Thanks for the quotes,
Boro! It's been forever since I've actually sat down and read the books, so I didn't recall any mention of such things.
I imagine oath-breaking, and particularly breaking the oath of fealty given to your lord, was of highest importance, as it also served as an oath to abide by his law.
It's interesting: Aragorn actually shows Beregond mercy here, and yet by my 20th-21st century view it seems excessive for him to banish him. He saved Faramir's life, and only hastened the end of the Steward's life. And it's strange to assume that holding a post as a soldier, regardless of where it is, still entails looking out for the safety of your lord. And, if Aragorn was really to follow the law...shouldn't Pippin share the same penalty?
And the same goes for Theoden's remarks regarding Eomer and Hama. I mean really! Obviously loyalty to your lord comes before everything in the society...and considering, it makes sense. It also obviously reflects our past culture, for sure. But that is another topic all together, I suppose.
Yes, it seems likely that the Hobbits would simply banish a person. If that's all Smeagol got (yes, I know, in a
similar society), that's all anyone's going to get.
And I agree with you on the Elves,
radagastly. There would be no point to it, though I still can see an Elf desiring revenge in some way...I'm just not sure what way.
A gibbet? A lovely thing...I can't imagine any of the "good guys" using those, but perhaps there are some people who they would say deserve such a fate. And though beheading was reserved for royalty...well, when the French had their fun with their guillotine, royalty simply got the blade sharpened. A beheading can still be a lowly and excessively nasty death, if you're trying to cut through someone's neck with a blunt blade...or if the executioner isn't strong and swift enough...or if they want to watch you suffer.
I can see beheadings and hangings used, though, by both Rohan and Gondor.
I wonder if the laws of Men would allow for or even demand/encourage revenge, capital punishment taken into the hands of the family and/or friends of the victim. It seems likely to me that would be the case: that men would be allowed to take the law into their own hands because the King cannot always?
Excellent points about the Beornings and Woodsmen,
Might. I think both of those groups would also be fine with the idea of taking the law into your own hands.
I also wonder about blood price. Would a price be put on someone's life, and if that family accepted that, the murderer be spared death? Sometimes those Middle-earthians seem too humanistic to put prices on peoples' lives, but then again, they are hardly without classes and hierarchies of different sorts.