|
MattDavisRatnerProject 6 - 06 Feb 2010 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ProjectPages" |
|---|
The Quaker Effect | |
<
< | How the Quakers helped shape the American Legal System. | >
> | How the Quakers helped shape the American Legal System. | | | | |
<
< | The Religious Society of Friends, also known as the "Quakers", is a sect of Christianity dating back to the mid 1600's. Their beginnings came from an emphasis on each individual's personal connection with God (the finding of this inner light resulting in the physical embodiment of their Quaker nickname), equality before the Lord, pacifism, and multiple other tenets they felt lost in contemporary Christianity. For all things Quaker. | >
> | The Religious Society of Friends, also known as the "Quakers", is a sect of Christianity dating back to the mid 1600's. Thanks to George Fox, the commonly attributed founder of the RSOF, the Quakers arose in England in the 1650's as part of the nonconformist movement protesting the established church. Quakers believe in a personal connection with God, and dismiss the need of intermediary clergy. (Although there are currently many sects within the RSOF, I refer to the Quakers as a singular unit since we are discussing the movements origins.) | | | | |
<
< |
- This citation style is unnecessarily intrusive. You wind up with these "For" non-sentences strewn about everywhere. Just make a link from the word or phrase that's relevant. This time it's a cinch.
| >
> | The Quaker nickname originated from the personal connection each individual made with God. The finding of one's inner light was commonly manifested by physical shaking or “quaking”, and observers of this phenomenon quickly adopted the term Quaker to refer to members of the RSOF. In addition to repudiating the need for spiritual intermediaries, the Quakers emphasize equality before the Lord, pacifism, and many other tenets they considered lost in the established church of the mid 1600's. | | | | |
<
< | The Quakers are famous for the persecution they faced in England, as well as their eventual establishment of Pennsylvania as a Quaker state under William Penn, the sole proprietor of Pennsylvania. see pg. 10 of Fisher. For a discussion of William Penn the proprietor. However, of more interest to this discussion is the Quaker response and reaction to their persecution, which founds the basis for the shaping of the American Legal System by the Quakers. | >
> | The usual starting point for discussions of the Quakers' story in the United States is the establishment of Pennsylvania as a Quaker state in 1681 under the sole proprietorshipp of William Penn.[1] However, a more proper introduction, at least for our purposes, begins with the severe persecution Quakers experienced in England. This persecution, and the Quakers' reaction, founded the Quakers' shaping of the American Legal System. | | | | |
<
< | One of the main reasons for the Quakers' substantial influence on future legal proceedings was the sheer quantity of times Quakers faced the legal system. In a country with an established church concerned with stemming dissenters, as England was with Anglican church and the Conventicle Acts, any group threatening such an establishment or disobeying the established rules is bound to face some resistance. The Quakers bore a significant brunt of the enforcement because they openly defied the rules, and were easy targets because of their pacifist ways. see Horle pp.126-127. | >
> | English Persecution of Religious Dissenters | | | | |
<
< | The Conventicle Act of 1664, was part of a program by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, to discourage participation in any church but that of England. For a free book about Edward Hyde. The Conventicle Act outlawed all religious meetings of more than 5 people outside the Church of England, and some of the corresponding acts within Hyde's program made it illegal to miss Sunday church and forced individuals to swear an oath to the King of England. All of these policies were strictly against the Quakers' belief system, and their devout observance of their beliefs led to their many transgressions of the law. | >
> | With the established church as a central element of national identity, the English monarchy of the 17th century was extremely concerned with the rise of dissenting sects and the strengthening of the nonconformist movement. In an attempt to retain control and assert the dominance of the Anglican Church, Charles II implemented a reign of religious persecution upon all nonconformists. In discussing the Quakers' persecution, the most relevant parliamentary acts were the Quaker Act of 1662 and the Conventicle Act of 1664. | | | | |
<
< |
- Here you might have usefully explained to readers who don't already know the background the nature of English religious persecution in the latter 17th century and its role in politics. You might also want to give them a couple of sentences clarifying the origins of Quakerism, both concerning George Fox and about the developed doctrines of Quakerism.
