0
What were two method for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages?
Wiki User
∙ 6y ago
Two methods were:
- trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a
dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and
- trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his
innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
Ramona Kling
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Common method of punishment for criminals?
jail
What was the primary punishment method for convicted war criminals?
Bullet to the brain
What is ordeal by fire?
Trial by Ordeal was a common method of establishing guilt or innocence in Church court cases under Canon Law and in certain cases under the king's law. The particular Ordeal is not always recorded in the documents relating to trials (only whether the accused failed or passed) so we can not know which particular ordeals were used most frequently. The idea of any Trial by Ordeal was that God should be the judge, jury and witness; the ordeal was intended to allow God to intervene (or not) as He wished, thus indicating guilt or innocence. In one version of ordeal by fire, the accused person was blindfolded in a room with a stone floor. Red-hot scraps of iron (sometimes ploughshares) were then scattered about the floor and the accused had to cross the room without burning his/her feet. If he/she were innocent, God would direct his/her feet safely across - if not, the smell of burning flesh. In another version the accused had to grasp in one hand a piece of iron heated to red-hot. If the burns healed cleanly, the verdict would be "innocent". If there were any infection, then it was "guilty". The odds were always stacked heavily against anyone being declared innocent, whether in ordeal by fire or ordeal by water. The safest course was always to admit guilt from the outset and plead for mercy.
Why did the Romans use such an innumane method of killing the followers?
You would have to be more specific about who you mean as the followers. I can tell you that the Romans' method of killing, that seems so inhumane to us, was justified to them. Remember they lived in a different time and in a different culture. First of all they believed in making the punishment fit the crime as far as possible. For example, if a person was guilty of arson, he was burnt alive. If someone had murdered someone, he was given a sword and forced to fight other criminals in the arena, one after another, until he was finally dispatched. The executions were public executions, acting as a warning and possible deterrent to other would -be criminals.
What is the first method that can be used to change the constitution according to article 5?
the third method the 4th method
What were two methods for deciding the guilt of innocence of accused criminals in the Early method ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
Common method of punishment for criminals?
jail
Common method of punishment for criminals in colonial times?
Being pooped on
What was the primary punishment method for convicted war criminals?
Bullet to the brain
Which job evaluation method entails deciding which jobs have more of the chosen compensable factors?
Ranking method
Do you think That technology affects the method of crime and criminals?
Yes, technology has both positive and negative impacts on crime and criminals. Criminals can use technology to commit new types of crimes, such as hacking and online fraud. However, technology also enables law enforcement to track and catch criminals more effectively through tools like surveillance cameras and digital forensics.
What is your basis in deciding whether a belief is scientific or unscientific?
wether it is or not. but techinally it is scientific if it is proven by the scientific method.
When a certain person is accused of running a red light can This incident be confirmed by the scientific method?
True
What is the difference between trial by ordeal and trial by combat?
A trial by ordeal was a primitive method of determining a person's guilt or innocence by subjecting the accused person to dangerous or painful tests believed to be under divine control; escape was usually taken as a sign of innocence. in England a woman accused of being a witch was tide to a chair which hung over a pond. She was lowered into the pond for a period of time. If she survived the ordeal she was let go. If she drowned it proved her to be a witch and was buried outside of church grounds. Trial by combat was between an opposing enemy. Boxing could be classed as a combat. Anything where fighting took place between opposite forces or individuals.
What is a common method of punishment for criminals?
The punishment for normal criminals is keeping them locked in a cell, a small, dirty room with only a toilet, bed and sometimes another criminal. They must do work, perhaps cleaning up litter.
What could be a criminal trademark?
It is known as the criminals "M.O." or Modus Operandi,which transaltes literally as their "method of operation." Many (most?) criminals tend to repeat those actions which have proved successful for them in the past, thereby setting a pattern of behavior.
How was a person's guilt or innocence determined in the 16th century?
In the 16th century, guilt or innocence was often determined through various methods including trial by ordeal, trial by combat, and trial by jury. These trials relied on supernatural beliefs or physical strength to establish innocence. Confessions obtained through torture were also commonly used as evidence of guilt.
