Self Informing In Medieval England Essay
Self-Informing Juries of Medieval England The juries of Medieval England were reliant on a system of evidence gathering that was quite subjective. They were required to be self-informing. This meant that the jurors were forced to investigate the crimes themselves. Being self-informing was a crucial aspect of the power that juries held over the interpretation and punishments of crimes. If a juror knew the defendant, he may have been more likely to be more lenient in both conviction and sentencing. This essentially negated the role of the judge in the courts of medieval England. This is noted by historian John H. Langbein when he discusses the role of the jury in medieval English law. He wrote, “At trial, the judges took verdicts about which
…show more content…
Crimes that jurors believed to necessitate a more thorough investigation would be investigated for a longer period of time. The jurors essentially determined the level of detail of the investigation. This gave the jury the ability to make a personal decision of guilt or innocence based on how they felt about the accused. Langbein continues, writing, “In an eerie way, therefore, adjudication in Chancery wound up replacing the fundamental failing of common law procedure: Chancery procedure isolated the judge from the facts. Delegation of functions by an overburdened Chancellor came to have much of the same effect that bifurcation had produced in medieval common law. other were systems of adjudication in which the judge was unable to adjudicate fact.” The judge virtually held no power in a system with a self-informed jury. Therefore, the juries of medieval England were able to decide for themselves the guilt or innocence of the accused based purely on their understanding of right and wrong, as well as their understanding of the law itself. In this sesne, juries were able to determine to society which crimes were more likely to get harsher punishments. This, in turn, led to a set of social norms that was
Crimes that jurors believed to necessitate a more thorough investigation would be investigated for a longer period of time. The jurors essentially determined the level of detail of the investigation. This gave the jury the ability to make a personal decision of guilt or innocence based on how they felt about the accused. Langbein continues, writing, “In an eerie way, therefore, adjudication in Chancery wound up replacing the fundamental failing of common law procedure: Chancery procedure isolated the judge from the facts. Delegation of functions by an overburdened Chancellor came to have much of the same effect that bifurcation had produced in medieval common law. other were systems of adjudication in which the judge was unable to adjudicate fact.” The judge virtually held no power in a system with a self-informed jury. Therefore, the juries of medieval England were able to decide for themselves the guilt or innocence of the accused based purely on their understanding of right and wrong, as well as their understanding of the law itself. In this sesne, juries were able to determine to society which crimes were more likely to get harsher punishments. This, in turn, led to a set of social norms that was