scholarly journals The Timeless Quest for Truth in a World of Doubt: Re-Examining Modes of Proof in the Medieval Era

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 141-158
Author(s):  
Isaac Amon
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Norman Conquest ◽  
Medieval Europe ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Proof ◽  
Historical Methods ◽  
William The Conqueror

This article presents a brief overview of historical methods of legal proof prior to and soon after the Norman Conquest of England in October 1066. Through an examination of the rituals of compurgation and the ordeal, which were techniques designed to discover truth prior to the establishment of the inquisition in medieval Europe and the common law jury trial in England, the human quest for intellectual conviction has been indelibly with us since the days of antiquity. And, whichever method to ascertain truth is ultimately utilized – compurgation or ordeal, inquisition or cross-examination, trial by judge or by jury – the law’s enduring search for certainty amidst a world of doubt owes much to the history and times of William the Conqueror.

The Norman Conquest and the Common Law

1968 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
T. A. Sandquist ◽  
George W. Keeton
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Norman Conquest ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals The Norman Conquest and the Common Law: The Levellers and the Argument from Continuity

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 791-806 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Seaberg
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Logical Necessity ◽  
Norman Conquest ◽  
English Revolution ◽  
Continuous Stream ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
Essay Tests

Twenty-five years ago J. G. A. Pocock first argued that the Norman conquest was the rock upon which all arguments for the continuity of the common law finally came to wreck. Believe in the conquest qua conquest, and you could not believe that English law represented a continuous stream of unviolated custom or fail to see it as very much the offspring of Norman parentage. In the English revolution, the Levellers exemplified the logical necessity of Pocock's argu ment. Having seen the conquest for what it was, the group criticized the common law as none other than a Norman yoke and surrendered all appeals to history. By re-examining the Leveller use of history, this essay tests that proposition, turning it not upside down but on its side, and suggests an alternative conclusion both about the Levellers and the doctrine of continuity itself.

scholarly journals Adversary System in Common Law Countries and Possibility for Implementation in Indonesian Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
Puspita Nirmala
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Adversary System ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
The Right

This research tries to open the possibility of implementing an adversary system which is very closely related to the common law system in Indonesia, especially concerning the “The Rights of the Accused” in the criminal justice process. This research is carried out normatively by conducting legal studies through literature and legislation. The result of this research is that if the accused declared himself guilty of the crime he committed, this means that the accused will lose his right to be tried and processed fairly trial in the common law system. If a defendant is declared guilty, then the next process is the conviction without trial, in which case there are weaknesses in the rights of the accused that should have been carried out through a jury trial. Is it possible to apply in Indonesian courts? Is it not contrary to the norms contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure  (KUHAP), especially regarding the rights of suspects relating to human rights (HAM), such as equal treatment before the law; put forward the presumption of innocence; the right to compensation; right to legal assistance; the defendant's rights before the court; a free, fast and simple trial; and a court that is open to the public. However, if possible in Indonesia to switch to the adversary system, the judge's role can be limited only as a referee to allow the creation of a fair trial. The party in charge of deciding whether or not the defendant is right is the jury.

Jury Trial in Austria

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-325
Author(s):  
Greg Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Inquisitorial System

Austria has had a system of jury trial, with some interruptions, since 1848. Although Austrian jury trial was derived from England via France, little is known about it in the common law world. This article commences with an overview of the history of jury trial in Austria and of the constitutional protection it currently enjoys. Then the major differences between Austrian jury trial and the common law's model of jury trial are analyzed, and the system of appeals is described. It will be seen that much of trial practice and the appeals system is either an attempt to adapt a transplanted institution to the inquisitorial system and/or a result of the “Austrofascist” dictatorship's so-called reforms of 1933–1934. Austrian jury trial has not fared well in the inquisitorial environment, a state of affairs that does not result from any fundamental incompatibility between the inquisitorial system and jury trial but rather from a lack of enthusiasm for jury trial among the Austrian legal elite.

Is Style of Reasoning a Fundamental Difference Between the Common Law and the Civil Law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-290
Author(s):  
Colm Peter McGrath ◽  
◽  
Helmut Koziol ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
The Common

Rediscovering Blackstone: wpływ Williama Blackstone’a na rozwój amerykańskiej nauki prawa w recepcji Alberta W. Alschulera

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-185
Author(s):  
Edyta Sokalska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law School ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
American Colonies ◽  
Late 18Th Century ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Common

The reception of common law in the United States was stimulated by a very popular and influential treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone, published in the late 18th century. The work of Blackstone strengthened the continued reception of the common law from the American colonies into the constituent states. Because of the large measure of sovereignty of the states, common law had not exactly developed in the same way in every state. Despite the fact that a single common law was originally exported from England to America, a great variety of factors had led to the development of different common law rules in different states. Albert W. Alschuler from University of Chicago Law School is one of the contemporary American professors of law. The part of his works can be assumed as academic historical-legal narrations, especially those concerning Blackstone: Rediscovering Blackstone and Sir William Blackstone and the Shaping of American Law. Alschuler argues that Blackstone’s Commentaries inspired the evolution of American and British law. He introduces not only the profile of William Blackstone, but also examines to which extent the concepts of Blackstone have become the basis for the development of the American legal thought.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document