I understand that the “Riot Act” was an old British law from the 1700s that was read out loud to a group that was being unruly, in an attempt to get them to disperse and stop being unruly.
How did it go from this to something that’s used in terms of a personal slap down? For example:
“He was acting like a jerk, so I read him the Riot Act.” Meaning, “I lectured him sternly, and at length about his boorish behavior.”
To my mind, the current usage doesn’t follow from the original use. Can somebody explain this to me like I’m a six-year old?
Not sure why it would be confusing to you that the phrase would go from meaning an act taken against an unruly crowd to an act taken against an unruly person. Seems like a pretty straightforward linguistic path.
I think it’s the “at length” part that I don’t get. When you read someone the Riot Act, you’re usually going on and on. In the olden days, it was just a paragraph, and then the shooting began.
Seems a tad harsh. Has anyone ever actually been charged under this code (as opposed to something relatively trivial like trespassing or disturbing the peace)?
Basically, yes, except that it was a legal requirement to read the Act aloud before dispersing the unruly mob - it was a formal reading, not just “Go home or we’ll shoot”, and did take time. After the Act had been read and if the mob remained undispersed, the forcible dispersing would begin - and forcible it was; there was often a good deal of violence involved, up to and including shooting. Particularly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Riot Act was often invoked against striking workers {or rioting mobs, depending on which side you were on} in the nascent labour movements of the time.
tryout1: Maximum sentences are exceedingly rare in Canadian law. ‘Imprisonment for life’ means 25 years at the most, but someone convicted of rioting would probably be imprisoned for a couple years.
I wonder if anyone’s ever tried to defend a charge of rioting by arguing they didn’t understand what was meant by ‘immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations’. I assume that an explanation would also be given in simpler terms.
I’m not well-versed in Canadian criminal code. Would this also mean 25 years is the maximum a person would serve for murder? Or is that for this violation only?
Well, the use of “may” indicates that’s the maximum available. There’s no minimum, so a person convicted under this section could get a much lighter sentence, like probation or a conditional sentence. I remember one case about 20 years ago where a local mayor did read the riot act to a group of extremely rowdy people at a resort; don’t know if any charges resulted.
I agree that maximum sentences are rare, but disagree that “life” means 25 years at most. That’s the period of parole ineligiblity for first degree murder, but it doesn’t mean that an individual convicted of first degree murder automatically gets out after 25 years. They have to apply to the parole board. Some may make parole, others may not, depending on the facts of their case, what they’ve done in jail by way of rehab or treatment, and so on. Personally, I can’t imagine Bernardo or Olsen ever making parole. And even if a murder convict makes parole, it doesn’t mean they’re completely free - they’re under the parole board supervision for the rest of their life, and can be re-jugged quickly for a breach of parole.
The 25 year period doesn’t have any application to other life sentences, such as the life sentence for second degree murder (which has a parole ineligibility of 10 years minimum), or a life sentence for manslaughter (which is very rare).
Interesting info, all. Do I take that people disagree with my thinking that when you currently read the Riot Act to someone, it’s a lengthy dressing down, as opposed to one paragraph?
This is fairly close to on-target. However, an officer of the law was quite well empowered to break up an unruly crowd – say two men getting into a fight, and a group of onlookers gathering to watch and egg them on – without use of the Riot Act. Disobedience of such a lawful order to disperse was a misdemeanor with a very light sentence. When you got the big crowds – “unruly mobs” as specified here, with what might be seditious intent – reading of the proclamation specified in the Riot Act – which came to be shortened to “reading them the Riot Act” – converted this low-grade misdemeanor into the felony crime specified in the Act, because they were now failing to comply with a lawful order issued in the King’s name, for which the penalty was specified in the Act.
Yeah, I’ve always considered “reading the riot act” (without the capitals) to be indicative of the severity of the dressing-down, not the length. Of course, the two are often correlated.