| |
| 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. | | | |
|