This would likely mostly depend on who killed whom, and under which circumstances. The rank of both the perpetrators and the victim is quite important.
Yeah, that was what I thought, too. A wandering minstrel and jongleur was killed by the son of a respected man in town (among other people; it was a group event, to use the anachronistic expression), so...
'Summarily' executed would be illegal (not to say it never happened...) - there was supposed to be a trial conducted!
Your legal options could include: the assailants not being found guilty (for reasons that could be much the same as reasons in more modern times - lack of evidence [bearing in mind that of course they don't have forensic evidence per se - a lack of reliable eyewitnesses could do it), high social standing of the perpetrators vs. low standing of the victim, bribery or other pressure on the officials involved) or being convicted of a different charge. In fact, depending on how much later the victim died and how obvious it was that it was connected to their beating, I think assault might be a more likely charge.
For more colourful alternate options, you could have the criminals seek sanctuary in a church, run away and be declared outlaws, claim benefit of clergy, undergo a trial by ordeal or a trial by combat (if it's before 1166)...
My bad English, sorry; I meant judged by the sheriff and then hanged. In the Cadfael books it's an established fact that Sheriff Prestcote tended to be a just man, but a little... erm... hasty with hanging his murderers, while his successor, Hugh Beringar (who's the sheriff at the time my story takes place) more careful with his judgement.
Trial by jury was not the norm for criminal trials in the 12c, I believe, but it was one possibility -- but juries in that period were expected to be people who were already familiar with the pertinent facts and would apply that knowledge in their deliberations. That's one reason the decision of a jury was trusted to be the truth. (IOW, quite the opposite of the way modern juries are supposed to work
( ... )
The Gies book says that the town/city's provost was empowered to investigate, hold trial and even order torture to find out the truth when the crime had taken place within the walls. As my man was killed right before the town gates, I put the crime under the sheriff's jurisdiction and used the Welsh custom of blood price in the end, given that while Shrewsbury belonged to England, a great deal of the population was Welsh, and I assumed that it would be accepted by the people.
Weregild: The dead man was worth a monetary amount to his family. If the murderers pay this amount then the family has no right to pursue further justice.
Compurgation: If the accused can find a certain number of land-owing men to attest to his good character he can clear his name.
Thanks for the link; it seems an interesting book, I'll see whether someone can get it from me. It's not easy to get the really cool stuff here in Hungary, where I live.
Such things are possible? *is amazed* Shows how much - or how little - I know about all this Internet business. Then I'm even more grateful and will hop over and take a look. Thank you!
Try searching for "12th century trial by ordeal" or "trial by ordeal" in general. However, odds are they can die while they go through that.
Blood money was often used to settle feuds or to repay the victims family, but that may be dependent on the status of your character and the status of the victim. Maybe indentured servitude? I don't know.
Blood money seems similar to blood-price, which, according to Cadfael, was a time-honoured custom in Wales at that time. And since they're really close to the Welsh border, I think I may take some creative licence and assume that some of the customs found their way over the border. Thanks for the suggestion.
Yeah, trial by order was not a safe way to find out the truth.
Comments 23
Reply
Reply
Your legal options could include: the assailants not being found guilty (for reasons that could be much the same as reasons in more modern times - lack of evidence [bearing in mind that of course they don't have forensic evidence per se - a lack of reliable eyewitnesses could do it), high social standing of the perpetrators vs. low standing of the victim, bribery or other pressure on the officials involved) or being convicted of a different charge. In fact, depending on how much later the victim died and how obvious it was that it was connected to their beating, I think assault might be a more likely charge.
For more colourful alternate options, you could have the criminals seek sanctuary in a church, run away and be declared outlaws, claim benefit of clergy, undergo a trial by ordeal or a trial by combat (if it's before 1166)...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Compurgation: If the accused can find a certain number of land-owing men to attest to his good character he can clear his name.
From "The History of England from the Earliest Times to the Norman Conquest", page 226 and onwards. http://books.google.com/books?id=wUkNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=wergild+norman&source=bl&ots=HEqSylMAHL&sig=BU3SVXfSOoPEwhGfT5BM49TBqJo&hl=en&ei=YdQSTfzfMoissAOc3ZzOAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wergild%20norman&f=false
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Blood money was often used to settle feuds or to repay the victims family, but that may be dependent on the status of your character and the status of the victim. Maybe indentured servitude? I don't know.
Reply
Yeah, trial by order was not a safe way to find out the truth.
Reply
Leave a comment