| >
> | The Quaker Act of 1662 made it illegal to refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance, an oath swearing loyalty to king and country, and illegal to participate in any religious meetings outside of the established church. These prohibitions intentionally ran afoul of the Quakers' doctrinal beliefs. Quakers steadfastly refused to take oaths in any context, and because of their beliefs in the personal connection with God, staunchly opposed the religious proceedings of the Anglican church (in fact if Quakers were to attend church, they would only appear to molest the clergy during their sermons).[2] | | | | |
<
< | The Quakers refused to take oaths, refused to pay tithes, refused to take up arms, would not attend church on Sundays or any of the other 26 holy days (and if they did attend church were only there to molest the clergy during their sermons), and continued to hold their meetings for worship in open defiance of English law. see generally Horle pp.45-50. For these offenses, Quakers were thrown in jail, beaten, fined, relieved of their property, and charged with treason. What set Quakers apart from so many of the other dissenting sects was their refusal to yield to the demands of the law. No matter what the punishment enforced or threatened, the Quakers steadfastly honored and practiced their belief system. | >
> | The Conventicle Act of 1664 was even more restrictive, but focused on all nonconformists, not just the Quakers. The Act was part of a program by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, aimed at discouraging participation in any church but that of England. Hyde's program was an extension of the Quaker Act. It made it illegal to have any religious meetings of more than five people outside the Church of England, illegal to miss Sunday church, and illegal to refuse to swear an oath to the King of England. | | | | |
<
< | Substantial contributions to the American Legal System: | >
> | While this religious persecution applied to all nonconformists, the Quakers were especially susceptible. Their devout observance of their beliefs led to open defiance of these laws and resulted in many interactions with local law enforcement. In addition to their many transgressions of the law, Quakers were subject to more brutal and frequent persecution because their pacifism and refusal to fight back made Quakers extremely easy targets for abuse.[3] | | | | |
<
< | The end of attaintment -- In what has become famously known as the Bushel's case, we can find the end of an oppressive legal tradition (attaintment), and the beginning of an American tradition (jury nullification). William Penn and a fellow Quaker William Mead were tried at the Old Bailey in 1670 for causing a tumultuous assembly, in other words holding a Quaker meeting in the streets. For a transcript of the case. When the trial was over, the judge instructed the jury, and the jury found the defendant's not guilty even though Penn and Mead had clearly transgressed the law. This enraged the judge at which point he issued a writ of attaint, mandating that the jury go back and provide a verdict the court would accept (i.e. guilty). The jury returned with a decision to acquit again, and the judge fined the jury. When one juror, Edward Bushel, refused to pay the fine, the judge threatened to sequester him without food or water until they arrived at the proper decision. The ultimate result of this was the end of writs of attaint, thereby prohibiting judges from imprisoning/punishing jurors for reaching what the judge viewed as the improper verdict. | >
> | These frequent encounters with the law were a necessary antecedent to the Quakers' substantial influence on future legal proceedings. Quakers were thrown in jail, beaten, fined, relieved of their property, and charged with treason, but no matter how brutal the punishment threatened or enforced, Quakers remained faithful. Their continual open defiance of the law, and their eventual defense against the laws they thought unjust set some of the founding precedents for today's American Legal System. | | | | |
<
< | This is also cited as the start of the famous American tradition of jury nullification, where a jury essentially negates a law by choosing not to enforce it because they believe it unjust. Thus, although Penn and Mead violated the Conventicle Act by holding a religious meeting not affiliated with the Church of England in the streets, they were not punished for it because a jury of their peers chose not to enforce the law they viewed as inequitable. | >
> | Substantial contributions to the American Legal System: | | | | |
<
< | The Meeting of Sufferings as a model for modern legal defense organizations -- Perhaps more important than the demise of the writ of attaint, was the organization of a legal defense system which provided a model for all modern legal defense groups. Because the Quakers were in front of the court so often, they established a Meeting of Sufferings to deal with the issues commonly raised during trials of Quakers. see Horle p.162. The Meeting of Sufferings began as a listing of all of the charges brought against Quakers and all of the sufferings bore by Quakers at the hands of the law, judges and prison keepers. see Horle p.173. From this list, the meeting evolved into a council with standing counsel to advise Quakers in legal matters ranging from whether to appeal their cases, to means of thwarting the laws used to persecute Quakers, and eventually to fighting those persecutors legally. see Horle pp.162-188. The Meeting of Sufferings also collected and distributed useful court opinions and rulings establishing a central hub for useful legal knowledge pertaining to the specific needs of Quakers. see Horle pp.199-200. | >
