The Governor Punishes Petty Offenders The methods used by the governor to judge and punish petty criminals is not absolutely clear from the documents. For offenses like street fighting, drunkenness, or petty thievery, litigations were seldom formalized, and only a few clues are available to indicate how such cases were handled. Generally, however, it appears that the governor followed this pattern. He himself acted as the chief judicial officers and carried out a variety of tasks. He investigated the crime, took testimony from witnesses, heard the defendant, and passed judgment. If he found the accused guilty, he levied a fine, imposed a prison sentence, administered corporal punishment, condemned the offender to hard labor, or banished him from the colony. For such criminals there were no appeals, either to the Audiencia of Santo Domingo or to the Council of the Indies. [Note: Because there were no appeals from cases tried in the governor’s summary court, there was no elaborate documentation submitted to higher judicial bodies from which to determine the exact methods and procedure used by the governor.] This military summary court-martial was entirely compatible with the governor’s experience and training. Using the military style of justice, he stayed on familiar ground where he was not likely to become confounded by civilian legal procedures. He did not have to draw up a great mass of certified documents, nor did he have to press his unwilling soldiers into service in an unfamiliar courtroom. Since trial proceedings were seldom recorded, there was little danger that the governor’s superiors would question his methods or his decisions. He thus found the summary court convenient, safe, time-saving, and inexpensive. It also allowed his biases and prejudices free reign. Capriciously he could dismiss or ignore those cases and crimes involving friends and vindictively incriminate and condemn his enemies, although this was not common in Saint Augustine. Evidence on the type and severity of sentences imposed on petty offenders is scanty, but it appears that each governor punished these criminals at his own discretion. Fines, for example, varied greatly from governor to governor. Between 1690 and 1707 (a period for which there are records), treasury officials collected 1,436 pesos. [Note: royal officials of FL to king 10/29/1708] Over two-thirds of this amount, however, was for two large fines—one for 687 pesos and the other for 372 pesos. Twelve other fines totaled only 367 pesos, an average of little more than 30 pesos. Twelve other fines totaled only 367 pesos, an average of little more than 30 pesos per criminal or 20 pesos a year for the 18-year period audited. [Note: Royal officials of FL to king 10/13/1708] On the other hand, in his three-year tenure as governor, Moral Sanchez collected 1,693 pesos, an average of 565 pesos a year. This is 28 times greater than the yearly average for the period 1690-1707, indicating that both the amount and the number of fines depended upon the governor in office. To what extent the governor imposed corporal punishment, exile, or imprisonment is again not clear. Imprisonment of petty criminals evidently was rare; only one such case emerges from the documents in the 18th century. In the fall of 1752... ...The governor also used the summary court to dispense justice to second-class citizens—Negroes, Indians, and forced laborers. Sentences imposed on second-class citizens in summary court usually bore little relation to the crime committed. ...The summary court thus served the governor in two ways—to judge petty offenders to deal with Negroes, forced laborers, and Indians. It was convenient and workable and enabled him to proceed in the military style with which he was familiar. It meant, however, that there was no established pattern of justice for petty criminals or second-class citizens, who were completely at the governor’s mercy. He was supreme and his decisions were final; fair administration of justice depended solely upon his fancies. (Tepaske GSF)