Talk:Official Table of Drops

We need more information on this. - ConradKilroy, 20 November 2005, 10:31 AM EST

Current use

I'm not sure if it was appropriate to single out Singapore, but I really don't know how widely this is still used. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if this sort of thing was still current in most former British colonies that haven't abolished the death penalty, and probably in a few other countries as well. Does anyone have sources on this?--Pharos 08:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Units

I can wirte basic text to Wikipedia, but I am no master in templates or tables. So, could someone add metric units to the table?

Conflicting source

[1] gives a very different drop table, with 1892 drops being shorter than the 1913 ones. --SLi 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weird. That page was actually the source I used in creating the current table. The Wayback Machine seems to show that the author has changed his text since the version I last read. Presumably he found a better source? (The info was apparently changed in March 2006.) I guess we should follow him.--Pharos 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Table of drops

The official table of drops was originally brought about by experimentation by William Marwood following his reading of a theory developed by two Irish doctors(names not known by me). It was first intended to produce a striking force of 1260 foot/lbs and arrived by:

1,260 foot lbs/weight of prisoner (lbs) = length of drop (feet). 

After numerous incidences of strangulation(drop too short) or decapitation (drop too long) the formula was reviewed in 1913 to: 1,000 foot lbs/weight of prisoner = length of drop. In addition after 1913 various other phsysical variables were taken into account aswell (such as physical build inches could mean the difference between a strong neck or a weak one) also prisoners height.

John Lee

John Lee's failed execution brought about the revision of a standardised gallows design and did not in any way contribute to the development of the long drop as "standard drops" (drops between 4-6 feet) were already being experimented with at the time.(Olaf1 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Some other data?

Someone added the following data. Since they obviously didn't know how to format it (it lines up ok in the source) it was just making a mess at the bottom of the article. I'm moving it here in case anybody wants to reformat and reinstate it.

Review: Weight in Drop Weight in Drop Pounds Distance Pounds Distance

120 or less........8' 1" 170................6' 0" 125................7'10" 175................5'11" 130................7' 7" 180................5' 9" 135................7' 4" 185................5' 7" 140................7' 1" 190................5' 6" 145................6' 9" 195................5' 5" 150................6' 7" 200................5' 4" 155................6' 6" 205................5' 2" 160................6' 4" 210................5' 1" 165................6' 2" 220 and over.......5' 0" Source for change: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003542.html Which one is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.127.58 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There are more tables than just one

First of all: The first man in Great Britain to write down how much (long) drop he thought necessary, was Prof. Samuel Haughton, in 1866. He came up with 2,240 lbs (a ton) of momentum, and gave the formula "2240 divided by the prisoner's weight (in his clothes) in pounds = length of drop in feet". At that time, William Calcraft dropped his customers between 1 and 3 feet, but in Ireland drop lengths up to 17 feet were in use.

On 10 December 1875, there was a meeting of the Surgical Society in Dublin where Haughton gave an address on the subject. Several of those present were gaol surgeons with experience in hangings, and they agreed on two points: That the knot should be under the chin, and that the drop should be 8 feet as a rule. (Source: Minutes of Evidence of the Capital Sentences Committee [=Aberdare Committee], 1888; Paragraph 1-2; evidence by S. Haughton. See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/expedientes/DERYK.PDF - page 17/18 of the PDF).

At that time, William Marwood had already succeeded W. Calcraft, and used the long drop. Nobody knows where he got this idea from. Haughton said before the Committee (paragraph 7 / page 18 of the PDF) that Marwood must have read the results of that meeting in Dublin in 1875, and adopted them, but he is mistaken. At the time when that meeting was held, Marwood had already been using the long drop for quite some time (his first long drop hanging was in 1872).

Nobody knows Marwood's drop table, just that his drop lengths were between 6 and 10 feet.

When Marwood died in 1883, he was replaced by one Bartholomew Binns who used the long drop as well, but was an awful bungler. His Table of Drops, if he had any, is unknown.

Binns' successor was James Berry who had known Marwood and had received some instruction from him. Berry wrote, after he had resigned from office in 1892, his "My Experiences as an Executioner" (https://archive.org/details/MyExperiencesAsAnExecutioner). In that book, he gives TWO Tables of Drops: One which he claims to have used until 1885 (page 31), and one which he claims to have used after the execution accident at Norwich, where he decapitated Robert Goodale by too long a drop (page 34). This second ToD is to be found as well in Charles Duff's "Handbook on Hanging" [ISBN 1-84588-141-9] in the appendix, but the typesetter made a mess of it - it is not a precise copy of Berry's.

Goodale's decapitation, the failure to hang John Lee at Exeter, and some more bungled hangings, accompanied by Berry's habit of showing the tools of his trade around in public houses, led to furious questions in the Commons, and in due course to the Capital Sentences Committee being installed by the Secretary of State. They published their Report in 1888, and this report in fact suggested the use of a Table of Drops which was based on 1,260 ft-lbs.

I do not have proof that this table was ever actually adopted in an official way. But in 1892, when Berry was out of office, the Home Office issued a different table, based on 840 ft-lbs of energy.

As can be seen from the execution data as published in contemporary newspapers, and as laid down in the so-called LPC4-sheets (a form to be filled in after every execution and to be (a) kept in the prison and (b) sent to the Home Office) which are published meanwhile for quite a number of cases (e.g. in Stewart McLaughlin, Execution Suite, published by HMP Wandsworth), the hangmen did not stick to this table but awarded drops in the region of 1,000 to 1,100 ft-lbs, or more.

In 1913, the Home Office issued a new table, based on 1,000 ft-lbs.

As can be gathered from surviving notes taken by hangman trainees during their course, from 1939 on there was an addition of nine inches to all drops taken from the 1913 table.

This was the last "state of the art" until hanging ceased in Great Britain.

In December 1947, the US "Department of the Army" issued pamphlet no. 27-4 "Procedure for Military Executions" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/procedure_dec-1947.pdf) where in Section III 16.j (page 14) a Table of Drops is given which differs from the British one in that it provides for between 970 (for people weighing 120 lbs or less) and 1100 ft-lbs (weight 220 lbs and more).

This US-Army table is precisely the same as the one which Fred A. Leuchter "borrowed" for the "Delaware Hanging Protocol" and to which the link in section "Some other data" of this talk page points.

There are indeed jurisdictions on this planet where British-style long drop hanging is still in use; Singapore comes to mind, but also Kuweit. I do not know which "Table" they are using there. The hangings in Iraq (Saddam Hussein etc.) used American-style cowboy coil nooses - it would be logical to assume that they used an American "Table" as well.

I am aware that much of this looks like "original research" to WIKIPEDIANs and is therefore not fit to be used in articles. But I have quotables sources for much of it; was just too lazy to polish the article myself. But I wanted to help sorting out some confusion and will, of course, be happy to answer any questions.--Kauko56 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The "Original" data in the table is linear; so i don't think its based around a specific momentum value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F036:8F01:1D4F:A541:BECD:2D41 (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Official Table of Drops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60oeEquYX to http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/hanging2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)