0
What methods were used in the middle ages to determine guilt or innocence?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
People in the Middle Ages did not approach crime forensically, like you see in the CSI shows. In medieval legal proceedings, guilt or innocence was established in three ways, either by direct witness testimony, an oath, or -- until the thirteenth century -- by ordeal. If someone saw a person commit a crime, or was injured or attacked by someone, they would go before a judge and make an accusation. There was generally no presenting of physical "evidence" or "exhibits" like you have in modern criminal proceedings. Both sides, along with any potential witnesses, would be summoned to court and allowed to tell their sides of the story and the accused would either admit guilt and offer to pay compensation to the plaintiff, or would maintain their innocence and swear an oath that they were not guilty. Often times, the accused would have to produce a number of "oath helpers" or members of the community who were willing to put up money or property guaranteeing that the accused person was innocent and would not cause further trouble. If the judge(s) accepted the oath and oath helpers, then the person was free to go unless more information came to light, or they fled the jurisdiction or otherwise reneged on their oath. The status of a person mattered a great deal: poor or unfree people were subject to the whim of their lord's judgment, whereas the wealthy and the noble had more avenues to pursue justice. The death penalty was imposed infrequently, and usually only for very serious crimes such as murder, brigandry, or treason.
In cases where there were no witnesses and no clear way to establish whether the accused was guilty, the court was allowed to use an ordeal, which took different forms over time, but usually involved a dangerous task, the outcome of which was interpreted as a divine sign of who was in the right. One common ordeal was for the defendant to reach into a cauldron of boiling water to retrieve an object. If his arm appeared unscathed, his testimony was affirmed. Nobles and knights would often undergo ordeals by battle in which they personally, or, more commonly, hired professionals, would fight a duel to determine the outcome of a case. The ordeal is often held up as evidence of the irrationality or cruelty of medieval legal thought, but in reality it was a way of forcing two litigating parties to come to an arrangement and settle their dispute. Nobody wanted to end up taking a case to an ordeal because the outcome could not be controlled. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council forbade Christians from participating in judicial ordeals.
Despite the popular image of the Middle Ages as violent and cruel, torture as an interrogation tool was not widely used in secular contexts. Torture was, however, employed by the Inquisition to extort confessions from suspected heretics or their sympathizers. The inquisitors appropriated it from Roman law, which allowed for its use in some cases.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoIn the middle ages, there was a dedicated local judiciary body to do the same.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle 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.
The burden of proof rested with the accuser rather than the accused what does this mean?
That if there was a doubt about a person's guilt, he or she should be judged innocent.
What was the first watch?
The earliest known watch was the Melanchthon's Watch, a gold guilt brass cased, spherical, mechanical table watch--also called a Nuremberg Egg--from approximately 1530 AD. The first quartz watch to enter production was the Seiko 35 SQ Astron, which hit the shelves on December 25, 1969
How did the church get money in the middle ages?
In terms of wealth and land ownership the Church was second only to the King.Money, property, valuables and land were given to the Church by wealthy aristocrats, who believed that this ensured the health of their souls after death; they were called donors and there were many throughout the medieval period.Money was also generated in "tithes" - everyone had to give a tenth of their income or crop to the Church by law. The crops went into tithe barns and it could be used to feed the starving poor in times of need; otherwise it might be sold to generate money for the Church's coffers.People paid for church services such as weddings, burials and baptisms; this was called an offering to the altar, but it went to the priest. Church-scot was a kind of tax levied on all parishioners, also going to the priest.Some noblemen paid for the building of a private chapel and then paid for a chaplain to staff it; again they expected to gain a reward in Heaven as a result.Some Orders of monks (particularly the Cistercians) were excellent businessmen and generated massive incomes from sheep farming and wool production.
What did praetors do in Rome's government?
Praetors were Roman officials who were second only to the Counsuls. Their main function was to oversee Roman justice, as a modern judge does. They could also command an army and were in charge of the city when the Counsuls were absent. When their term of office was finished, ex-praetors were often given important provincial positions.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the middle 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.
What were methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle 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.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle 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.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or the innocence of accused criminals in the early middle 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.
What were the two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early Middle 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.
What were two methods of deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle 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.
What were two method for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle 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.
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.
What were the methods used to determine a person guilt or innocence?
In historical contexts, guilt or innocence were often determined through methods like trial by combat, trial by ordeal, or through the testimony of witnesses. These methods were largely based on superstition, belief in divine intervention, or physical strength. In modern times, guilt or innocence is typically determined through evidence presented in a court of law, including witness testimony, physical evidence, and expert analysis.
Who has the authority to try an impeached official to determine guilt or innocence?
Senate
Who has the authority to try an impeach official to determine guilt or innocence?
house of representatives
A physical test to determine guilt or innocence was known as a trial by?
A trial by fire.
