The History of Conflict Resolution

Historical Methods Of Trials: Trial by Ordeal Trial by Oath Trial by Combat Trial by Jury

Trial by Ordeal A medieval judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience In some cases, the accused were considered innocent if they survived the test, or if their injuries healed In other cases, only death was considered proof of innocence. If the accused died, they were often presumed to have gone to a suitable reward or punishment in the afterlife, which was considered to make trial by ordeal entirely fair.

Types of Trial by Ordeal Ordeal of Fire Ordeal of Water Ordeal of the Cross Ordeal of Ingestion

Ordeal of Fire a judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience. In some cases, the accused were considered innocent if they survived the test, or if their injuries healed. In other cases, only death was considered proof of innocence. If the accused died, they were often presumed to have gone to a suitable reward or punishment in the afterlife, which was considered to make trial by ordeal entirely fair.

Ordeal of Water Hot water – the person had to dip his hand into a kettle of boiling water and retrieve a stone. Cold water –the accused was to be submerged in a stream and acquitted if he survived.

Ordeal of the Cross introduced in the Early Middle Ages by the church in an attempt to discourage judicial duels or “Trial by Combat”. the accuser had to undergo the ordeal together with the accused. They stood on either side of a cross and stretched out their hands horizontally. The one to first lower his arms lost. This ordeal although prescribed by Charlemagne in 779 and again in 806 but abolished by decree of Lothar I in 876, to avoid the mockery of Christ.

Ordeal of Ingestion prescribed that an accused was to be given dry bread and cheese blessed by a priest. If he choked on the food, he was considered guilty.

Trial by Oath Many cultures place a high value on the individual and on honor, and believe strongly that some greater power (deities, fate, etc.) arbitrates justice in the universe. These cultures may consider a person's sworn oath sufficient to clear him or her of criminal charges. These cultures are likely to take their religion extremely seriously and have firm beliefs in right and wrong. Oaths in these cultures might be backed by merit, character witnesses, or sacred artifacts.

Trial by Combat A method to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession, in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat The winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvLmVa_goXY (Scene from “El Cid” (with Charlton Heston) illustrating Trial by Combat.

Trial by Jury Granted by the Sixth Amendment in Criminal Trials & the Seventh Amendment in Civil Trials. The jury (of citizens) is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while the judge determines the law. The jury is responsible for 1) listening to a dispute, 2) evaluating the evidence presented, 3) deciding on the facts, and 4) making a decision in accordance with the rules of law and their jury instructions given by the judge. Typically, the jury judges guilt or innocence and the actual penalty (sentencing) is set by the judge.