> | The end of attaintment | | | | |
<
< | It is this structure, which was the first of its kind, that has been used to develop modern legal defense organizations. Besides providing a model for future organizations, the Meeting of Sufferings is also notable for the changes in the legal system it brought about. The Meeting of Sufferings was able to change the way laws were enforced by succeeding in getting all the laws of the land written down. This allowed Quakers, as well as other defendants, to properly defend themselves against the charges, and avoid breaking unknown laws wherever possible. Additionally, the Quakers, through the Meeting of Sufferings, were able to change the way indictments were made. Because of the efforts of the Quakers, indictments needed to be wholly proved to find the defendant guilty. Rather than having long-winded lists that would only need to be proven true in part to find the indicted party guilty, the indictments were trimmed down to only the specific charges. see Horle pp.166-167. By trimming the indictments to only the specific charges defendants were held for, the Meeting of Sufferings was able to limit the prejudice that such long indictments inevitable instilled in jurors. Each of these factors allowed for more effective self-defense for Quakers as well as modern legal defense organizations. | >
> | In what has become famously known as the Bushell's case, we can find the end of an oppressive legal tradition (writs of attaint), and the beginning of a pillar of the American judicial tradition (jury nullification). Before delving into the story, we need to define these two concepts. A writ of attaint would be issued by a judge upon the belief that the jury provided an erroneous verdict. The writ allowed for punishment or imprisonment if the jury did not return with the “correct” verdict. Jury nullification, on the other hand, is the ability of a jury to essentially negate a law by choosing not to enforce it. There is very little, if any, room for jury nullification in a world of writs of attaint, and it is therefore not surprising that the end of one brought about the other. | | | | |
<
< | More tolerant laws and penal system established in Pennsylvania -- A final contribution to the modern American Legal System by the Quakers was their more tolerant legal code and reformed penal system which they established in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was the first colony to include in its Constitution the complete freedom to practice religion, as well as an explicit guarantee for trials by juries. see Nash, Quakers and Politics, pp. 31-34. Each of these elements of the Pennsylvania Constitution can be found in the American legal system of today. In addition to these Constitutional guarantees, the penal system was established as a system for reformation of criminals, rather than a system of punishment. see Fischer pp. 14-15. While there are elements of punishment still involved in America's penal system, the institution of reformation policies is a direct succession from the penal system established by the Quakers in their Pennsylvanian colony. | >
> | The story that laid the stage for this change began with William Penn and his fellow Quaker William Mead. In 1670, these two men were holding a Quaker meeting on the streets of , were arrested, and were tried at the Old Bailey under the Conventicle Act for causing a tumultuous assembly. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed the jury of the law they were to enforce (namely the Conventicle Act). Although Penn and Mead had broken the law, the jury challenged the Conventicle Act by finding the defendants not guilty. This enraged the judge at which point he issued a writ of attaint and mandated the jury return to deliberations until they returned with an acceptable verdict (i.e. guilty). The jury once again returned with a verdict of not guilty, and the judge subsequently fined the jury. | | | | |
<
< |
- I think your major efforts in revision should be: (1) to include primary sources in your project to provide starting points for others; and (2) some rewriting effort to smooth your prose.
| >
> | One juror, Edward Bushel (N.B. his name is actually spelled Bushel and not “Bushell” as in the official transcript of his case), refused to pay the fine. When the judge ordered Bushel's imprisonment, Bushel challenged the order. The ensuing trial and ruling was the de facto end of writs of attaint. No longer could judges punish juries for their decisions. As juries could now decide cases without the fear of punishment, jury nullification became a feasible solution to unjust laws. Where a jury believes a law unjust, inequitable, or just wrong, it is able to choose not to enforce it. As in the case of Penn and Mead, although they obviously violated the Conventicle Act by holding a religious meeting not affiliated with the Church of England in the streets, they were not punished for it because a jury of their peers viewed the law as inequitable. | | | | |
>
> | The Meeting for Sufferings as a model for modern legal defense organizations | | | | |
<
< | Main sources: | >
> | Perhaps more important than the demise of the writ of attaint, was the Quakers' organization of a legal defense system. As previously discussed, the frequent transgressions of the religious laws of England resulted in many court appearances for the Quakers. The Quakers felt the sufferings they endured at the hands of law, police, judges and prison keepers were unjust. They decided to make a list of all these sufferings and created a committee to keep a centralized compilation of all their complaints, aptly named “The Meeting for Sufferings.”[4] | | | | |
