Talk:Peine forte et dure

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

oppression[edit]

Is this practice part of the etymology of the term oppression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure this is peine forte et dure? In modern French, fort takes an e after a feminine noun such as peine (just as dur does), but in Old French (which this is derived from) fort was invariable for gender, as in modern Spanish and Italian. So, shouldn't this be peine fort et dure? I have seen in spelt thus. Chamaeleon 23:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The phrase (as indicated) is in Law French, hence why it doesn't conform to any French standard, old or new. It may be that the Anglo Norman language did allow such marking on fort. I wouldn't worry about it to be honest. Oswax 07:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that it was "abolished in the United Kingdom in 1772". Surely there was no such thing as the UK in 1772. Where exactly was it abolished? Bluewave 08:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are strictly correct, it was more properly "abolished in the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1772" - but it remains abolished in the successor state the United Kingdom.

I have added a link under 'See Also' to Asphyxia. As described, peine forte et dure causes death by asphyxia, not by trauma. There may be injury to the chest of the victim, such as rib fractures, but these are not going to be the cause of death. Rather, the victim will die because they are unable to expand the thoracic cavity sufficiently to ventilate, i.e., to move air in and out to oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide. I'd suggest deleting Crush syndrome because it's not relevant, but I will leave it to others, because I'm an anon user who edits rarely, and I don't feel I have the status to do that.

Incidentlaly, this entire article is repeated in the body of Crushing (execution). That can't be right.173.49.247.50 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

I propose that this article should be merged with Execution by pressing. I don't see why we need two articles on the same subject. TheMadBaron 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. While in some places and times it seems to have been very close to a method of execution it was generally it was a form of torture, with the aim of forcing the accused to recognize the court by making a plea.

References: Link problem[edit]

I tried to look up one of the references, the one one about Ms.McKenzie article. The link did not lead to the article. Should we edit it?JMChaleat (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]