. They are of their time and it's unlikely any of them would object to capital punishment on principle.
If one of them had a personal connection to someone who was facing the drop, however - now that would make a dramatic storyline.
Speaking as an historical crime novelist, this one has always troubled me too. I too have resorted to killing off the villain as he or she flees, or simply ending before the courts get involved. I must admit that one of the things that has always put me off reading C. J. Sansom is his unflinching detailing of the punishments of the period. To deal with crimes that wouldn't merit the death penalty (i.e. anything other than murder) is rarely considered enough in modern crime fiction.
ReplyDeleteIn practice, I think that the question of external punishment has never particularly interested me as a novelist. I'm more interested with how people punish themselves, mentally, for what they do and how they, and the people around them, come to terms with violent acts.
I must admit that one of the things that has always put me off reading C. J. Sansom is his unflinching detailing of the punishments of the period.
ReplyDeleteI confess that I usually skip the more gory parts of Sansom's novels.
To deal with crimes that wouldn't merit the death penalty (i.e. anything other than murder) is rarely considered enough in modern crime fiction.
I'm trying to think of a non-capital crime that's as high-stakes as murder. Blackmail, perhaps. That can have a huge impact on the people close to the victim. It can be shown as a crime in progress, rather than after the event, and allows for a more in-depth look at the victim than murder always allows.
I'm more interested with how people punish themselves, mentally, for what they do and how they, and the people around them, come to terms with violent acts.
The coming to terms part especially applies if one has an amateur sleuth. Repeatedly encountering violent death must have an impact. Dorothy L. Sayers addressed it a couple of times. But of course the sleuth's emotional reactions mustn't be allowed to overshadow the crime!