<
< | Horle, C. The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1988. | >
> | From the origination of the Meeting as simply a record keeping device, the Meeting became an obvious resource to provide legal assistance for Quakers, and continues to be such today. The Meeting took the vast amount of data from the common court appearances of the Quakers and began to sort out the common issues in the trials of Quakers.[5] The Meeting then separated the successful and unsuccessful handling of these issues and provided standing counsel to Quakers facing legal persecution.[6] The council advises Quakers as to whether they should appeal, how they should proceed, and their likelihood of success. Besides being a standing legal counsel for Quakers all over, the Meeting also functions as an invaluable legal research resource. As well as documenting the past sufferings, the group collects and distributes useful court opinions and rulings pertaining to the specific needs of Quaker defendants.[7] This structure of compiling all relevant and useful information for a specific class of individuals and providing legal counsel to those individuals is the model from which all modern legal defense groups were born. | | | | |
<
< | Nash, G. Quakers and Politics: Pennsylvania, 1681-1726. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. 1968. | >
> | This legal defense structure was not only the first of its kind, but also extremely successful. The Meeting was responsible for some invaluable, for Quakers and other defendants alike, victories against the crown that were incorporated into the American Legal System. Two of these notable triumphs were the documentation of all laws and the specification of indictments.[8] The first of these gains allows defendants to avoid breaking unknown laws, but more importantly allows for an effective defense against their charges. The second of these accomplishments minimizes the unfair bias of overly broad indictments. As George Fox stated in a complaint to Parliament in 1661, nothing should be in the indictment “more then[sic] the thing is.”[9] Thus, a defendant can only be convicted if all elements of the indictment are proved. Both the articulation of the laws and the charges provide for a more just justice system. | | | | |
<
< | Nash, G. The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1979. | >
> | More tolerant laws and penal system established in Pennsylvania -- | | | | |
<
< | Fisher, S. The Quaker Colonies: A Chronicle of the Proprietors of the Delaware. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. 1921. | >
> | One final marked element of the American Legal System contributed by the Quakers comes from their implementation of judicial system. Pennsylvania was the first colony to establish unhindered religious tolerance (with freedom of religious practice a pillar of the Pennsylvanian Constitution) and an explicit guarantee for trials by juries.[10] Each of these were undoubtedly reactions to the legal encounters of Quakers in England, and are bedrock principles of today's American Legal System. In addition to these Constitutional guarantees, the Quakers provided a different ideology for their penal system. The Pennsylvanian penal system was in large part established to reform criminals rather than punish them.[11] No penal system is ever truly rid of the punitive component, but the elements of reformation in America's prison system are thanks in large part to the Quakers and their colonization of Pennsylvania.
[1] Fisher, S. The Quaker Colonies: A Chronicle of the Proprietors of the Delaware. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. 1921. p. 10.
[2] Horle, C. The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1988. pp. 45-50.
[3] Horle, pp. 126-127.
[4] Horle, p. 173.
[5] Horle, p. 162.
[6] Horle, pp. 162-188.
[7] Horle, pp. 199-200.
[8] Horle, pp. 166-167.
[9] Horle, p. 167.
[10] Nash, G. Quakers and Politics: Pennsylvania, 1681-1726. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. 1968. pp. 31-34.
[11] Fisher, pp. 14-15.
Further Reading
The Political Writings of William Penn
The Letters of George Fox
George Fox's 59 Particulars to Parliament
The Journal of John Woolman
Collection of more Quaker writings | | | -- MattDavisRatner - 11 Nov 2009 |
|
|
MattDavisRatnerProject 4 - 10 Jan 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ProjectPages" |
|---|
| | | The Quaker Effect
How the Quakers helped shape the American Legal System.
The Religious Society of Friends, also known as the "Quakers", is a sect of Christianity dating back to the mid 1600's. Their beginnings came from an emphasis on each individual's personal connection with God (the finding of this inner light resulting in the physical embodiment of their Quaker nickname), equality before the Lord, pacifism, and multiple other tenets they felt lost in contemporary Christianity. For all things Quaker. | |
>
> |
- This citation style is unnecessarily intrusive. You wind up with these "For" non-sentences strewn about everywhere. Just make a link from the word or phrase that's relevant. This time it's a cinch.
| | | The Quakers are famous for the persecution they faced in England, as well as their eventual establishment of Pennsylvania as a Quaker state under William Penn, the sole proprietor of Pennsylvania. see pg. 10 of Fisher. For a discussion of William Penn the proprietor. However, of more interest to this discussion is the Quaker response and reaction to their persecution, which founds the basis for the shaping of the American Legal System by the Quakers.
