“I am da Law”

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Good point, TM! In this, I believe, Tolkien showed explicitely the misuse (or: "overuse") of laws to ill. I think the Shire was also a nice example, in minor, of how Saruman turned from intentions "for greater good" using wrong ways, to total destruction. I think this is also one of the options how "law" (later turning to unjust rule) is taken in Middle-Earth, so I think it's quite good for the topic to remember that.
This is what Saruman told to Gandalf before imprisoning him in Orthanc:

We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."

This is why the Istari were not given the right to use their powers in open. This is why Valar didn't want to force the Elves to go to Aman (and as we know, they considered their first war as "fault"). This is why the evil, many times, was not punished (Gollum!) even though it should be, by the law. This is why the Ring should not be used by anyone: not by Gandalf, not by Galadriel, not by the Lords of Minas Tirith. Saruman, in the beginning, had good intentions in mind - Knowledge, Rule, Order (although at the moment he speaks about this in the book, his intentions were already different). But the Shire shows the end of the road of ill-used "law": the Shire was a nice place where there were almost no laws, but everything went just fine because of the people, so said, "had the law in themselves". As some of you said before, I couldn't imagine a Hobbit killing another one - and it is indeed said, by Frodo in the Scouring of the Shire:

No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire, and it is not to begin now.

And this is not just about killing. You can see even from the behavior of the Hobbits in LotR (be it Frodo, Sam, Merry&Pippin or the others in the Shire, well maybe with a few exceptions - like the Sackville-Bagginses, which are said to be "corrupted by Saruman", but even though, not actually wicked like for example Bill Ferny) that these folks were all friendly, sensible, caring for others rather than just for themselves. As Gandalf says in the UT, Appendix to the "Quest of Erebor", concerning the Hobbit behavior during the Long Winter:

"And then there was the Shire-folk. I began to have a warm place in my heart for them in the Long Winter, which none of you can remember. They were very hard put to it then: one of the worst pinches they have been in, dying of cold, and starving in the dreadful dearth that followed. But that was the time to see their courage, and their pity one for another. It was by their pity as much as by their tough uncomplaining courage that they survived."

(emphasize by me)

So this is quite different taking of law. The Hobbits had no need of laws, and look what the laws did there - it ruined them. These laws were there where they were not needed, so that the freedom totally disappeared and the folks had nothing they could do - so instead of building, the destruction took place. So, we have the places where the law was needed and was not (the Orc, I think, are a nice example for this), but we can also see, how the nonlawful law turned out to be destructible - and in the end, the extreme is again Mordor.

[Lalwendë]

Elves did use capital punishment. Eol is thrown from the walls of Gondolin as punishment. Though its one I often think was mistaken - surely locking him up would have been more fitting? Humane? An elf driven mad by his wife running away? Anyway, the results of it are quite far reaching as Tolkien shows!

I like what Child says, she picks up on a major theme on Tolkien's work, that we may have the 'right' to do something, but is it always the 'right' thing to exercise that right? The words of Gandalf remind us that life is precious, but there are also several instances where someone who has committed terrible wrongs is given a chance of forgiveness or clemency. Grima is given this by Theoden, and Saruman by Gandalf. Had Tolkien's world really been the medieval world then there would have been no question in cases such as theirs, they would have been executed in the most gruesome manner. Traitors were routinely subject to being Hung, Drawn and Quartered (hung until not quite dead, then their skin flayed from them and their body eviscerated and cut into quarters, all while still alive). Oath breakers in Northern society may have had the Blood Eagle enacted on them - being cut open and then spread out, pinned to a wall or tree until they died.

I don't think there's any question Tolkien will not have known about medieval 'justice' due to his reading and knowledge, but we don't see any of these punishments in his work, unless it is something done by the 'bad guys'. The possibility of capital punishment exists in the West, but we rarely see it used, instead we see leaders choosing not to use it, as though Tolkien makes a statement about their sense of fairplay and justice. Of course Theoden must dismiss Hama from his post, he has not carried out orders; this would be exactly the same in the modern world. But he has the sense of justice not to put the man to death.

