Evidence and Criminal Justice in the Middle Ages
Understanding how people in the Middle Ages gathered and used evidence to prove a criminal act helps us appreciate the evolution of the justice system. While modern technologies such as DNA analysis, fingerprinting, and blood typing were not available, the medieval era had its own unique methods to establish guilt or innocence.
Local Society and Criminal Justice
People in the Middle Ages were often part of insular communities such as manorial villages and small towns. In these settings, technology was not necessary due to the closely-knit nature of the society. When a crime, such as housebreaking or violence, occurred, community members would quickly raise the 'Hue and Cry.'
The 'Hue and Cry' was a verbal alert that signaled the entire community to gather and pursue the offender. Once the suspect was caught, they would be brought before a manorial court or a bailiff or seneschal for a hearing. These individuals could impose fines or mete out non-lethal punishments such as whipping or wearing heavy stocks.
Feudal Courts and Punishments
In castles and on larger manors, knights, abbots, and lower nobility often had the authority to administer middle justice. This could result in punishments such as ear cropping, branding, or other non-lethal methods. Only the higher nobility and the king had the right of high justice, which included the death penalty. The Church reserved the death penalty for cases of heresy.
Investigations and Evidence
Evidence was indeed present in the Middle Ages, but the range and sophistication of modern tools were not available. Physical evidence played a crucial role in establishing guilt. For example, if a silver ring with a horse’s head was missing, and a neighbor was found wearing a similar ring, this could be considered decisive evidence.
However, without modern forensic tools such as fingerprints, DNA tests, or blood typing, many cases relied heavily on eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, this made it difficult to convict someone of a crime without clear and tangible proof. The absence of identifiable goods or witnesses often led to a challenging path to justice.
Justice and Perception
During the Middle Ages, the onus was on the accused rather than the accuser. The prevailing attitude was “guilty until proven innocent.” This belief is a stark contrast to the modern notion of “innocent until proven guilty,” which was popularized by the English introduction of the Habeas Corpus act.
Modern media often perpetuates the same cycle of assumptions based on accusations alone. The high-profile case of George Floyd, for example, saw his family receive millions in compensation before the trial even began. This highlights how deeply ingrained attitudes about guilt and evidence remain, mirroring practices from the Middle Ages.
Understanding the historical context of criminal justice in the Middle Ages provides valuable insights into the evolution of legal systems and the importance of evidence in establishing guilt.