One of the main reasons for the Quakers' substantial influence on future legal proceedings was the sheer quantity of times Quakers faced the legal system. In a country with an established church concerned with stemming dissenters, as England was with Anglican church and the Conventicle Acts, any group threatening such an establishment or disobeying the established rules is bound to face some resistance. The Quakers bore a significant brunt of the enforcement because they openly defied the rules, and were easy targets because of their pacifist ways. see Horle pp.126-127.
The Conventicle Act of 1664, was part of a program by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, to discourage participation in any church but that of England. For a free book about Edward Hyde. The Conventicle Act outlawed all religious meetings of more than 5 people outside the Church of England, and some of the corresponding acts within Hyde's program made it illegal to miss Sunday church and forced individuals to swear an oath to the King of England. All of these policies were strictly against the Quakers' belief system, and their devout observance of their beliefs led to their many transgressions of the law. | |
>
> |
- Here you might have usefully explained to readers who don't already know the background the nature of English religious persecution in the latter 17th century and its role in politics. You might also want to give them a couple of sentences clarifying the origins of Quakerism, both concerning George Fox and about the developed doctrines of Quakerism.
| | | The Quakers refused to take oaths, refused to pay tithes, refused to take up arms, would not attend church on Sundays or any of the other 26 holy days (and if they did attend church were only there to molest the clergy during their sermons), and continued to hold their meetings for worship in open defiance of English law. see generally Horle pp.45-50. For these offenses, Quakers were thrown in jail, beaten, fined, relieved of their property, and charged with treason. What set Quakers apart from so many of the other dissenting sects was their refusal to yield to the demands of the law. No matter what the punishment enforced or threatened, the Quakers steadfastly honored and practiced their belief system.
Substantial contributions to the American Legal System: | | | More tolerant laws and penal system established in Pennsylvania -- A final contribution to the modern American Legal System by the Quakers was their more tolerant legal code and reformed penal system which they established in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was the first colony to include in its Constitution the complete freedom to practice religion, as well as an explicit guarantee for trials by juries. see Nash, Quakers and Politics, pp. 31-34. Each of these elements of the Pennsylvania Constitution can be found in the American legal system of today. In addition to these Constitutional guarantees, the penal system was established as a system for reformation of criminals, rather than a system of punishment. see Fischer pp. 14-15. While there are elements of punishment still involved in America's penal system, the institution of reformation policies is a direct succession from the penal system established by the Quakers in their Pennsylvanian colony. | |
<
< | | >
> |
- I think your major efforts in revision should be: (1) to include primary sources in your project to provide starting points for others; and (2) some rewriting effort to smooth your prose.
| | |
Main sources: |
|
|
MattDavisRatnerProject 3 - 14 Dec 2009 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
The Quaker Effect
How the Quakers helped shape the American Legal System. | |
<
< | The Religious Society of Friends, also known as "Quakers", is a sect of Christianity dating back to the mid 1600's. Their beginnings came from an emphasis on each individual's personal connection with God (the finding of this inner light resulting in the physical embodiment of their Quaker nickname), equality before the Lord, pacifism, and multiple other tenets they felt lost in contemporary Christianity. For all things Quaker. | >
> | The Religious Society of Friends, also known as the "Quakers", is a sect of Christianity dating back to the mid 1600's. Their beginnings came from an emphasis on each individual's personal connection with God (the finding of this inner light resulting in the physical embodiment of their Quaker nickname), equality before the Lord, pacifism, and multiple other tenets they felt lost in contemporary Christianity. For all things Quaker. | | | The Quakers are famous for the persecution they faced in England, as well as their eventual establishment of Pennsylvania as a Quaker state under William Penn, the sole proprietor of Pennsylvania. see pg. 10 of Fisher. For a discussion of William Penn the proprietor. However, of more interest to this discussion is the Quaker response and reaction to their persecution, which founds the basis for the shaping of the American Legal System by the Quakers. | |
<
< | One of the main reasons for the Quakers' substantial influence on future legal proceedings was the sheer quantity of times Quakers faced the legal system. In a country with an established church concerned with stemming dissenters, as England was with Anglican church and the Conventicle Acts, any group threatening such an establishment or disobeying the established rules is bound to face some resistance. The Quakers bore a significant brunt of the enforcement because they openly defied the rules, and were easy targets because of the pacifist views. see Horle pp.126-127. | >