You could compare Beregond deserting his post with the deserters of WWI. These poor men were shot at dawn; some still remain unpardoned even though we live in more enlightened times. Tolkien will have known about these cases. Beregond deserts, and according to the ancient laws of Gondor, he could be put to death for this. But Aragorn chooses not to do that. He makes sure that Beregond is 'punished', albeit in a symbolic way, by dismissing him from his post; it's 'symbolic' because in reality all that happens is he is reposted.

[The Might]

I'm going to now try make a post especially concerning Hobbits' laws as far as the time period before and after the War of the Ring is concerned.

Now as far as the Shiriffs are concerned:

The Shirriffs were the name that the Hobbits gave to their police, or the nearest equivalent that they possessed. They had, of course, no uniforms (such things being quite unknown), only a feather in their caps; and they were in practice rather haywards than policemen, more concerned with the strayings of beasts than of people. There were in all the Shire only twelve of them, three in each Farthing, for Inside Work. A rather larger body varying at need, was employed to 'beat the bounds', and to see that Outsiders of any kind, great or small, did not make themselves a nuisance.

There is no mention of any sort of regularly meeting law-making body in Tolkien's descriptions. The Shire-Moot, he tells us, had ceased to meet, and in any case its meetings were too infrequent at any period to allow for regular legislation. One of Tolkien's letters (Letters, Carpenter, 1981, letter #214) mentions the establishment of a rule regarding succession to the property of Shirefolk who passed over sea, and later refers to a "ruling of Master Samwise" (who was then Mayor)

It thus seems that the Mayor combined both the legislative and the executive power in the Shire, and probably because the Mayors of the Shire all seem to be very good of heart (Sam, Frodo or Will Whitfoot) this system worked very well for the Hobbits.
Tolkien says elsewhere (Tolkien, 1965, p.30) about the Shirefolk's view of law:

Yet the Hobbits still said of wild folk and wicked things (such as trolls) that they had not heard of the king. For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.

"String, or nothing" shrieked Gollum, which was not quite fair- working in two guesses at once.
"Both wrong" cried Bilbo very much relieved; and he jumped at once to his feet, put his back to the nearest wall, and held out his little sword. He knew, of course, that the riddle- game was sacred and of immense antiquity, and even wicked creatures were afraid to cheat when they played at it. But he felt he could not trust this slimy thing to keep any promise at a pinch. Any excuse would do for him to slide out of it. And after all that last question had not been a genuine riddle according to the ancient laws.

So it seems that in the case of the Hobbits using the ancient, unwritten laws, but that were known to all was working very well until, as Legate very well pointed out, Sharkey and his ruffians came along and destroyed this system by imposing too many rules.


Now, I said I'd post mostly about Hobbits, but I have found some interesting quotes about other people as well - the Elves of Lorien.

'The agreement was made without my consent,' he said. 'I will not walk blindfold, like a beggar or a prisoner. And I am no spy. My folk have never had dealings with any of the servants of the Enemy. Neither have we done harm to the elves. I am no more likely to betray you than Legolas, or any of my other companions.'
"I do not doubt you," said Haldir. "Yet this is our law. I am not the master of the law, and cannot set it aside. I have done much in letting you set foot over Celebrant." Gimli was obstinate…"You cannot go back," said Haldir sternly. "Now you have come thus far, you must be brought before the Lord and the Lady. They shall judge you, to hold you or give you leave, as they will."

We already saw that in the case of Thranduil he possesed the power to decide what would happen to the prisoners, and it seems to be the same in Lorien with Galadriel and Celeborn. Haldir has no right to decide, only the "Lord and the Lady" are the masters of the law. It does sound to me quite like a totalitarian regime...but this doesn't necessarily have to mean a bad thing.
I think that totalitary systems have a bad name especially because of the consequences of dictatorships in communism or fascism. But here in Lorien, the law seems to work very well. The Silvan Elves clearly trusted the far superior knowledge and wisdom of Galadriel and Celeborn and so did not oppose their judgements.

Welcome Gimli, son of Gloin. It is long indeed since we saw one of Durin's folk in Caras Galadhon. But today we have broken our long law. May
it be a sign that though the world is now dakr better days are in hand, and that friendship shall be renewed between our peoples.

And personally when Celeborn says "we" I think he is talking about Galadriel and himself, since they are those with the power of decision in Lorien.

