preview

Piracy In 1700

Better Essays

From a jurisdictional standpoint, the most egregious error on the part of the court was the prosecutions failure to charge the defendants with piracy in the indictment. Since the commissioners established the court, and drew their authority to try the accused, from the Piracy Act of 1700, this oversight threw the legitimacy of the entire proceedings into question. The fact that the men standing before them were pirates seemed so certain to the commissioners, they did not bother to charge them with the crime. But failing to charge them with piracy prohibited them from deriving their authority from the commissions established under the William III statute which was exclusive in nature. The court had no jurisdiction to try anyone for any crime, a fact that became apparent to them at some point during the month long individual hearings. On April 19th, following the conclusion of two trials, and 165 separated investigatory sessions, the court charged John Jessop with “Piracy and Robbery upon the High Seas.” Jessop had already been found guilty of unlawful resistance and attack of an HMS vessel …show more content…

As is hopefully apparent by now, the common element of piracy trials throughout the era was the uniform desire to convict harshly regardless of circumstance. All of the ingredients existed for rampant cases of wrongful convictions on par with Kidd and Green, but with the exception of the six fisherman hanged for sharing a drink with John Rackam, they didn’t occur in the vice-Admiralty courts after the Quelch hearings. How is it that pirate hunters always captured the true sea thieves? Or another way of asking the question, where did all the privateers go? Analyzing the answers to these inquiries is crucial to understanding how the evolution of piracy reduced the ambiguity that plagued seventeenth-century piracy trials and eliminated the uncertainty that existed between legal privateers from

Get Access