> | One of the main reasons for the Quakers' substantial influence on future legal proceedings was the sheer quantity of times Quakers faced the legal system. In a country with an established church concerned with stemming dissenters, as England was with Anglican church and the Conventicle Acts, any group threatening such an establishment or disobeying the established rules is bound to face some resistance. The Quakers bore a significant brunt of the enforcement because they openly defied the rules, and were easy targets because of their pacifist ways. see Horle pp.126-127. | | | The Conventicle Act of 1664, was part of a program by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, to discourage participation in any church but that of England. For a free book about Edward Hyde. The Conventicle Act outlawed all religious meetings of more than 5 people outside the Church of England, and some of the corresponding acts within Hyde's program made it illegal to miss Sunday church and forced individuals to swear an oath to the King of England. All of these policies were strictly against the Quakers' belief system, and their devout observance of their beliefs led to their many transgressions of the law. | | | Substantial contributions to the American Legal System: | |
<
< | The end of attaintment -- In what has become famously known as the Bushel's case, we can find the end of an oppressive legal tradition (attaintment), and the beginning of an American tradition (jury nullification). William Penn and a fellow Quaker William Mead were tried at the Old Bailey in 1670 for causing a tumultuous assembly, in other words holding a Quaker meeting in the streets. For a transcript of the case. When the trial was over, the judge instructed the jury, and the jury found the defendant's not guilty even though Penn and Mead had clearly transgressed the law. This enraged the judge at which point he issued a writ of attaint, mandating that the jury go back and provide a verdict the court would accept (i.e. guilty). The jury returned with a decision to acquit again, and the judge fined the jury. When one juror, Edward Bushel, refused to pay the fine, the judge threatened to sequester him without food or water until they arrived at the proper decision. The ultimate result of this was the end of writs of attaint, thereby prohibiting judges from imprisoning/punishing jurors for reaching what the judge viewed as the improper verdict. | >
> | The end of attaintment -- In what has become famously known as the Bushel's case, we can find the end of an oppressive legal tradition (attaintment), and the beginning of an American tradition (jury nullification). William Penn and a fellow Quaker William Mead were tried at the Old Bailey in 1670 for causing a tumultuous assembly, in other words holding a Quaker meeting in the streets. For a transcript of the case. When the trial was over, the judge instructed the jury, and the jury found the defendant's not guilty even though Penn and Mead had clearly transgressed the law. This enraged the judge at which point he issued a writ of attaint, mandating that the jury go back and provide a verdict the court would accept (i.e. guilty). The jury returned with a decision to acquit again, and the judge fined the jury. When one juror, Edward Bushel, refused to pay the fine, the judge threatened to sequester him without food or water until they arrived at the proper decision. The ultimate result of this was the end of writs of attaint, thereby prohibiting judges from imprisoning/punishing jurors for reaching what the judge viewed as the improper verdict. | | | This is also cited as the start of the famous American tradition of jury nullification, where a jury essentially negates a law by choosing not to enforce it because they believe it unjust. Thus, although Penn and Mead violated the Conventicle Act by holding a religious meeting not affiliated with the Church of England in the streets, they were not punished for it because a jury of their peers chose not to enforce the law they viewed as inequitable. | |
<
< | Meeting of Sufferings as a model for modern legal defense organizations -- Perhaps more important than the demise of the writ of attaint, was the organization of legal defense system which provided for a model for all modern legal defense groups. Because the Quakers were in front of the court so often, they established a Meeting of Sufferings. see Horle p.162. The Meeting of Sufferings began as a listing of all of the charges brought against Quakers and all of the sufferings bore by Quakers at the hands of the law, judges and prison keepers. see Horle p.173. From this list, the meeting evolved into a council with standing counsel to advise Quakers in legal matters ranging from whether to appeal their cases, how to thwart the laws used to persecute Quakers, and how to fight those persecutors legally. see Horle pp.162-188. The Meeting of Sufferings also collected and distributed useful court opinions and rulings establishing a central hub for useful legal knowledge pertaining to the specific needs of Quakers. see Horle pp.199-200.
