anglo saxon law enforcement

• anglo saxons believed:

  • The role of the local community in policing the behaviour of others was very important
  • That God was the final judge of innocence or guilt
  • The status and position of different groups should be clear in law
• • The Anglo-Saxons believed it was a victim’s responsibility to seek justice if a crime was committed; but also that the whole community should play a part in delivering justice
  • Being loyal to your community was seen as a duty
• By C10, English shires were divided into smaller areas called hundreds

  • Each hundred was divided into ten tithings
  • All the men aged over 12 in a tithing were responsible for the behaviour of all the others
• One man from each hundred, and one man from each tithing had to meet regularly with the king’s shire reeve

  Their role was to prevent crime, particularly cattle theft, in their

  communities
• When chasing a cattle thief a ‘hundredsman’ was entitled to take two ‘tithingmen’ with him

  • These developments made the community increasingly important in Anglo-Saxon law enforcement
  • The whole community was also responsible for tracking down those suspected of crimes
• Anyone who witnessed a crime could raise a ‘hue and cry’ – literally shouting for help

  Everyone who heard it was expected to help chase and capture the suspects
• Anglo-Saxon justice relied heavily on religion when deciding whether someone was guilty or innocent

  • Oaths played an important part in proving a person’s innocence
  • Hearings took place in public and the accused could swear their innocence under oath
  • They could also call upon others in the community to support their claims as ‘oath helpers’
  • In most cases the accused walked free
• In such small, tight-knit communities it would be very hard for a criminal to get away with a repeat offence

  If someone was a repeat offender, or had been caught ‘red-handed’, then they were not given the option of swearing an oath of innocence
• If there was not enough evidence to prove a person’s guilt, the Anglo- Saxon Church had an important role to play

  The accused could be tried by the Church authorities in a ‘trial by ordeal’
• A trial by ordeal was seen as a way of testing whether the accused was innocent or guilty in the eyes of God

  The effect that the ordeal had on the accused was seen as God’s judgement on their guilt or innocence
• Trials by ordeal included trials by hot iron, hot water, or cold water

  • For a trial by hot water or hot iron, heat was used to burn one of the accused’s hands, which was then bandaged; if the burn healed well, this was seen as a sign that God judged the person to be innocent
  • In a cold water ordeal the accused was thrown into water with their arms tied; anyone who floated was judged guilty, while anyone who sank was judged innocent and hauled up again
  • To the Church this made sense: an innocent person who sank had been ‘accepted’ by the water as pure – the guilty were ‘rejected’
• Trial by consecrated bread - used for priests

  • The priest had to pray, and ask that when he ate a piece of consecrated (blessed) bread, the bread would choke him if he had lied about the crime of which he was accused
  • The theory was that a sinner would choke
• Trail by consecrated bread was much less dangerous trial than those used for non-clergy – though it could still be frightening for a priest who genuinely believed in God’s power