Official Execution Research Articles

Memorialization and Heritagization: Investigating the Site of the Last Execution by Hanging in Finland

This article focuses on the processes of memorialization and heritagization through a case study from Oulu, Finland, where a cast-iron rail encircling a pine tree constitutes a memorial marking the site of the country’s last official execution by hanging in 1916. The memorial and its immediate surroundings are examined here through historical documents and maps, tree-ring data, interviews, and the results of small-scale archaeological excavations. The evidence indicates various modes of interaction—crosses carved on the memorial tree, a magical cache, finds pertaining mainly to the consumption of intoxicating substances—exposing a lesser-known and more intimate side of the site biography than is evident from written records. Finally, both individual and national practices of remembering and forgetting related to the memorial highlight the way memorialization transformed the death of an ordinary man into a nationalistic symbol to be used and exploited in various quarters during the past century.

Hanging tree as a place of memories – Encounters at a 1916 execution site

ABSTRACTNear the city centre of Oulu in northern Finland, one comes across a peculiar monument: a pine tree turned into a memorial that marks the site of the last official execution by hanging in the country. Archaeological excavations took place at the hanging site in August 2014, not only to gather archaeological evidence on the history and use of the memorial, but also in order to offer people a way to share their memories and recollections of this rather unusual place. In this article we discuss the data gained from interviews (N = 20) conducted in connection with the excavations. The interpretation of the data shows that the hanging tree memorial has been and continues to be a place of both private and communal memories. It has been used for private gatherings and visits as well as for nationalistic purposes. The authenticity of this site as the actual place of hanging can be reasonably questioned, but the place is still important for local people.

The Impact on Enforcing Act and 2013 Criminal Procedures in the Summary Court Act to the Criminal Justice System

The purpose of this research is to study the impact on Enforcing Act and the 2013 Criminal Procedures in the Summary Court Act to the inquiry official, prosecutor, court and attorney under the justice agencies when enforcing such law. The study also examines the impact on rights protection for injured persons and offenders and the effectiveness of government enforcing laws as well as learning about problems and obstacles discovered during the process. The research was conducted through qualitative data. This required Focus group discussions twice with the inquiry officials and prosecutors and conducted in-depth interviews with the Inquiry Official Executive, Attorney General, Judge, Attorney, Injured Person and Offenders, selected 5 samples for each group. Moreover, data were gathered from literature. Research results showed that the impact from enforcing laws happened when the inquiry official must complete the deposition within the postpone prosecution period, considering as the legal right protection for the offender. When offender had been informed of all charges, the inquiry officials must deliver the deposition to the prosecutor to file such lawsuit within 48 hours or within the court permission. However, the inquiry officials was unable to complete the deposition on time. As a result, there was a huge backlog of unfinished depositions that required approval from the Attorney General. Regarding the effectiveness of law enforcement, this law had been applied with the small and uncomplicated cases and the offenders usually confessed to the crime. Problems and obstacles occurred when the inquiry officials submitted the petition to postpone prosecuting the offender who confessed to the crime, the court would accept such petition and the offender would be released without bail. If the inquiry official was unable to bring the offender to the court within the postpone time, he must seek permission from the Attorney General for prosecuting case. It is rather difficult to track down the offender to deliver on time to the prosecutor.

Official Executive Summary of an American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults.

This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

The End of Executive Dominance in State Appropriations

By the middle of the 20th century, governors dominated the state budgeting process (Anton, 1966, 34-35; Howard, 1973, 318; Sharkansky, 1968, 1231; Rosenthal, 1981, 299-300). Starting with a constitutional amendment in Maryland in 1916 (Willoughby, 1918), the introduction of the executive budget in the states gave governors the capacity to direct and control state financial matters (Schick, 1971, 18). By the decades of the 1950s and 1960s, most states had adopted the executive budget, giving governors a decided advantage in the appropriation process. Governors became the dynamic factor in state political systems while legislatures were inefficient and parochial (Moe, 1988, 18). The legislative dominance of the appropriations process in place in the 19th century had clearly come to an end. Our contention is that as the 20th century ends so has gubernatorial dominance of the state appropriations process. This article examines this decline, the reasons for it, and the consequences of it. Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures underwent a resurgence as they became more professional (Moe, 1988, 12). In a survey of state legislative and executive budget officials in 1982, Abney and Lauth (1987) found that gubernatorial dominance in the appropriations process was not as pronounced as might be expected. In that study, 52 of the officials surveyed reported the governor to be more influential compared to 38 who cited the legislature as more influential. In 14 states both legislative and executive officials identified the governor as more influential compared to nine states in which both officials said the legislature was more influential. In noting the surprising influence of the legislature, they cited the observation of Rosenthal (1981, 206) that legislatures came to the budgetary process far better prepared than in earlier years. Based on the results of a survey of state executive and legislative officials conducted in 1994, we find that this trend has continued and that gubernatorial dominance appears to be over. Altogether, in 1994 we received responses from 99 of the 100 chief executive and legislative budget officials; only the chief executive official in Massachusetts declined to participate. Of our 99 respondents, 36 indicated that the governor is more influential in the appropriations process, 32 cited the legislature as more influential, and 31 stated that they are about equal. Surprisingly, executive officials were not particularly more likely to perceive the governor as more influential than were legislative respondents (see Table 1). The similarity of the perceptions in regard to relative gubernatorial influence supports our conclusion that the dominance of the governor in the appropriations process documented at mid-century has ended. Table 1 Perceptions of Relative Gubernatorial Influence by Type of Budget Official Executive Legislative All Officers Officers Officers Relative Influence (N = 49) (N = 50) (N = 99) Governor is more influential 19 17 36 Influence is equal 15 16 31 Legislature is more influential 15 17 32 The respondents were asked the following question: In comparing the influence of the governor and the legislature, who has the greater influence? (A) The governor has greater influence; (B) the influence of each is about the same; or (C) the legislature has greater influence. As seen in Table 2, combining the perceptions of the two respondents from each state gives further evidence of this parity. When we averaged the observations of both officials from the same state, the two officials in 22 states either leaned toward the governor or both cited the governor as more influential. Officials in 20 states either leaned toward the legislature or both cited the legislature as more influential. …