It is this structure, and the first of its kind, that has been used to develop modern legal defense organizations. The Meeting of Sufferings also fought to get all laws written. This allowed Quakers to properly defend themselves against the charges, and avoid breaking unknown laws wherever possible. The Quakers also were able to change the way indictments were made. Because of the efforts of the Quakers, indictments needed to be wholly proved to find the defendant guilty. Rather than having long-winded lists that would only need to be proven true in part to find the indicted party guilty, the indictments were trimmed down to only the specific charges. see Horle. pp.166-167. Each of these factors allowed for more effective self-defense for Quakers as well as modern legal defense organizations. | >
> | The Meeting of Sufferings as a model for modern legal defense organizations -- Perhaps more important than the demise of the writ of attaint, was the organization of a legal defense system which provided a model for all modern legal defense groups. Because the Quakers were in front of the court so often, they established a Meeting of Sufferings to deal with the issues commonly raised during trials of Quakers. see Horle p.162. The Meeting of Sufferings began as a listing of all of the charges brought against Quakers and all of the sufferings bore by Quakers at the hands of the law, judges and prison keepers. see Horle p.173. From this list, the meeting evolved into a council with standing counsel to advise Quakers in legal matters ranging from whether to appeal their cases, to means of thwarting the laws used to persecute Quakers, and eventually to fighting those persecutors legally. see Horle pp.162-188. The Meeting of Sufferings also collected and distributed useful court opinions and rulings establishing a central hub for useful legal knowledge pertaining to the specific needs of Quakers. see Horle pp.199-200. | | | | |
<
< | more tolerant laws and penal system established in Pennsylvania -- | >
> | It is this structure, which was the first of its kind, that has been used to develop modern legal defense organizations. Besides providing a model for future organizations, the Meeting of Sufferings is also notable for the changes in the legal system it brought about. The Meeting of Sufferings was able to change the way laws were enforced by succeeding in getting all the laws of the land written down. This allowed Quakers, as well as other defendants, to properly defend themselves against the charges, and avoid breaking unknown laws wherever possible. Additionally, the Quakers, through the Meeting of Sufferings, were able to change the way indictments were made. Because of the efforts of the Quakers, indictments needed to be wholly proved to find the defendant guilty. Rather than having long-winded lists that would only need to be proven true in part to find the indicted party guilty, the indictments were trimmed down to only the specific charges. see Horle pp.166-167. By trimming the indictments to only the specific charges defendants were held for, the Meeting of Sufferings was able to limit the prejudice that such long indictments inevitable instilled in jurors. Each of these factors allowed for more effective self-defense for Quakers as well as modern legal defense organizations. | | | | |
>
> | More tolerant laws and penal system established in Pennsylvania -- A final contribution to the modern American Legal System by the Quakers was their more tolerant legal code and reformed penal system which they established in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was the first colony to include in its Constitution the complete freedom to practice religion, as well as an explicit guarantee for trials by juries. see Nash, Quakers and Politics, pp. 31-34. Each of these elements of the Pennsylvania Constitution can be found in the American legal system of today. In addition to these Constitutional guarantees, the penal system was established as a system for reformation of criminals, rather than a system of punishment. see Fischer pp. 14-15. While there are elements of punishment still involved in America's penal system, the institution of reformation policies is a direct succession from the penal system established by the Quakers in their Pennsylvanian colony. | | | |
|
|
MattDavisRatnerProject 2 - 03 Dec 2009 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
The Quaker Effect
How the Quakers helped shape the American Legal System. | |
<
< | More to come as I wade through my resources. | >
> | The Religious Society of Friends, also known as "Quakers", is a sect of Christianity dating back to the mid 1600's. Their beginnings came from an emphasis on each individual's personal connection with God (the finding of this inner light resulting in the physical embodiment of their Quaker nickname), equality before the Lord, pacifism, and multiple other tenets they felt lost in contemporary Christianity. For all things Quaker.
The Quakers are famous for the persecution they faced in England, as well as their eventual establishment of Pennsylvania as a Quaker state under William Penn, the sole proprietor of Pennsylvania. see pg. 10 of Fisher. For a discussion of William Penn the proprietor. However, of more interest to this discussion is the Quaker response and reaction to their persecution, which founds the basis for the shaping of the American Legal System by the Quakers.
One of the main reasons for the Quakers' substantial influence on future legal proceedings was the sheer quantity of times Quakers faced the legal system. In a country with an established church concerned with stemming dissenters, as England was with Anglican church and the Conventicle Acts, any group threatening such an establishment or disobeying the established rules is bound to face some resistance. The Quakers bore a significant brunt of the enforcement because they openly defied the rules, and were easy targets because of the pacifist views. see Horle pp.126-127.
