| Abstract | Paper -a:
In a face to face society such as that of the medieval Italian Commune, brawls, even violent ones, were fairly common. Because of that they were extremely feared by communal authorities since brawls could give way to more widespread conflicts and generated great social apprehension. This paper will show that in San Gimignano, in the mid-13th century, inquisitio ex officio was introduced to repress this kind of crime, thanks to the pressure of the imperial authority. This procedure, deriving but significantly different from the one typical of canon law, allowed communal officers to start and handle a judicial case also in those cases were there was no plaintiff at all. The paper will then argue that the inquisitio ex officio was not a real means to bring justice to people. It was actually more a way for communal officers to control the territory through the repression of brawls. This was made possible because the imperial authority, for the sake of 'pax et concordia' inside the communal walls, supported judges in the use of this new and controversial procedure.
Paper -b:
Law and justice are relative concepts and even crime, the breach of rules set by any society, vary with that society. Many crimes recognisable today had not yet been forbidden and many crimes of violence involved few casualties. Alan Macfarlane's Justice and the Mare's Ale reminds us how shockingness has evolved. This paper explored two aspects of the topic. First of all, it demonstrates that shocking disorders, such as the Percy-Neville feud in the 1450s and the siege of Caister in 1469, involved virtually no bloodshed. Secondly, it reverses the normal understanding of social crime. Social crime is conventionally applied to local toleration of crimes such as smuggling and piracy condemned nationally. Also, however, there is the popular denunciation of offences unrecognised under statute law and the exaction of the death penalty on the king's own servants in 1450. Conceptions of what made a crime and criteria for judging it varied.
Paper -c:
This paper presents a study of the punishment exacted on noble and royal prisoners who were convicted of treason in 15th- and early 16th-century England. Their executions were highly choreographed events and witnesses recorded the last words of the accused and how they died. While beheading was a legitimate form of judicial violence in keeping with the very serious nature of the crime, the narrative sources make a clear distinction between clean beheadings and bungled executions, with the latter resulting in accusations of cruelty against those in charge. The frequency of these complaints will be assessed, the question of who received such as execution will be considered and official justifications for the level of violence will be explored. This paper will also explore other ways in which punishment could continue after death - namely the display of the head to confirm death and to serve as an example to others and restrictions on the place of burial.
|
|---|
