A couple centuries ago, under British law there was a charge called “MP”, which stood for “Majesty’s pleasure”. It was a criminal charge for which the accused could be jailed, and for which there was really no defense. The accused was dragged from his home and put in jail, then told his charge was “MP”. This meant that he was locked up because ‘it pleases his/her majesty that you be locked up’. It sounds as f~~~ed up as it was, but that’s what it was. Unless the king or queen who issued the charge signed a letter stating that it pleased them that you be released, the length of sentence was indeterminate. The accused remained locked up until it pleased the king or queen that the he be released. That was the degree of power that the crown held over the subjects. If it pleased her majesty that you be locked up, all she had to do was say so. No crime committed. No defense. No due process. No trial. No appeal. No limit to the length of the sentence.
Sound familiar?
Here’s an excerpt from the wikipedia historical description of “Majesty’s Pleasure”…
Incarceration[edit]
The term is used to describe detention in prison for an indefinite length of time;[3] a judge may rule that a person be “detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure” for serious offences or based on a successful insanity defence.[4] This is sometimes used where there is a great risk of re-offending; however, it is most often used for juvenile offenders, usually as a substitute for life sentencing (which would naturally be much longer for younger offenders). For example, Britain’s Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states: “Where a person convicted of murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.”[5]
Prisoners held at Her Majesty’s pleasure are frequently reviewed to determine whether their sentence can be deemed complete; although this power traditionally rested with the monarch, such reviews are now made by others—the Home Secretary in Britain, for instance. Minimum terms are also set, before which the prisoner cannot be released; in Britain, these were originally set by the Home Secretary, but since 30 November 2000 have been set by the trial judge.[6] Prisoners’ sentences are typically deemed to be complete when the reviewing body is “satisfied that there has been a significant change in the offender’s attitude and behaviour.”[6]
Notice that the description specifies that a judge, acting on his/her majesty’s behalf, can issue the order.
The average Brit’s I’ve known have been some pretty good people. But is it any wonder that their monarch based system of government has been kicked out of just about every country in the world where it was once practiced? But don’t worry. The idea of that s~~~’s not dead yet. It’ll be appearing soon in a family court system near you. the only difference will be that the initials will change from “MP” to “DA”.
You want to marry or co-habitate with a woman? You better make sure you got the right ‘attitude and behavior’ to please her more by cohabitation with her than it will please her to have your ass locked up. It may only require one phone call, but that’s not the limit. She is free to make that call over and over and over… until she is “satisfied that there has been a significant change in your attitude and behavior…”.
Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you
MgtowWave 1 year, 11 months ago.
