English Piracy Trial

A notable tension that was written about in this document was the cruel and harsh treatment of the accused by the justices. Cary relays that his wife’s treatment was inhumane, physically abusive and demeaning. During testimony, she was asked to stand for a long period with her arms stretched out. Cary’s wife was crying and afraid that she might faint. When Cary asked if he could help support her, “Justice Hathorne replied, she had strength enough to torment those persons, and she should have strength enough to stand.” When Cary spoke out against this treatment, he was told to be silent or that he would be removed from the room. Cary’s wife was later taken down on the floor by one of the witnesses. Cary spoke out on “their inhumane dealings, uttered a hasty speech (that God would take vengeance on them, and desired that God would deliver us out of the hands of unmerciful men)”.

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

In “No Crueler Tyrannies”, Dorothy Rabinowitz rightly criticizes the lawyers taking part in the prosecution; the nature of these criticisms includes the prosecution’s ultimatum stance on seeking finality over justice, their subjective reactions to the Moral Panic of the time, and the mere lack of physical evidence used in trial.

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

Before the English Civil War began, the legal system included justices, judges, magistrates, and lawyers. King James I, according to author Malcolm Gaskill in his works Witchcraft and Evidence in Early Modern England, had a great influence in the court systems. Before the English Civil War, the witch trials were broken up in two parts. The first being that a Justice of the Peace would examine the accused, then the second was an actual trial would occur. In those trials according to Gaskill, “English trials followed common- law principles: lay jurors had to be persuaded by lay witnesses.” Many trials during this time period demanded more solid proof before the accused could be convicted. Gaskill, also writes that the court systems prior to the Hopkins’ witch trials, people began to question intangible evidence coming from the accusers and the witnesses. This shows that before the English Civil War, the courts where yes, being tried for witchcraft, but the courts were also demanding solid evidence against the accused person. During the late sixteenth century and early years of the seventeenth century, many trials were being questioned by

“Mrs. Helmer, you evidently don’t clearly realize what you’re guilty of. But, believe me, my one mistake, which cost me my whole reputation, was nothing more and nothing less than what you did.” (1616)

One of the most interesting aspects of the European witch trials between 1450 and 1750 is the frequency with which accused witches confessed to the crime of witchcraft throughout the legal proceedings. While some confessions were offered voluntarily, most were not, and extreme measures were often employed by prosecutors to force confessions from the accused. Among the questions this raises, a prominent one is why obtaining confessions to witchcraft was so crucial. This paper argues that confessions were so important in continental Europe because of the critical developments they facilitated: namely, confessions allowed prosecutors to secure convictions of witchcraft within a judicial system that required high standards of proof; they produced information that was invaluable to the creation and spread of the concept of witchcraft; and they validated the guilt of the accused, the reality of

Despite the concessions Hedges made to combat the obvious disadvantage defendants in piracy cases faced, it is also clear that Hedges was not willing to provide suspected pirates with an avenue to escape justice. To the Chief Justice, these minor concessions in no way hampered the court’s ability to ascertain the truth. To that end, Hedges withheld two crucial components of the Treason Trial Act from his piracy legislation which conflicted with his approach to trying pirates. One of the most important and radical changes in trial procedures derived from the Treason Trials Act was that it changed the court’s interaction with the accused, from a combative environment, to seeing defendants as possible victims. This was contradictory to

The brand of justice pirates toward vessels they captured was something I found fascinating. For example, on page 88, the incident involving the capture of Captain Snelgraves vessel by the pirate Thomas Cocklyn. Initially Snelgrave resisted Cocklyns takeover so as Cocklyns crew overpowers Snelgraves and is taken by the pirates. Certain that Snelgrave will be killed or beaten for resisting, Snelgraves crew comes to their captains defense thus Cocklyn sparring the respected captains life. Because of the degree of respect Snelgraves had, Cocklyn not often seeing a government captain holding such admiration from a crew offered him a new ship and profits from a captured slave ship for his return to England. This story really caught my attention because of the level of hospitality pirates show to a captain who held such respect with his own crew.

As unethical as Richard was in wrongfully accusing James, it is tragic to imagine that the individuals who helped him achieve his goal were constables, who, in addition to helping accuse an innocent child of theft, accepted bribery to do so (12). Richard's decision to falsely accuse James is in its self morally wrong, but the corruption of constables in Europe,

“The Tryal and Condemnation of Mervin, Lord Audley Earl of Castle-Haven At Westminster, April the 5th 1631” and “The Arraignment and Conviction of Mervin Lord Audley, Earle of Castlehaven” detail the proceedings

On January 1st of 1649, the Rump Parliament of England passed a mandate for the trial of King Charles I to which he would be charged with “subverting the fundamental laws and liberties of the nation while maliciously making war on the parliament and people of England.” After years of civil war and various failures in fulfilling kingly duties, Charles faced a trial against a strategically assembled English court that would choose his fate. This stands out in history as one of the most noteworthy and dramatic events in early modern England- a domestic political crisis unlike anything that had ever been seen before. Over the years historians have debated in how they characterize the king’s trial and its end result, referring to the execution as “a crime of the worst magnitude, a regrettable necessity, or a laudable challenge to either an individual ruler or the entire political system.” Due to the overall disapproval of the trial by prominent individuals, biased personnel assembled in the court, questionable legal legitimacy, improper court proceedings and unfortunate socio-economic circumstances during his reign, it can be concluded that King Charles I did not receive a fair trial.

This essay will discuss the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 when a group of catholic noblemen plotted to blow up the English House of Parliament; the target of the plot was King James VI of Scotland and I of England. This essay will focus on how the event impacted Catholics and their treatment in society and law after the event. Primary sources including letters, Parliamentary documents and their insight into how the event impacted Catholics in the years after the event will be used to provide evidence and Secondary sources to provide different historians views on the treatment of Catholics.

William the Conqueror introduced the jury system into England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings. It wasn’t until the 14th century when their roll came to determiner of fact in a case.