Ok, and lastly, something about diplomacy in ME, and also other unwritten laws. As shown in a quote from "The Black Gate opens":

Aragorn said naught in answer, but he took the other's eye and held it, and for a moment they strove thus; but soon, though Aragorn did not stir nor move hand to weapon, the other quailed and gave back as if menaced with a blow. 'I am a herald and ambassador, and may not be assailed!' he cried.
Where such laws hold it is also the custom for ambassadors to use less insolence. But no one has threatened you. You have naught
to fear from us, until your errand is done.

So customs, and laws of diplomacy also exist in Middle-earth, and are respected here by both sides more or less. This is one reason why I didn't like seeinf Aragorn kill Mouth of Sauron in the films, it made little sense that someone like Aragorn would break these customs.

[Selmo]

I don't have my books to hand so I can't offer direct quotes but if I recall correctly (I don't always at my age) capital punishment was widely used for percived traitors, opponents of the State and prisoners of war during the last days of Numenor.

Is this another example of the misuse of once just laws?

.

[Thinlómien]

As to hobbits:

Originally Posted by Frodo, in "The Scouring of Shire"

No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire, and it is not to begin now.

No murders and no capital punishments then. At least recorded ones, but I guess none at all: Tolkien made Shire an idyllic place without violence and other "nuisances" like that.
I can't imagine breelanders using a capital punisment either.

Gondor, Rohan, Dale, Esgaroth and the Beorningland were in varying degrees based on medieval western societies. Back then, capital punishment was widely accepted and in use in Europe, so I can't see it not being in ME. Maybe it was not used as strictly or often (not for a theft etc), but I think it was used at least in cases of treason and murders. In medieval times a prison sentence was not a very widely-used punishment (except for nobles waiting for their actual punishment, or being lovked away not to be in the way), because there simply weren't many prison or lots of prison space. Considering that I can imagine criminals with serious crimes hanged. (And no, I'm not forgetting about weregild.)

[Durelin]

Resurrecting this (I was quite neglectful) because I have time and another thought...

I agree with you on Tolkien's position, Child, though I do wonder if the man believed in "rehabilitation," so to speak (not that this is necessary in order to be against capital punishment in all forms). And regardless of whether or not he believed it, what seems to be the case in his presentation of Middle-earth and its peoples? (I know there's a good chance this has been discussed in a previous topic, and so I apologize ahead of time if it has been.)

Obviously Gollum is the classic example...we want to believe he can "come back," but in the end, he does not. And even Frodo is changed forever by the experience of bearing the Ring, though not enough to push him over the deep end. Even years in the Shire cannot heal his troubles. This may not be the same as rehabilitation as we typically think of it, and it is certainly different from any rehabilitation that might be hoped for in Gollum, but it still acts as an example of how the effects of "evil" run deep.

The recent thread on the "atrocities" of Akallebeth certainly makes me wonder. The populous was killed; it is as if the taint had seeped through all the citizenry, and would quite possibly be passed down generations. The "blackness" of the Numenoreans does not go away, at least in name. But does this mean that Tolkien believes that people who are "evil" or have evil in them cannot be changed, or simply that evil is/will always be present in more general terms?

[Lalwendë]

First off, I think that the depth of Gollum's 'addiction' to the Ring shows just how sinister an object it was, that it could totally ensnare someone. What happened to Gollum says more to me about The Ring than it does about Gollum and his personality or predisposition to evil or not. Especially when set against what happened to Frodo and how he failed to do the deed of throwing the Ring away and how broken he was.

But anyway. I agree that many (maybe even the majority) of Men would have believed on a most basic level that wrongdoers should get their 'deserts'. In the real world if you do polls on if people agree with things like capital punishment the majority always says 'yes' but it still remains firmly off the statute books; that's because we give over the making of serious decisions of that level to law makers and experts, who we expect to act in a level-headed way. You do not expect a lawyer's decisions to be swayed by things that have happened in his or her personal life - they are expected to be professional in making all decisions, to simply weigh up evidence dispassionately. That also holds for Middle-earth. An ordinary Gondorian might think a criminal who knicks his armour deserves a good kicking, but the rulers of Gondor would say otherwise - they are there to take a professional overview.

I hope that makes sense.