:rolleyes:
Which is unfortunately, not what I said. I pointed out, that despite your assertion that it was the phrase and the concept was already well known in English Law and precedent. Furthermore, unlike your later claim that it was no longer in force by 1787, I pointed out that it has been on the books continuously since then.
The point is that long term incarceration - locked up, jut sitting around - is a relatively new concept. People who offended and got something other than death or mutilation/torture got to become productive members of society - such as slaves in the salt mines. The main reason for this was because people cost money to feed; in these days of plenty, we forget that food was the major expense for many lower class members of society.
Prison was just somewhere to park someone until they decided what to do with them - decide guilt, assign sentence.
As usual, nobles were treated differently. Unlike peasants, they were kept locked up because punishments like death or banishment were not appropriate. It was more to keep control of the prisoner, rather than a specific time sentence.
What we now call “specific deterrence”. IOW “You, specifically, are being deterred from doing <whatever> again because of the cage we’re now keeping you, specifically, inside of.”
Agree with the rest of your post. And that a lot of what historically happened to nobles would today be called them being “political prisoners” rather than “criminals”. It’s still incarceration and it still sucks for the incarceree.
‘Pay to Stay’ ? Tennessee? Ohio? Or perhaps like Seal Beach, California? http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pay-to-stay-jails/