Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Trial by ordeal was an ancient judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused (called a "proband" [1]) was determined by subjecting them to a painful, or at least an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience.
The ordeal had to be overseen by a priest at a place designated by the bishop. The most common forms in England were ordeal by hot iron and ordeal by water. [67] Before a defendant was put through the ordeal, the plaintiff had to establish a prima facie case under oath. The plaintiff was assisted by his own supporters or "suit", who might act ...
Compurgation, also called trial by oath, wager of law, and oath-helping, was a defence used primarily in medieval law.A defendant could establish his innocence or nonliability by taking an oath and by getting a required number of persons, typically twelve, to swear they believed the defendant's oath.
Guelf. 3.1 Aug. 2° of the Sachsenspiegel, fol. 19v. The ordeal (judicium Dei "judgment of God") was a method used to cause God to reveal the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. It relied on the notion that God would intervene in the world to prevent the condemnation of an innocent person. [125]
The Church banned participation of clergy in trial by ordeal in 1215. Without the legitimacy of religion, trial by ordeal collapsed. The juries under the assizes began deciding guilt as well as providing accusations. The same year, trial by jury became a fairly explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King ...
The only trial available to the defendant remained the traditional trial by ordeal, specifically in the Assize of Clarendon, "the ordeal of water". [2] Nevertheless, Henry did not put much faith in the results of the ordeal. The unfortunate felon who was convicted through the ordeal was typically executed.
In Anglo-Saxon law, corsned (OE cor, "trial, investigation", + snǽd, "bit, piece"; Latin panis conjuratus), also known as the accursed or sacred morsel, or the morsel of execration, was a type of trial by ordeal that consisted of a suspected person eating a piece of barley bread and cheese totalling about an ounce in weight and consecrated with a form of exorcism as a trial of his innocence.
Other forms of trial by ordeal vanished during the centuries before cruentation's demise, precisely because they (hubristically) effected divine judgement. [ 10 ] Cruentative procedures became increasingly stringent, [ 11 ] and in 1545, Antonius Blancus was the first to question the reliability of cruentation as a practice. [ 12 ]