History of Law and Effective Legal System - Essay Example

Student’s Name: History of Law Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Effective legal system requires the rules to be general, certain and equally applied. The rules must be set in advance and applied without exception. Historically Laws were developed in order to promote justice to the society as well as to guide the conduct of human beings. In the past decades justice received ample civil, administrative and criminal jurisdiction in the courts and this was a reflection of the royal power over the subjects. According to Plucknett (2001) during the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries royal justice was difficult to administer because it was based on suiting the clown. The rules were developed and formulated in order to meet the demands of the clown and this made it difficult to administer justice to the citizens. Therefore, this paper is going to explore historical development of the law. The common law came into existence in the twelfth century and it was brought from institutions that existed before 1066(Couch, 2000). During this period the court proceedings were oral and this made the legal system to be unstable. Moreover, the king was above all the rules while the King’s court was placed at a special position of using its custom law uniformly in all places and at all times. However, Plucknett (2001) notes that the King’s court was far beyond the reach of many people hence it did not ensure the existence of royal justice. Occasionally the court was seen to suit the King and this made it difficult for the people to obtain royal justice. This means that common law was characterized by regularity of procedures but it did not disseminate royal justice to the citizens. With the coming of King Henry 1, foundation of the common law was laid by settling courts and implementing the writ system. This caused a change which was a treatise on the customs and laws of England. The change was particularly based on how the royal courts worked. Before the change, the King’s court was based on fixed customs and traditions hence there was need to displace this rigidity. According to Perry at el (2008) with the coming of Henry II, a coherent system of law was adopted and it derived its ultimate authority from the King. Henry II aimed at restoring order after the civil war and to do this he had to extend his litigation over his subjects. The main significance of the development of royal justice was the Crowns need to ensure the King’s peace so as to preserve public order hence ensure that the government was run successfully. The provision of the law and order made the Clown to obtain financial incentives and this made criminal justice to generate profits in the form of forfeitures and fines. This new turn made royal justice to be focused on raising money for the government hence causing justice to be performed on money factors. However, this system attracted the public due to its effectiveness and in the way the royal writs were enforced. At this period the King’s law was not universal, but his judgments could not be ignored or questioned. This made the royal justice to gain strong ground over the old communal institutions. Fischlin and Fortier (2002) note that this system gained steady ground because it suited the Crown and the litigants but not because of the new constitution theories. The writ system ensured that the King’s command extended widely. In addition, the writ system provided a means through which the king could directly control justice by delegating his royal authority to trustworthy members of his court. This innovation made the common law to be effective as well as to be parallel with the church. During the twelfth-century the chief Justice was the King’s deputy hence he was empowered to perform royal affairs particularly in matters pertaining to the judiciary, administration and the state. The King also appointed local Judiciars to participate in Crown affairs in Specific County’s and this extended royal justice (Plucknett, 2001). However, the local based justice method existed for a short period because of the political threat that it posed on the monarchy. Another method of extending justice through delegation that the king adopted was by sending Justices from the royal household. The justices remained members of the King’s council but the problem with this method is that it did not form ordinary court systems. This made the litigants who wanted royal justice to incur large expenses in pursuing the King or the justifiers’. To avoid this problem, King Henry II organized itinerant justices into settled circuits and this proved to be a success in administering royal justice. The justifiers were able to offer justice to a large number of people and to supervise the local government through the itinerant central government. This was advantageous as it provided a means of controlling and checking the state authority. However, the justices did not proceed with fairness as it was expected and this made the public to complain and this led to the abolishment of the justifiers system. Griffiths (1994) notes that failure of the justifiers system made the King to appoint judicial commissions. This was in an aim of transmitting the Kings authority to the itinerant justices and ensuring lasting judicial institution. This was important for the long term success of the system. On the other hand, to ensure justice, the King delegated his powers to a central royal justice which heard cases from all parts of the county. The central royal justice operated in the Kings palace and it marked the foundation of the traditional judicial system in England. The King appointed five Judges in the central royal justice to make all the decisions and only to refer the most difficult cases to him. This made the central royal justice to be referred to as the Kings Bench. From 1234 the King established two distinct benches with their own officials and judges and they formed the source of royal justice. These courts formed the two main courts that characterize the common, the Peripatetic court and the Common Bench. Baker (2001) notes that the establishment of the two courts did not offer complete royal justice to the people. This is because they were characterized by delays and costly procedures as people travelled to attend court cases outside their county’s and this caused them to fail to attend their court hearings. However, this problem was solved by allowing professional attorneys to represent their absent clients and this became a normal characteristic of the royal justice. The system was later modified by integrating the royal justice with local investigation and trial. Furthermore, the judicial commissions were integrated with the two courts to form a single system known as the assizes. This made the jurisdiction of the judges to remain on the judicial commissions hence this made the system to adapt to the English way. The royal justice was designed to replace the older practices that were associated with the common law of the King’s courts (Turner, 1997). The central courts were dependant on the Sheriff to implement writs incase the immediate lord failed to exercise justice. During this period the sheriffs were so powerful such that they could challenge the king’s authority. This made the Crown to reduce the tenure of the Sheriffs and subject them to strict financial supervision. Furthermore, the crown reduced the judicial powers of the sheriff and also excluded the sheriff from communal prosecutions as well as taking civil actions against the King for trespass. The effect of this is that it made counties to lack finality in their jurisdictions. Moreover, by reducing the sheriffs power parties were able to remove their cases from central courts by utilizing the writ of false judgment. However, the King made changes to the system and this enabled counties to exercise most of their power and jurisdiction. To ensure peace at the local level, police enquiries were made and presented to the royal justices. Furthermore, knights were appointed in each county to ensure the existence of peace and special commissions were appointed to function as judicators of justice. These commissions were formed with an aim of relieving the justice of the assize. The police were empowered to arrest suspects in order to ensure the prevalence of peace hence offer justice to the citizens. This led to the rise of peace justices and the Crown was able to take the counties from the sheriffs to the commissions (Gorski, 2003). This made the old system of justice to fade away and the exceptions and the powers given to the attorney enabled effective withdrawal of the old system. The historical foundations of civil jurisdiction were used to form the foundations of ensuring justice in the nineteenth century. In conclusion, the historical development of common law can be traced from thirteenth century. During this time the King exercised the entire judicial jurisdiction and this created rigidity hence it was difficult for the citizens to obtain royal justice. This forced the king to appoint justifiers who would travel all over the country in order to administer justice. However, the justifiers failed to administer royal justice hence it became necessary for the king to establish the King’s Bench which in turn led to the formation of the two main courts that characterize the common, the Peripatetic court and the Common Bench. References Backer, C. (1997). The Companion to British History. London: Routledge. Couch, M.(2000). The Fundamentals for the Twenty-First Century. Miami: Kregel Publications Gorski, R. (2003). The Fourteenth Century Sheriff. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. Griffiths, R. (1994). King and County: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century. London: The Hambledom Press. Fischlin, D., & Fortier, R. (2002). Royal Subjects. Michigan: Wayne State University Press. Perry, M., Chase, M., Jacob, M., Jacob, J., & Laue, C.(2008). Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Plucknett, T. (2001). A Concise History of the Common Law. Hants: Chapel River Press Ltd. Turner, B. (1997). The Governments of European Cities. London: Routledge. Read More