Our judicial system is based on two main objectives: punish a wrongdoer for his crime; and deter others from similar acts by making punishments public, either in fact or by report. In European societies of two centuries and more ago, the wearing of a sword was the mark of a man of honor—a gentleman. Officers of armies and navies were considered to be members of this class and so wore swords on formal occasions and when going into battle.
A naval officer accused of a crime, including the loss of his ship to the enemy under any circumstance, was ordered to trial by court-martial. The court was composed of five or more officers equal to or senior in rank to the accused. This court acted as judge, prosecutor, and jury.
Upon the convening of the court, the accused officer was required to deliver his sword to the president of the court, who had it placed in plain view on the table behind which the court members sat and parallel to its long axis, a visible reminder to all present that an officer’s status as a man of honor was in question. It remained there throughout the proceedings as evidence was gathered and witnesses were heard. It still was there when the court cleared to deliberate and reach a verdict.
When the court reconvened to announce its verdict, the sword was an immediate herald of the outcome: if the accused was found not guilty, it would be seen resting hilt toward the accused, ready for him to take it up and resume his position as an officer and a gentleman, without prejudice. Had he been found guilty, the sword would have been reversed: he would have “gotten the point.”