Uh...wait a minute. Killing pirates is _bad_?

The recent Pirates of the Caribbean movie starts out with a depiction of the ruthless tactics used to suppress piracy in the 18th century. We’re supposed to hiss and boo that the eeeevil authorities are hanging people for siding with those freedom-loving freebooters.

But wait a minute. Yes, in retrospect it’s possible to romanticize the buccaneers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Spain was the bully of both the New World and Europe. Re-plundering gold and silver that were already plundered by the Spanish didn’t seem so wrong. And the loose coalition of escaped slaves, gentleman privateers and unauthorized settlers can be thought of quasi-anarchist rebels against Spanish hegemony.

But by the beginning of the eighteenth century Spanish power was largely broken, and the governments of the region had an interest in stability and peaceful commerce. The old style buccaneers, to whatever extent that’s a valid concept, were replaced by murderous out and out sea bandits like Blackbeard. Moreover you had entire communities that regarded plundering as simply a way of life, like in Peter Benchley’s The Island.

In fact, the British authorities did use Guantanamo tactics to suppress piracy. They summarily hanged without trial anyone who was openly and notoriously known as a pirate. They regarded as accessories to murder anyone who received stolen property or aided and abetted wanted men. It was ruthless and often unjust, but no more so than the pirates themselves. It’s similar to the way that wild west outlaws or 1930s bank robbers were put down without mercy by the authorities.

Much as we like to fantisize about outlaws or pirates as foes of suffocating authority, the fact is the world we live in- largely safe, peaceful and prosperous- is the direct result of eliminating them.

Piracy and theft by nations=good
Theft by people=bad

As an aside, I noted in the film that for once it wasn’t the British but the East India Company that was acting as “bad guys”, sort of a vague relief for the country in Hollywood :wink:

What makes you think that the only way to have put an end to piracy was to eliminate all civil rights and let various officials kill everyone they did not like? (Presuming, of course, that that actually occurred on a large scale.)

To take your 1930s bank robber examples, a study of the actual period would find that rather few bank robbers were simply gunned down where they were discovered. The ambushes of Bonnie and Clyde and of John Dillinger were actually notorious for their rarity, not for their example of good law enforcement. On the other hand, there were other people who were gunned down by police or given kangaroo court trials to make society “safe”–union organizers and members of political minorities. So while we had (some representatives) of the government ignoring the niceties of the law to eliminate one variety of (well-known, but not particularly dangerous to the overall society) criminals, we had the same government abusing that power to make sure that the poor were not able to take part in society.

It should also be pointed out for those who did not notice, that it was not the Crown that was carrying out its depredations on the poor in the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie; it was the privately held East India Company–an organization that became so corrupt in making itself de facto government throughout what would later become the British Empire, that finally the British government had to suppress it.

Was that legal? I recall the scene in the first PotC movie where Commodore Norrington, immediately upon identifying Jack Sparrow, orders him hanged – and Governor Swann, the enforcer of British law in this port, is standing right there and makes no objection. I found that hard to swallow. Anne Bonny and Mary Read got a trial.

Actually, he identified him as a known pirate first, by his brand, then we was ordered hanged by Governor Swann. Then he was identified at Jack Sparrow.

So it wasn’t so much his reputation as his criminal record that got him condemed.

Still, under British and American law you can’t condemn someone just for being a known criminal. You have to produce evidence to prove his guilt in some specific crime. Everybody knew Al Capone was a criminal, but he was left free to run his operation until the Feds could find a charge – tax evasion – that they could prove in court.

I could stand a cite on this. Although my reading on pirates is somewhat limited, I cannot recall an instance of summary execution. Kidd was tried, Bonnet was tried, Calico Jack was tried. Pirates were hanged by the bushelful in London, after trial.

Mind you, the thrust of your OP - that pirates were not good people - I agree with, but extra-judicial measures by the authorities were not the norm with pirates, anymore than with outlaws or bank robbers.

I think you have to remember the provenance of the PotC movies, as well. These are Disney pirates, as in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, the famous ride at the theme parks with the rollicking, fun-loving pirates singing wholesome if slightly risque songs and having a great time with the locals.

Not good, perhaps, but some could fairly be described as victims of circumstances. From the Wikipedia:

“Theft” by nations usually takes the form of “taxes” or “tarrifs”. Unlike theft by private citizens or privateers (pirates in the employ of a country) which is random and arbitrary, taxes are generally applied in a specific manner as dictated by the law of the land.
The reason we boo and hiss the English Empire (other than being somewhere between Nazis and Soviet Union as most common movie villain) in the PofC movies is that Capt Jack (the most common Captain’s name as far as I know) and friends are portrayed as lovably rogueish anti-heros. PotC isn’t supposed to be a historically accurate tale of pirate life (yo ho).

It’s kind of like mafia movies. Really you shouldn’t be rooting for any of them since they are dangerous criminals.

I couldn’t find a specific cite, other than several references to pirates being considered “hostis humani generis”: the enemies of all mankind. Sort of the “unlawful combatants” of their day. And I think many pirates did receive a trial of sorts but it was what was called a “drumhead” trial: pretty much the presiding magistrate repeating “guilty, hang him, next”.

Piracy was a big problem, and while I morally oppose the death penalty history is what history is. The world was a tough place back then (and this wasn’t that long ago) pirates knew the risks going in, pirates frequently murdered the crews of merchant ships they would capture. Pirates were essentially the muggers of the sea, and like muggers sometimes they killed the people they robbed for little to no reason other than it was expedient and beneficial to do so.

Be that as it may, while justice was swift and harsh for pirates, I’ve never heard that the general practice was to kill them without trial. I know a great many were carted back to the UK in chains, many were also killed actively fighting the Royal Navy. I imagine it’s certainly possible that some local magistrates or governors, or East India Company managers, acting outside the boundaries of the normal law at that time may have executed some pirates without trial.

Which, for argument purposes, didn’t terribly differ from the trial of any felony offender of the day. The “enemy of mankind” thing was to solve jurisdictional problems - any nation could try pirates no matter where they were caught. That’s sort of similar to terrorists today, except, of course, that pirates were actually tried.

If you’re being funny with this line of thought you’re being pretty funny. If you’re being serious then you’re being riotously funny. I’m pretty sure it was a movie.

I didn’t have as much issue with the obvious liberties taken in regards to maritime law of the 18th century as much as the depictions of voodoo-cursed undead fish-men who sail in ghost ships. I’m relatively sure they were strictly Pacific-dwelling.

The fantasies of the poor and disenchanted that their lot is the direct result of institutional oppression (bad government and naughty corporations) will always play well as romanticized story-telling.

Robin Hood, and all that.

There are quite a few inconsistencies in POC. I have assumed the story is simply substrate for the cool special effects and not an attempt at coherency…did I miss something?

This is a kind and forgiving view of the history of nation-states. :slight_smile:

Sailboat

Are you asking us whether it’s wrong to romanticize pirates? We all know they were murdering bastards, but you have to admit that the movie was FUN. Isn’t that the point of it?

Sure, the modern world is a safe and comfortable place to live, but it’s a pretty boring setting for a story.

Right. That is why 24, Alias, Air Force One, all the Bourne movies, and dozens of other shows are all set in the eighteenth centiury. :smiley: