Re: Banishment

[edh@ascc01.ascc.att.com (Ed Hopkins)]

Fhearghuis Ghillechriost mac mheic Iain (jhale@eng.ua.edu) wrote:

> Since I do not know the address of the Grand Council member to whom I
> should direct my comments, I will submit it to the list and he who
> knows how may forward it to the appropriate gentle.

Although I am neither a Grand Council member nor one who knows any,
I hope you will not mind if I use this same forum to add my own
comments on this subject.

> I have heard recently of the Proposed changes to the banishment rule
> and have this opinion on the matter.

I gather that the proposed changes are to save the BOD the bother of
reviewing banishments or listening to appeals, and/or that banishments
extend beyond the reign of the banisher.  Do I understand true?

> I urge not to implement the proposed change.  I myself am against
> banishment at all, but I do recognize the fact that some mechanism
> needs to be in place should the need arise.  However, given that
> banishment is a necessary evil, great measures should be taken in
> order to prevent this very side from appearing (that is its abuse).

I heartily concur.

> IMHO the only way to do this is to either take banishment out the hands
> of the Royalty entirely or at least ensure that there is some recourse
> for the banished individual be it a member or no. [...]
>
> It is wholly unnecessary that a banished individual be permanently so.
> If the person is indeed someone who has caused serious problems in the
> past, perhaps he/she has mended his ways and would now be a valued
> member of the society.  If not the next crown can rebanish him, and this
> can continue until the person either shapes up or tires of the SCA and
> leaves us alone to play our game in peace.  This may seem like it is
> wasting the Crown's time by requiring him/her to always question the
> previous royals edicts.  However, even convicts are allowed to amend
> their ways and obtain parole.  Should exiles who have committed less
> vile deeds be denied that chance?

It seems that you're suggesting that the "recourse for the banished
individual" be waiting for a more understanding king to come along.
This may be sufficient for reformed exiles, but what of those who
were unjustly banished?  However, I believe it has the virtue of
being similar to the recourse available in the Period.  I for one
don't think that reviewing the Crown's predecessor's edicts is a waste
of the Crown's time at all, but rather a power that the Crown should
enjoy.  Further, I think that these reviews, and the original edict,
should be carried out in court with the appropriate ceremony.

> Also, having the BOD review all banishments may seem to waste the
> BOD's time.  Conversely, I argue that banishments (ideally) should
> not occur with such frequency that the BOD is bothered by reviewing
> banishments.  And if that should occur because of a Crown fond of
> banishment that Crown can be removed for insufficient reason to issue
> a banishment.

Here I must disagree.  I favor saving the BOD as much time as possible.
I propose that a diffent body review banishments: the Barons and Shire-
Reeves who administer the regions affected.  Thus a subject who was
unjustly banished on a king's whim could still attend those events that
are not on the Royal Progress and are held in regions where the injustice
is known.  Contrariwise, a person manifestly in need of indefinite
banishment will be banished in resounding and repeated ceremonies echoing
throughout the land.

> As to my hint of moving banishment out of the Royals hands entirely,
> I mean giving it to the BOD.

Let me stress that I disagree with this particular suggestion.
However, on the whole, I agree with you.

-- Alfredo el Bufon
edh@ascc01.ascc.att.com