During the Anglo-Saxon period, one finds information regarding the use of trial by ordeal. A person’s involvement in a criminal act was decided through an ordeal. Appropriate legal process was not employed while delivering judgment. Trial by ordeal affected persons who were party to a legal dispute. As this method cannot be considered as objective, it could not deliver justice to the accused and the victim, it is apparent that the ordeal trial practice produced a chance but not justice.
In the Anglo-Saxon period, there are large numbers of evidences to suggest that trial by ordeal was practiced. One can give the examples such as ordeal by hot iron, boiling water, and cold water (Niles 369). The trial by ordeal was initiated by the oath of innocence taken by the accused. At the same time, the judge was not expected to depend on the statement of the accused. Various factors were considered before selecting the ordeal.
The statement implies that there were various grades of offenders. Social status, criminal history, and ethnicity of the accused determined the sort of ordeal demanded by the judiciary. Ordinary individuals and members of the clergy were given different treatments. Particular ordeal was used in the case of the clergy. In many cases, a priest supervised ordeal. Apart from the oath of innocence, ordeal by hot water, cold water and hot iron were used to find the truth.
After the trails were held the accused person’s affected body parts were no examined for three days, this was the time given for the God to show his blessing of the individual under suspicion (Formula for Conducting the Ordeal of Boiling Water, par. 9). Persons who emerged unharmed from these ordeals were deemed as innocent. On the other hand, those who were harmed by ordeals were regarded as convicts (Niles 371). The clergy supervised trial by ordeal. It is apparent that clergymen were in a position to manipulate this method. In this way, ordinary people did not obtain justice from the trial by ordeal.
Evidences are available to suggest that ordeal method had a few limitations. For example, forty Englishmen of higher social status proved their innocence through the ordeal by hot iron. This trial did not harm them. Consequently, the judiciary could not punish them. Nevertheless, Henry II was skeptical of this method. The skepticism of the king is justified because a few accused could not pass this ordeal. Their hands were cut, and they were banished. Henry II had confidence in the trial by the court of law.
There were differences between various types of ordeals. For example, ordeals by hot iron and fire were reserved for people of higher social statuses. On the other hand, ordeal by hot water was administered to second-time offenders and persons with low social status. In some cases, the accused was allowed to send his or her assistant to face the trial by ordeal. For example, bishop of Lincoln deputed his servant for this purpose.
He could prove innocence of his master. Normans, on the other hand, did not support this method (Thrupp 282). It is apparent that a few kings comprehended limitations of the trial by ordeal, and they suggested the use of alternative judicial methods to prove innocence of the accused. Persons of higher social status could manipulate this method. At the same time, a person belonging to the lower social category could not prove his or her innocence by using this method. It could affect the aggrieved, as he or she could not prove participation of the accused in the criminal activity.
The trial by ordeal has been justified based on the argument that God and other divine agencies play an important role in revealing the truth (Leeson 692). The argument is not supported by evidence. Obviously, it is not possible to demonstrate the role of God in establishing innocence of an individual. The assumption is that innocent individuals showed courage to accept an ordeal to prove their innocence. The logic is that offenders would avoid trial by ordeal (Leeson 692).
It is also argued that the priest, who supervised the ordeal, was aware that the person, who accepted ordeal, was innocent. The priest was expected to be absolutely objective, which did not take into consideration the human factor. The priests chosen to conduct ordeal trials could manipulate the results subjectively to save or punish people; this excludes the possibility of uninvolved justice. It is also argued that ordeals enhanced unity among community members (Leeson 692). The study has attempted to defend the trial by ordeal.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence to support the argument. It is not possible to accept the argument that only innocents volunteered for the ordeal. It is possible that several criminals used this method to prove their innocence. In addition, there is no mechanism to record and analyze miracles, and there is no clear explanation of the conditions according to which the persons under trial were called guilty or innocent. It is apparent that the priest played an important role in the ordeal. The priest manipulated ordeal to protect clergymen. On the other hand, ordeals showed that ordinary citizens had indulged in criminal activities. The Normans decided to discontinue the practice of ordeal. It is possible that ordeals created a sense of unity among the members of the community, but they failed to deliver justice to the sufferer.
Ordeals had become controversial during the Anglo-Saxon period. A few scholars argued that they emphasized the role of divine agencies. This fact proves subjectivity of ordeal, as it could be manipulated by dominant sections in the society (Pilarczyk, 87). Interestingly, ordeal by hot iron was practiced for a period of 400 years from 800 to 1200 AD, thereby proving its popularity. At the same time, it is not clear that it delivered justice to ordinary individuals (Pilarczyk 88).
In other words, the justice system of Anglo-Saxons was based on Old Germanic laws, which assumed that every criminal should be revealed to the church by God. Every suspect had to take an oath and swear they were innocent (Anglo-Saxon Law – Extracts from Early Laws of the English, par. 18). After that the justice system checked if the individuals were honest by means of putting them through various painful and torturous trials that no one was likely to stand. Touching hot iron or putting a hand into a pot of boiling water without being burnt is known to be impossible. Expecting that a miracle would happen every time an innocent person is under justice was illogical, opportunistic, non-scientific and superficial. This is why trial by ordeal provided the suspects with a chance but not with justice.
Works Cited
Anglo-Saxon Law – Extracts From Early Laws of the English. Lillian Goldman Law Library. 2008. Web.
Formula for Conducting the Ordeal of Boiling Water. Medieval Sourcebook. 1996. Web
Leeson, Peter T. “Ordeals.” The Journal of Law and Economics 55 (2012): 691-714. Print.
Niles, John D. “Trial by Ordeal in Anglo-Saxon England: What’s the Problem with Barley?” Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald. Ed. Stephen David Baxter et al. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. 369-382.Print.
Pilarczyk, Ian C. “Between a Rock and a Hot Place: The Role of Subjectivity and Rationality in the Medieval Ordeal by Hot Iron.” Anglo-American Law Review 25 (1996): 87-112. Print.
Thrupp, John. The Anglo-Saxon Home: A History of the Domestic Institutions and Customs of England, from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century. London: Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1862. Print.