The Conventicle Act of 1664, was part of a program by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, to discourage participation in any church but that of England. For a free book about Edward Hyde. The Conventicle Act outlawed all religious meetings of more than 5 people outside the Church of England, and some of the corresponding acts within Hyde's program made it illegal to miss Sunday church and forced individuals to swear an oath to the King of England. All of these policies were strictly against the Quakers' belief system, and their devout observance of their beliefs led to their many transgressions of the law.
The Quakers refused to take oaths, refused to pay tithes, refused to take up arms, would not attend church on Sundays or any of the other 26 holy days (and if they did attend church were only there to molest the clergy during their sermons), and continued to hold their meetings for worship in open defiance of English law. see generally Horle pp.45-50. For these offenses, Quakers were thrown in jail, beaten, fined, relieved of their property, and charged with treason. What set Quakers apart from so many of the other dissenting sects was their refusal to yield to the demands of the law. No matter what the punishment enforced or threatened, the Quakers steadfastly honored and practiced their belief system.
Substantial contributions to the American Legal System:
The end of attaintment -- In what has become famously known as the Bushel's case, we can find the end of an oppressive legal tradition (attaintment), and the beginning of an American tradition (jury nullification). William Penn and a fellow Quaker William Mead were tried at the Old Bailey in 1670 for causing a tumultuous assembly, in other words holding a Quaker meeting in the streets. For a transcript of the case. When the trial was over, the judge instructed the jury, and the jury found the defendant's not guilty even though Penn and Mead had clearly transgressed the law. This enraged the judge at which point he issued a writ of attaint, mandating that the jury go back and provide a verdict the court would accept (i.e. guilty). The jury returned with a decision to acquit again, and the judge fined the jury. When one juror, Edward Bushel, refused to pay the fine, the judge threatened to sequester him without food or water until they arrived at the proper decision. The ultimate result of this was the end of writs of attaint, thereby prohibiting judges from imprisoning/punishing jurors for reaching what the judge viewed as the improper verdict.
This is also cited as the start of the famous American tradition of jury nullification, where a jury essentially negates a law by choosing not to enforce it because they believe it unjust. Thus, although Penn and Mead violated the Conventicle Act by holding a religious meeting not affiliated with the Church of England in the streets, they were not punished for it because a jury of their peers chose not to enforce the law they viewed as inequitable.
Meeting of Sufferings as a model for modern legal defense organizations -- Perhaps more important than the demise of the writ of attaint, was the organization of legal defense system which provided for a model for all modern legal defense groups. Because the Quakers were in front of the court so often, they established a Meeting of Sufferings. see Horle p.162. The Meeting of Sufferings began as a listing of all of the charges brought against Quakers and all of the sufferings bore by Quakers at the hands of the law, judges and prison keepers. see Horle p.173. From this list, the meeting evolved into a council with standing counsel to advise Quakers in legal matters ranging from whether to appeal their cases, how to thwart the laws used to persecute Quakers, and how to fight those persecutors legally. see Horle pp.162-188. The Meeting of Sufferings also collected and distributed useful court opinions and rulings establishing a central hub for useful legal knowledge pertaining to the specific needs of Quakers. see Horle pp.199-200.
It is this structure, and the first of its kind, that has been used to develop modern legal defense organizations. The Meeting of Sufferings also fought to get all laws written. This allowed Quakers to properly defend themselves against the charges, and avoid breaking unknown laws wherever possible. The Quakers also were able to change the way indictments were made. Because of the efforts of the Quakers, indictments needed to be wholly proved to find the defendant guilty. Rather than having long-winded lists that would only need to be proven true in part to find the indicted party guilty, the indictments were trimmed down to only the specific charges. see Horle. pp.166-167. Each of these factors allowed for more effective self-defense for Quakers as well as modern legal defense organizations.
more tolerant laws and penal system established in Pennsylvania -- | | | |
|
|
MattDavisRatnerProject 1 - 11 Nov 2009 - Main.MattDavisRatner
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
The Quaker Effect
How the Quakers helped shape the American Legal System.
More to come as I wade through my resources.
Main sources:
Horle, C. The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1988.
Nash, G. Quakers and Politics: Pennsylvania, 1681-1726. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. 1968.
Nash, G. The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1979.
Fisher, S. The Quaker Colonies: A Chronicle of the Proprietors of the Delaware. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. 1921.
-- MattDavisRatner - 11 Nov 2009
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|