| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="QuestionsBeingAnswered" |
|---|
Procedure |
| | The sentencing procedure for the Star Chamber. Each member of the court would have the opportunity to voice their opinion of the verdict and propose a punishment going from most junior judge to the Lord Chancellor. A majority vote would decide the sentence and in the case of a tie the Lord Chancellor would cast the deciding vote. [Scofield 76] Punishment could be divided into four general types: imprisonment, fines, public acknowledgment of offense and public humiliation. Punishment was not determined by statute or common law conception of damages, and could range from nailing the defendant's ear to a pillory to forcing him to wear a piece of paper on his hat describing his crime. [Cheyney 741-3] The most common punishment was a fine and imprisonment often until the fine had been repaid. [Boyd 17] The court, however, did not have the power to sentence the defendant to death or forfeit his estate. [Cheyney 729] |
|
<
< | Differences With Canon Law Procedure |
>
> | Comparison to Canon Law |
| | Star Chamber procedure is often associated with the procedure of the civil law. This might be due to the fact that like man civil law systems today, Star Chamber procedure was primarily written not oral. However, the procedure of the Star Chamber differed from the more heavily romanized courts such as the canon law courts in several key respects. |
|
<
< | For one the canon law courts had a clearly defined burden of proof to convict a witness known as plena probatio (full proof) that required either a confession or two witnesses. [Brundage 142-143] Star Chamber did not appear to have any clearly defined burden of proof at all and the burden certainly appears to be less exacting than "full proof." The fact that Star Chamber did not need a confession in order to convict could be why unlike some of the religious inquisitorial courts it never allowed torture. |
>
> | For one the canon law courts had a clearly defined burden of proof to convict a witness known as plena probatio (full proof) that required either a confession or two witnesses. [Brundage 142-143] Star Chamber did not appear to have any clearly defined burden of proof at all and the burden certainly appears to be less exacting than "full proof." The fact that Star Chamber did not need a confession in order to convict could be why, unlike the Inquisition, it never resorted to torture. |
| | |
|
<
< | Canon courts also allowed proceedings against a defendant to be initiated by a judge per inquisitionem and it would be the judge than who would conduct the investigation and question the defendant and witnesses. [Brundage 147-148] In Star Chamber proceeding were initiated either by private parties or by the King's attorneys on behalf on the king. [Newell 12] The Chamber's judges played no role in the investigation of the claim and the parties only appeared once before the judges during the trial itself. [Chenyey 739] |
>
> | Canon courts also allowed proceedings against a defendant to be initiated by a judge per inquisitionem and it would be the judge than who would conduct the investigation and question the defendant and witnesses. [Brundage 147-148] In Star Chamber proceeding were initiated either by private parties or by the King's attorneys on behalf of the king. [Newell 12] The Chamber's judges played no role in the investigation of the claim and the parties only appeared once before the judges during the trial itself. [Chenyey 739] |
| | In addition, during the per inquisitionem the defendant had no access to counsel and was not allowed to see the charges against him until after the judge had achieved plena probatio. [Brundage 149] In Star Chamber the defendant was given notice of the charges against him right after he appeared before the court under his subpoena and had access to a lawyer from the beginning of the proceedings. Although the lawyer was not allowed to be present when the defendant was being examined. |
|
<
< | Punishment in canon law was very similar to Star Chamber. Like Star Chamber, the were no clear limitations on what punishments for certain crimes were expected to be and canon judges were given wide latitude and flexibility in ensuring that the punishment fit the crime. [Brundage 155] Like Star Chamber punishment in canon law consisted usually of a mix of fines, imprisonment and some form of public humiliation. [Brundage 152]. In addition, acts penance such as pilgrimage were often seen as an important component of a sentence which was not the case in Star Chamber. [Brundage 152] Also like Star Chamber, canon law courts were forbidden from issuing the death sentence but unlike the Chamber the canon law courts were also forbidden from branding, ear cutting or physical punishment of any kind. [Brundage 152] |
>
> | Punishment in canon law was very similar to Star Chamber. Like Star Chamber, the were no clear limitations on what punishments for certain crimes were expected to be and canon judges were given wide latitude and flexibility in ensuring that the punishment fit the crime. [Brundage 155] Like Star Chamber punishment in canon law consisted usually of a mix of fines, imprisonment and some form of public humiliation. [Brundage 152]. In addition, acts penance such as pilgrimage were often seen as an important component of a sentence which was not the case in Star Chamber. [Brundage 152] Also like Star Chamber, canon law courts were forbidden from issuing the death sentence but unlike the Chamber the canon law courts were also forbidden from branding, ear cutting or the pillory. [Brundage 152] |
| | In many ways the procedure of the Star Chamber can be seen as a hybrid of the common law and civil law systems that sought to achieve the speed, efficiency and relative simplicity of roman law procedure with many of the due process protections of the common law. |
| | Under Charles I the Court was increasingly used as a tool of royalist suppression. One individual was imprisoned for spreading rumors that the King attended Catholic mass with his wife and sheriffs were punished by Star Chamber for failing to adequately collect enough ship-money. [Cheyney 747] Individuals were often tried and sentenced by the same people they had been brought forth for criticizing, and punishments became increasingly severe. |
|
<
< | In perhaps the most notorious case before Star Chamber William Prynne and two co-conspirators were sentenced to the pillory, life imprisonment and had their ears cut off for publishing a book that spoke out against dances, plays and hunting. The argument here was that this was a direct attack on the king who engaged in hunting and also attended balls. [Newell pg. 117] By the time the Long Parliament came to power in 1640 the Star Chamber had become so associated with King Charles's abuses of power that it had lost all support of the people and the legal profession who had once held it in high esteem, and was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641. [Newell 130] |
>
> | In perhaps the most notorious case before Star Chamber William Prynne and two co-conspirators were sentenced to the pillory, life imprisonment and had their ears cut off for publishing a book that condemned dances, plays and hunting. The argument here was that this was a direct attack on the king who hunted and also attended balls. [Newell pg. 117] By the time the Long Parliament came to power in 1640 the Star Chamber had become so associated with King Charles's abuses of power that it had lost all support of the people and the legal profession who had once held it in high esteem, and was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641. [Newell 130] |
| | References |