Definition
De Frangentibus Prisonam (Latin: "concerning those that break prison") is the name and identifying title of the English statute enacted under Edward II (1 Edw. II, st. 2), which reformed the punishment for prison breach. Before this statute, breaking out of prison was potentially a capital offense regardless of what the prisoner had originally been charged with. The statute curtailed that severity by providing that no person should suffer judgment of life or limb for breaking prison alone — unless the underlying offense for which the prisoner was originally taken and imprisoned was itself one that would carry such a judgment upon lawful conviction.
In practical terms: a prisoner held on a minor charge who escaped could no longer be hanged or mutilated simply for the escape. But a prisoner held on a capital charge who broke prison remained exposed to the full punishment if subsequently convicted of the underlying offense.
Common Confusion
De Frangentibus Prisonam is sometimes loosely conflated with the common law offense of prison breach or escape, but it is not itself the offense — it is the statute that modified the punishment for that offense. The distinction matters when researching pre- versus post-statute treatment of prison break in English common law sources.
Why It Matters in Research
This term functions almost exclusively as a statute identifier. Researchers encountering the phrase in historical sources are being directed to a specific legislative instrument, not a common law doctrine or a term of art with ongoing judicial gloss. Key research considerations:
First, the statute's significance is largely retrospective — it appears in treatise literature and historical legal commentary rather than in active judicial decisions. It is a landmark in the gradual rationalization of English criminal punishment, and sources discussing it typically do so in the context of the history of prison breach, escape, and the felony classification of offenses.
Second, confusion about the regnal date of the statute appears in the source materials themselves (see Historical Dictionary Support below). Researchers must verify citations carefully when tracking this statute through secondary sources, as a transcription error in one authoritative dictionary appears to have introduced a discrepancy.
Third, this statute is directly relevant to the broader corpus of English criminal law history, particularly the development of the offense of prison breach (evasion, escape) and how English law distinguished between the act of escape and the underlying offense. Researchers working on the history of imprisonment, custodial law, or proportionality in criminal punishment will encounter this statute as a baseline legislative moment.
Fourth, the statute's principle — that punishment should be proportionate to the underlying charge, not simply to the act of escape — anticipates broader proportionality doctrines that recur across centuries of criminal law development. Drawing that conceptual thread requires locating this statute correctly in the timeline.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries agree on the substance: De Frangentibus Prisonam is the name of a statute of Edward II that abolished capital punishment for the standalone act of prison breach, preserving severity only where the original imprisonment was for a capital offense.
There is, however, a notable discrepancy in the regnal citation. Black's Law Dictionary (1st edition) and Burrill both cite the statute as 1 Edw. II. Rapalje & Lawrence cite it as 1 Ed. II, st. 2 — the most specific and likely most accurate form, identifying both the regnal year and the statute number within that session. Black's Law Dictionary (2nd edition) departs from all others by citing 1 Edw. III — a different king entirely. This appears to be a transcription or typographic error in the 2nd edition, as the statute is historically and consistently attributed to Edward II, not Edward III. Researchers relying on the 2nd edition citation should treat that regnal date with caution and cross-reference against Burrill or Reeves' History of English Law.
All sources that provide secondary references point to two authorities: Reeves' History of English Law (cited variously as "2 Reeve, Eng. Law, 290") and Coke's Institutes (cited as "2 Inst. 589"). These are the appropriate treatise sources for a researcher seeking substantive historical commentary on the statute's scope and application.
None of the source dictionaries address what happened procedurally after the statute — that is, how courts actually adjudicated prison breach in the post-statute period, or how the statute interacted with evolving felony classifications. That gap means the dictionaries provide identification and basic rule, but not interpretive history.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Prison Breach; Escape (Criminal Law); English Criminal Statutes (Historical)