The Treason Trial Acts Of 1696 Case Study
Factors that Initiated the Treason Trial Acts of 1696
The Treason Trial Acts structured the law of treason. It is in the course of the 17th century that the jurisprudence of “treason enjoyed a considerable,” Rezneck (1930) part in English history. Before this act, criminals residing in Britain were deprived of counsel, critically constrained in their power to ensure witnesses for the defense are summoned, put under oath, and even barred from attaining a duplicate of the charge stipulating the accusations against them preceding the test. The Prosecution was therefore able to convict perpetrators on fabricated accusations of betrayal. Unfortunately, judges at that period of time were under the legal power of the Stuart-Tudor bench.
The Treason …show more content…
In fact, the prosecution often dealt with these cases with grander skill and warmth than a normal prosecution. Nevertheless, not all people agreed to the claim that respondents were entirely denied defense counsel. Randolph Jonakait pointed out that “limitation on legal advice in reality began to weaken prior to the enactment of the Treason Trials Act.” Jonakait (1995). Defense lawyers were prohibited from passing on evidence, probing witnesses, or speaking to the jury in opening or closing testimonials when presenting legal arguments.
This kind of trial became acknowledged as the “Accused Speaks” Hearing. The chief code of the “Accused Speaks” hearing was that the respondent ought to be cast out from having counsel assistance in his denial. Regrettably, in several of the political movements of the 16th and 17th century, the demeanor on the bench barely demonstrated reliability to the welfares of the perpetrator. An instance is the ill-famed criminal accounts handed down to Titus Oates. The judges persistently “intimidated and despised the criminal with an overindulgence which, ill turns into the judicial appeal.” Macauly
The Treason Trial Acts structured the law of treason. It is in the course of the 17th century that the jurisprudence of “treason enjoyed a considerable,” Rezneck (1930) part in English history. Before this act, criminals residing in Britain were deprived of counsel, critically constrained in their power to ensure witnesses for the defense are summoned, put under oath, and even barred from attaining a duplicate of the charge stipulating the accusations against them preceding the test. The Prosecution was therefore able to convict perpetrators on fabricated accusations of betrayal. Unfortunately, judges at that period of time were under the legal power of the Stuart-Tudor bench.
The Treason …show more content…
In fact, the prosecution often dealt with these cases with grander skill and warmth than a normal prosecution. Nevertheless, not all people agreed to the claim that respondents were entirely denied defense counsel. Randolph Jonakait pointed out that “limitation on legal advice in reality began to weaken prior to the enactment of the Treason Trials Act.” Jonakait (1995). Defense lawyers were prohibited from passing on evidence, probing witnesses, or speaking to the jury in opening or closing testimonials when presenting legal arguments.
This kind of trial became acknowledged as the “Accused Speaks” Hearing. The chief code of the “Accused Speaks” hearing was that the respondent ought to be cast out from having counsel assistance in his denial. Regrettably, in several of the political movements of the 16th and 17th century, the demeanor on the bench barely demonstrated reliability to the welfares of the perpetrator. An instance is the ill-famed criminal accounts handed down to Titus Oates. The judges persistently “intimidated and despised the criminal with an overindulgence which, ill turns into the judicial appeal.” Macauly