Roberts Vs Guines

The old Greek and Roman realms are two cases of where insubordinate activities now give a premise to advanced law. From the Greeks, we have come to know the narrative of Socrates by Plato, and the Roman age was the season of St. Perpetua, an early Christian lady. The destiny of those people is comparable – a capital punishment passed on by the general public they lived in. In spite of the fact that the closure of their lives is comparable, the distinctions that lie in the reasoning of their demise are more unpredictable, with key variables influencing their individual pre-predetermined future. In this, we will see, these elements influence their connections to the states and time periods in which they existed.

Living in the medieval time period was not as glamorous as it is often portrayed; peasants and serfs led hard lives, however, kings, lords, and knights lived lavishly and at the expense of those under them. In this paper you will read about all of these lifestyles, as well as the castles in which these lords and kings lived in. Mainly castle designs, fortifications, and siege tactics will be revealed to you; yet there are several sections, dealing with the lifestyles of the above mentioned, leading up to that.

Antigone refers to such a concept of unwritten law. The concept probably comes into the light in the fifth century along with increasing awareness of potential conflicts between human law and natural law. These three clashes are firmly related, yet this unrefined arrangement of pairings unravels a

When looking at the other element of the functionality of law in our court systems, the law in action, one must understand that this is literary the way the actors in the courtroom interpret the letter of the law. These players in the court room are the judges, lawyers, the defendant, and victims (Neubauer and Fradella, 2009). The law in action can be very confusing to the average person because of the many different interpolations that can come from so many different actors in the court system.

This case record will tell us about four notorious traitors to the French crown that fascinatingly were born of noble birth, all being lords of various French villages. All the criminals mentioned M. Godfrey de Harcourt, M. Olivier de Clisson, M. Jehan lord of Rigny, M. Henri de Malestroit, and other knights and squires were upper class citizens that committed treason against the King of France and then experienced punishments that were usually given out to people of lower class, due to the gravity of their crimes. This court record could be used for historians to see why kings and justices ordered certain punishments for

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

The court system in the middle ages worked by using the term “guilty until proven innocent” and using trials of ordeal to determine innocence.The courts weren't based on the idea of an accused being innocent until proven guilty as there was no concept to believe the accused was innocent. It was the job of the accused to prove their innocence. The accused could do this by taking an oath to prove their innocence. The accused would also be required bring oath helpers, these helpers would normally know the person very well. The oath helpers swore that they believe the accused is innocent. The oath system worked well as it was very efficient and workable as it was hard for an evil person to be able to gain enough

One technique used by lords to control serfs was efficient use of the justice system. During the middle ages, the lord had political authority in society. Because of this he was able to use the justice system to his advantage, which included the right to try peasants in court for breaking the manor’s rules. The lord had the power to punish the troublemaker as he saw fit, with fines or imprisonment. An account that illustrates the lord’s power to try and convict the serfs is, “From the whole township of Little Ogbourne, except seven, for not coming to wash the lord’s sheep, 6s. 8d.”. In this account, the peasants didn’t obey the lord, and were therefore punished by him as he saw fit. In this case they were fined six shillings, and eight pence for their trespasses against the lord.

Did you know that a lot of people back in the Middle Ages did not have a lot of authority. There were many different roles people played back in the Middle Ages. The people were lords, ladies, teenagers, nurses, friars, pages, and servants. Their roles are way different then times today, because we do not have all those special names for everyone. For instance Lord’s were a great thing back then if you were strong enough to be one.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.19) However, Aquinas also acknowledges that a human lawgiver may promulgate a command that has the form of law, and is enforced like a law, yet is unjust. This observation leads to the realization that these are two inconsistent claims. Yet Aquinas believes that these inconstancies can be reconciled. In Aquinas’ view an unjust law is not a law but yet is also able to be issued as law and imposed as law.

The judicial system was a popular choice for deciding outcomes in conflicts between villagers, civil and criminal, as the decisions arrived at by the court were often agreed by both parties. Violent altercations and thefts often were tried similarly to crimes which fell under civil law, allowing most crimes of these nature not to be too severely punished as to not worsen the situation. A very high number of these cases are brought to court by the victim rather than by the governing lord or public prosecutor. Though the court was commonly used, personal agreements came to by villagers previous to entering court were often recorded and assured to be carried out due to the involvement or threat of threat of involvement by the court. In 1772 a law reform passed which would tie closer seigneurial Judges and the Royal judiciary. This allowed serious cases which involved being sentenced to prison, to be tried by local seigneurial courts, sending them to bailliage prisons while their trial was completed for the local courts had no real prisons. If however a criminal or capital case took place in a seigneurial court it was often passed on to the Parlement. A staggering majority of cases were civil however, criminal charges laid made-up for less than a tenth of those tried in the bailliage of Dijon in 1785. The common outcome of these civil cases was restitution and a formal apology. When cases such as theft were elevated to involve imprisonment the perpetrator was usually unknown to those in the village. When bringing a case to trial, the defendants often had to pay great expenses to have the trial involve witnesses and for each time they were questioned by the judge. From 1750-59 and 1780-89 the amount of assault and defamation

The nobility of the Kingdom of France has been evaluated by various scholars of history. There is something to be said, however, for those who chronicled their impressions while living them in the 17th and 18th centuries. The excerpts of Charles Loyseau’s A Treatise on Orders, written in 1610, and Isabelle de Charriere’s The Nobleman, written in 1763 provide two very different glimpses on the French nobility from differing time periods. From these two accounts, it is clear that there was a marked shift in the way some viewed the nobility and their role in the operation of the French state. While Loyseau praises the nobility nearly wholeheartedly,

It is a common assumption that law and justice are the same things and that the law’s sole purpose is the advancement of justice. Many people wonder whether there is a difference between law and justice: the foregoing play different roles in the legal system albeit having a few similarities. Societies regard the law as a tool that they use to get justice. On the other hand, justice is the ultimate target that societies have endeavored to realize since the evolution of humankind. The law has evolved from the ancient law such as Hammurabi, Babylonian and roman laws to contemporary law; as the law evolves throughout time, so does the society’s grasp of the concept of justice. The assertion that the courts of law ought to decide cases as per justice as opposed to the law; the foregoing establishes whether a connection exists between law and justice.

Justice has been misperceived to go hand and hand with rules in which a society must conform to, mostly in due part to the enlightenment era. In the case with the Romans, the laws they established, especially early on, dealing with the spread of Christianity has been interpreted with a sense of disgust for the unfair treatment targeted towards Christians, and later on to those of other faiths. However, I argue that, Roman law, when concerning religion, was used to strengthen the identity of what it meant to be Roman. Furthermore, as Rome, the political institution, was beginning to decay, as an act of acclamation, the formulation of Roman Laws allowed Christianity to be a main means of connection to what it meant to identify as Roman. Utilizing various primary sources, it is evident that faith had been gradually accepted as the dominant form of unity and law, beginning with Emperor Diocletian to Emperor Theodosia, even among emperors, the Catholic faith had shown that all men were under God, and under God they were all Roman.

Hodges, Zane C. “Law And Grace In The Millennial Kingdom II . Law in the Millennial Kingdo