culprit tied up to the halberts, may render a punishment fatal, which had been intended to be lenient. No surgeon therefore can answer, either for the ultimate, or immediate consequences of this species of corporal punishment; he may indeed err on the safe side, by interposing as early as possible,[1] but there is no criterion by which he can be guided in forming an absolute opinion on the danger or safety of the punishment.
But though the surgeon cannot be held criminally responsible (except in cases of gross ignorance or negligence) for the result of such executions, yet, if the commanding officer permits a single lash to be inflicted after the medical attendant has interposed, he would be held guilty of murder should the soldier die from the effects of excessive punishment; for malice will be presumed from such continuance after due notice.[2] In the notorious case of Governor Wall, who was executed for the murder of a soldier by excessive and illegal flogging; the punishment was originally unlawful, having been inflicted without sentence of a court martial, the mode of infliction was unusual, and the surgeon was stated to have been so much intimidated, that he was afraid to interfere, (a poor excuse for neglect of professional duty); under these circumstances, the plea that the deceased killed himself by excessive drinking, though the fact was
- ↑ We have heard of Martinets of the old school who have reprimanded their surgeons for such interference; we hope the instances are rare.
- ↑ No person ought to be entrusted with the execution of any sentence, who has been personally offended by the crime committed; for this reason the commanding officer of a regiment, who has a direct personal interest in the preservation of its discipline, and therefore may entertain angry feelings towards offenders, is not the most proper person to superintend executions.
