Scholars studying the application of capital punishment in the eighteenth century have focused on its different uses. Public executions often served as both a form of communal justice and a visible deterrent for the rest of the population. Thus, governments turned to these violent spectacles in order to curb criminal activities. This study argues that while eighteenth-century Pennsylvanians often employed the death penalty as a means of social control, it led to a number of contentious issues while they debated the justness of this sanction and who merited a death sentence. Over time, the application of the death penalty in Pennsylvania evolved, usually in response to specific events or ideological trends throughout the Atlantic world. This study examines the evolution of capital punishment throughout Pennsylvania from 1681 to 1794 with an emphasis on the developments after 1718. The Oyer and Terminer records, published archives, newspapers, and manuscript collections, which contain a wealth of evidence on the 384 individuals condemned to die between 1718 and 1794 as well as inconsistent application of the death penalty throughout this period as Pennsylvanians struggled to embrace this form of punishment.

Initially, William Penn limited the number of capital statutes in Pennsylvania because he sought to enact Quaker beliefs as the basis for the colony‘s legal code. However, fears of crime and the affirmation crisis led to an expansion of the capital statutes by 1718. Quaker magistrates continued to share Penn‘s reluctance to carry out death sentences because they typically preferred to extend mercy to the offenders instead. As Quaker control of the colony waned, the Pennsylvania Assembly expanded the number of capital statutes and became increasingly unwilling to extend mercy throughout the middle decades of the eighteenth century. Despite this harsh stance, officials often struggled to define who deserved to die because a range of factors such as local politics, developing economies, and the patronage of influential leaders allowed many individuals to escape the gallows. Pennsylvania officials generally refused to impose even more horrific punishments such as giving the condemned‘s body to the surgeons for dissection although this practice had gained acceptance in England. Finally, Pennsylvanians began to question the efficacy of capital punishment after the Revolutionary War, leading to the rise of the penitentiary movement. Even as state officials reduced the number of capital statutes, they continued to hang certain individuals who were deemed as unable to be rehabilitated and re-integrated into society.