- cross-posted to:
- todayilearned@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- todayilearned@lemmit.online
TIL in 1818, an Englishman accused of murder demanded a trial by combat. Surprisingly, the law that allowed for trial by combat was still valid, and the man was acquitted when his accuser declined the offer of battle. Trial by combat was abolished the following year.
You must log in or register to comment.
Seems like something a murderer would demand.
“I know what to do. I’ll murder my way out”
It may be weird, but applying the Jason Mendoza problem solving tactics could work.
Anytime I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem
I just carry a few half-empty bottles of vodka, rags, and a few kilos of baking soda everywhere. There’s no problem I can’t solve with this kit.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Revolution
Baking soda? In those quantities? Please, tell us more. Like what do you do with it?
Put out the fires, then get called a hero
If you fix the problem, and you’ve managed to not get caught being the cause, by anyone who survived, then you’re the hero
deleted by creator
“mix things up a little”
Well if you know your choices are “definitely go to prison for something you didn’t do and either die in prison or come out a completely different person, out of time.” or “trial by combat, maybe death, maybe freedom” I know which one I would choose.
Especially if I know my accuser knows they’re lying and it’s not just a misunderstanding.
England had the death penalty only abolished for murder in 1969.
So the options would have been, maybe get convicted of something you didn’t do and be hanged, or trial by combat so you have some agency in the whole either death or freedom thing I guess.
Reading the article, it looks like the accused was originally acquitted in a jury trial, but the victim’s brother appealed and so they were going to try him again. At that point he asked for the trial by combat. I’m glad they just dropped it, sounds like the case was pretty flimsy.
lol its funnier in context
The US also has a right to face one’s accuser. Just not in a gladiatorial arena sadly.
We’ve also got the right not to be tried twice for the same offense which could of saved him from resorting to trial by combat.
Judges hate this one simple trick!
Who does he combat? The dead man or the judge or the prosecution or the bereaved?
His “accuser” apparently. So… Detective?
I thought that was just a thing in Game of Thrones!
No, much like the ‘trial by ordeal’, in more religious times it was believed that god(s) would grant favour to those who were truly righteous and/or innocent, allowing them to survive an ordeal or win a fight.
It was effectively a verdict rendered by god, rather than the courts.
This is why I set fire to, and then put the fire out, at least one catholic church every year.
