What be the chief line to an impressive and impartial legitimate system contained by the middle ages?

was it power?
can i have some examples please? 10 points!
The King and the Catholic Church were the chief barriers.
The Kings claimed that they were appointed by God and the Church official pretended that they were doing God's will even though they were corruptly feathering their own nests.

Henry VIII reduced the power of the Church when he deposed the Catholic Church contained by England and replaced it with the Church Of England. This was done because he needed to get a divorce and remarry against the wishes of the Catholic Church.

Oliver Cromwell reduced the power of the King and gave sovereignty to parliament by defeat the King during the English Civil War.

Further powers were gradually eroded as science replaced myth and superstition. A dutiful example of this was the case of Gallileo. The Church at that time thought that the Earth be at the centre of the Universe and that everything rotated around the Earth. Gallileo had an impulsive telescope and spotted 4 moons going around the planet Jupiter. If Jupiter had moons going around it then everything be not going around the Earth. He published a book explaining his findings and saying that the Earth went around the Sun. The Catholic Church tried to prohibit it. They succeeded in Europe but not in Britain where on earth the Church Of England were now surrounded by charge. Once the book was in the public domain over here, it be only a matter of time beforehand it went back across the conduit to Europe. Gallileo was ex-communicated from the Church and died in poverty surrounded by an almost unmarked grave. He was however proved right. Over 300 years later and underneath pressure from the scientific community, Pope John Paul II finally apologised for the church getting it wrong and for the suffering caused to Gallileo.
First you should consider separating the two elements of the question - and important legal system need not be honourable and a legal system which is fair within itself may not be effective.

Here you must look at the sheer physical limitations faced by the medieval decriminalized system. The country was sparsely populated with lots small agricultural communities and small towns. Travel was time consuming and often risky. The vast majority of the population were illiterate and superstious.

The country be not as unitary as it is now. There were frequently land-laws between nobles and the legally recognized system was often impacted by these conflicts. There be no police force by which the legal system to supress the unauthorised use of violence - the singular authority capable of supressing violence amongst the high-mindedness was the crown. Even the crown's power was set by national politics. Consider that in the middle ages the country was on several occassions within civil war - the wars of Stephen and Matilda within the 12th Century for example.

The legal system itself was divided between several system opperating disperate allowed principles - the royal courts, the local courts, the ecclesiastical courts and the manorial courts. Each of these were limited within their ability to uphold their laws effectively by the limitations of their jurisdiction and the potential for conflict between the different courts. In addtion, access to the courts was unequal.

The fundamental reason for the bias of the legal system was the discrimination of society as a whole. People were not regard as equal, nor treated as such. The law did not strive to make society equal or to produce a disinterested result, rather the legal system be concerned with enforcing rules, whether they be traditional rules (common law) or the rules of god (ecclesiastical law). In the royal courts it is fair to say that here was something of an obsession next to what we would now call the rules of Civil Procedure. A decree suit in the royal courts could be decided simply on the wording the writ, to some extent than the substance of the case.

The law of evidence be also considerably different - with no possiblity of scientific proof and no organised system to land evidence regarding a case, methods of "proving" a party's allegations be unreliable. Trials by ordeal and by battle were the more supersitious methods of proving a valise in a court of law. Even jury trials be nothing like they are today next to juries pressured to come to verdicts quickly. In criminal cases, not single was the defendant not entitled to be represented by a attorney, but the state did not prosecute criminal cases - that was left the victims.

Although one customarily thinks of the medieval criminal law as relentless and tending to unjustly convict defendants, the actuality is that 80% of medieval criminal trials led to an aquittal.
Superstition and landscape ownership
Superstition, they burned witches at the stake
The Church enslaved people
Actually, it be lack of literacy and education on behalf of the culture. The laws weren't codified, and even if they had be, as was done in a exceptionally few places, the people couldn't read the laws anyway.
In the middle ages, there was a ranking in the order of citizens. There were royalty, royalty hangers-on, land owners, warrior, craftsmen, and then there be a bunch of common folks.

The royalty to the craftsmen saw no need to be outstandingly fair to the common individuals if it was more expedient to just suspend suspected criminals.

Why bother making supper wait? Off with his principal, and pass the gravy, eh?

- Stuart

Related Questions: