Benefit of clergy

Benefit of Clergy Act 1670
Benefit of Clergy Act 1670
Act of Parliament
Long title	An Act for takeing away the Benefit of Clergy from such as steale Cloth from the Racke and from such as shall steale or imbezill his Majestyes Ammunition and Stores.
Citation	22 Cha. 2. c. 5
Dates
Royal assent	11 April 1670
Other legislation
Repealed by	Criminal Statutes Repeal Act 1827
Status: Repealed

Last updated May 08, 2024

In English law, the benefit of clergy (Law Latin: privilegium clericale) was originally a provision by which clergymen accused of a crime could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts and be tried instead in an ecclesiastical court under canon law. The ecclesiastical courts were generally seen as being more lenient in their prosecutions and punishments, and defendants made many efforts to claim clergy status, often on questionable or fraudulent grounds.

Various reforms limited the scope of this legal arrangement to prevent its abuse, including branding of a thumb upon first use, to limit the number of invocations for some. Eventually, the benefit of clergy evolved into a legal fiction in which first-time offenders could receive lesser sentences for some crimes (the so-called "clergyable" ones). The legal mechanism was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1827 with the passage of the Criminal Law Act 1827.

Origin

When the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, its emperors issued legal privileges to clerics, particularly bishops, granting them immunity from civic prosecution. In the early Middle Ages, canon law tended to extend the degree of this privilege, even including criminal matters.^[1] In England, this tradition was only partially accepted.^[2] Before the 12th century, traditional English law courts had been jointly presided over by a bishop and a local secular magistrate.

In 1164, however, Henry II promulgated the Constitutions of Clarendon, which established a new system of courts that rendered decisions wholly by royal authority. The Assizes touched off a power struggle between the king and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Becket asserted that these secular courts had no jurisdiction over clergy members because it was the privilege of clergy not to be accused or tried for crime except before an ecclesiastical court. After four of Henry's knights murdered Becket in 1170, public sentiment turned against the king, forcing him to make amends with the church. As part of the Compromise of Avranches, Henry was purged of any guilt in Becket's murder. Still, he agreed that the secular courts, with few exceptions (high treason being one of them, and forest law another), had no jurisdiction over the clergy.^[3]

The Miserere

At first, to plead the benefit of clergy, one had to appear before the court tonsured and otherwise wear an ecclesiastical dress. Over time, this proof of clergyhood was replaced by a literacy test: defendants demonstrated their clerical status by reading from the Latin Bible. This opened the door to literate lay defendants also claiming the benefit of clergy. In 1351, under Edward III, this loophole was formalised in statute, and the benefit of clergy was officially extended to all who could read.^[4] For example, the English dramatist Ben Jonson avoided hanging by pleading benefit of clergy in 1598 when charged with manslaughter. In the British colony of Massachusetts, the two soldiers convicted of manslaughter in the 1770 Boston Massacre were spared execution under the benefit of clergy. Still, they underwent branding of their right thumbs to prevent them from invoking the right in any future murder case (see Tudor reforms below).^[5]

Unofficially, the loophole was even larger because the Biblical passage traditionally used for the literacy test was, appropriately, the third verse of Psalm 51 (Psalm 50 according to the Vulgate and Septuagint numbering), Miserere mei, Deus, secundum misericordiam tuam ("O God, have mercy upon me, according to thine heartfelt mercifulness"). Thus, an illiterate person who had memorized the appropriate Psalm could also claim the benefit of clergy. Psalm 51:3 became known as the "neck verse" because knowing it could "save one's neck" (an idiom for "save one's life") by transferring the case from a secular court, where hanging was a likely sentence, to an ecclesiastical court, where both the methods of trial and the sentences given were more lenient.^[4]

The benefit of clergy was commonly applied as a means of judicial mercy: in Elizabethan England, courts might allow more than 90% of clergyable offenders the benefit of clergy, which was far higher than the literacy rate of the period.^[6] If a defendant who claimed the benefit of clergy were thought to be particularly deserving of death, courts occasionally would ask him to read a different passage from the Bible; if, like most defendants, he was illiterate and simply had memorized Psalm 51, he would be unable to do so and would be put to death.

In the ecclesiastical courts, the most common form of trial was by compurgation. If the defendant swore an oath to his innocence and found twelve compurgators to swear likewise to their belief that the accused was innocent, he was acquitted. A person convicted by an ecclesiastical court could be defrocked and returned to the secular authorities for punishment. Still, the English ecclesiastical courts became increasingly lenient, and by the 15th century, most convictions in these courts led to a sentence of penance.

Tudor-era reforms

As a result of this leniency in the ecclesiastical courts, many reforms were undertaken to combat the abuse of the benefit of clergy. In 1488, Henry VII decreed that non-clergymen should be allowed to plead the benefit of clergy only once: those claiming the benefit of clergy but not able to prove through documentation of their holy orders that they were clergy members, were branded on the thumb, and the brand disqualified them from pleading the benefit of clergy in the future. (In 1547, the privilege of claiming the benefit of clergy more than once was extended to peers of the realm, even illiterate ones.)

In 1512, Henry VIII further restricted the benefit of clergy by making certain offences "unclergyable" offences; in the words of the statutes, they were "felonies without benefit of clergy". This restriction was condemned by Pope Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council in 1514. The resulting controversy (in which both the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury became involved) was one of the issues that would lead to Henry VIII splitting the Church of England from the Catholic Church in 1532.

The 1512 statute limited the availability of benefit of clergy for murders and felonies committed "of and upon malice prepensed".^[7] A 1530 statute allowed the benefit of clergy a second time only if the second conviction was for "manslaughter by chance medley, and not murder of malice prepensed" but barred it for "petit treason, murder or felony".^[8]^[9] By the end of the 16th century, the list of unclergyable offences included murder, rape, poisoning, petty treason, sacrilege, witchcraft, burglary, theft from churches, and pickpocketing. In 1533 benefit of clergy was withdrawn from those who refused to enter a plea.

In 1575, a statute of Elizabeth I radically changed the effect of the benefit of clergy. Whereas before the benefit was pleaded before a trial to have the case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, under the new system, the benefit of clergy was pleaded after conviction but before sentencing. It did not nullify the conviction but instead changed the sentence for first-time offenders from probable hanging to branding and up to a year's incarceration.

Later development

By this point, the benefit of clergy had been transformed from a privilege of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to a mechanism by which first-time offenders could obtain partial clemency for some crimes.^[10] Legislation in the 17th and 18th centuries increased the number of defendants who could plead the benefit of clergy but decreased the benefit of doing so.

Women acquired the benefit of clergy in 1624, although it was not until 1691 that they were given equal privileges with men. (For example, before 1691, women could plead the benefit of clergy if convicted of theft of goods valued less than 10 shillings, while men could plead clergy for thefts up to 40 shillings.) In the opinion of many contemporary legal scholars, a Jew who had not renounced Judaism could not claim the benefit of clergy.^[11]

In 1706, the reading test was abolished, and the benefit became available to all first-time offenders of lesser felonies.^[12] Meanwhile, an increasing crime rate prompted Parliament to exclude many seemingly minor property crimes from the benefit of clergy. Eventually, housebreaking, shoplifting goods worth more than 5 shillings, and the theft of sheep and cattle all became felonies without the benefit of clergy. They earned their perpetrator's automatic death sentences under the so-called "Bloody Code". Judges retained the discretion to ask the accused to read a text other than Psalm 51, where they suspected the privilege was being abused.^[13]

When the literacy test was abolished in 1706, the lesser sentence given to those who pleaded benefit of clergy was increased to up to 6–24 months' hard labour. Under the Transportation Act 1718, those who pleaded benefit of clergy could be sentenced to seven years' banishment to North America. The American Revolution (1775–1783) disrupted the application of this punishment (although two of the British soldiers convicted for their roles in the 1770 Boston Massacre made use of the benefit of clergy to receive reduced punishments). With the abolition of branding in 1779, the benefit of clergy was no longer an option in most cases. Although transportation shifted to Australia, this came to be done using straightforward sentences of transportation for a term of years or for life.

The benefit of clergy was abolished in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland by two acts in 1823, and Parliament formally abolished the benefit of clergy with the Criminal Law Act 1827. There was some doubt as to the efficacy of this act, and a final act was passed in 1841, removing all doubt (statute 4th and 5th Vict. c. 22, 2 June 1841).

In the United States, section 31 of the Crimes Act of 1790 eliminated the benefit from federal courts in capital cases,^[14] but it survived well into the mid-19th century in some state courts (for example, South Carolina granted a defendant benefit of clergy in 1855, and the state's Confederate Constitution forbade the benefit in cases of treason^[15]). Many states and counties have abolished the clergy benefits by proclamation, statute, or judicial decision; in others, it simply has fallen into disuse without formal abolition. Rhode Island, however, did not abolish it until 2013, along with deodands, and the distinction between petit treason and murder.^[16]

Related Research Articles

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences. Typically, misdemeanors are punished with prison time of no longer than one year, monetary fines, or community service.

In law, a plea is a defendant's response to a criminal charge. A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction, additional pleas may be available, including nolo contendere, no case to answer, or an Alford plea.

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

The Constitutions of Clarendon were a set of legislative procedures passed by Henry II of England in 1164. The Constitutions were composed of 16 articles and represent an attempt to restrict ecclesiastical privileges and curb the power of the Church courts and the extent of papal authority in England. In the anarchic conditions of Henry II's predecessor, Stephen, the church had extended its jurisdiction by taking advantage of the weakness of royal authority. The Constitutions were claimed to restore the law as it was observed during the reign of Henry I (1100–1135).

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Justice Brennan dissent famously argued that "The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity... An executed person has indeed 'lost the right to have rights."

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Most jurisdictions in the United States of America maintain the felony murder rule. In essence, the felony murder rule states that when an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder. It means that the common law malice required for murder is "implied as a matter of law for homicides arising from felonies." It is a widely criticized feature of American criminal law. Initially, it was widely believed by scholars that the felony murder rule had originated in England. However, more recent scholarship has argued that it likely originated in America separately from England. Its historic roots have been called "deep but terribly obscure".

Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.

The Criminal Law Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made some major changes to English criminal law, as part of wider liberal reforms by the Labour government elected in 1966. Most of it is still in force.

In the United States, the law for murder varies by jurisdiction. In many US jurisdictions there is a hierarchy of acts, known collectively as homicide, of which first-degree murder and felony murder are the most serious, followed by second-degree murder and, in a few states, third-degree murder, which in other states is divided into voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter such as reckless homicide and negligent homicide, which are the least serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime. However, because there are at least 52 relevant jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this is a considerable simplification.

The Criminal Justice Act 1948 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It implemented several widespread reforms of the English criminal justice system, mainly abolishing penal servitude, corporal punishment, and the right of peers to be tried for treason and felony in the House of Lords. The act also dealt with more minor aspects of criminal law, such as the procedure regarding bail. Early versions of the bill attempted to abolish the death penalty, but this would not occur until 1965.

Capital punishment in Montenegro was first prescribed by law in 1798. It was abolished on 19 June 2002. The last execution, by shooting, took place on 29 January 1981, and the two last death sentences were pronounced on 11 October 2001. Montenegro is bound by the following international conventions prohibiting capital punishment : Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Protocols No. 6 and No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 26 of the Montenegrin Constitution (2007) that outlawed the death penalty states: "In Montenegro, capital punishment punishment is forbidden”.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Georgia. Georgia reintroduced the death penalty in 1973 after Furman v. Georgia ruled all states' death penalty statutes unconstitutional. The first execution to take place afterwards occurred in 1983.

Capital punishment in Missouri first used in 1810 is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Missouri.

The Criminal Law Act 1827 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, applicable only to England and Wales. It abolished many obsolete procedural devices in English criminal law, particularly the benefit of clergy. It was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

References

↑ West, C. (2021-01-06). "Pope Leo of Bourges, clerical immunity and the early medieval secular". Early Medieval Europe. 29 (1): 86–108. doi:10.1111/emed.12450. hdl: 20.500.11820/4d844531-07b8-4d4e-a951-58ff9eb06dc3 . ISSN 0963-9462. S2CID 234023609.
↑ Marafioti, Nicole (2019-07-01). "Secular and Ecclesiastical Justice in Late Anglo-Saxon England". Speculum. 94 (3): 774–805. doi:10.1086/703556. ISSN 0038-7134. S2CID 197852973.
↑ Duggan, Anne J. (2017). "Clerical Exemption in Canon Law from Gratian to the Decretals". Medieval Worlds. medieval worlds (6): 78–100, at p. 89. doi: 10.1553/medievalworlds_no6_2017s78 . ISSN 2412-3196.
1 2 See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 692-93, 44 L.Ed.2d 508, 515-16, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1886; (1975).
↑ Benefit of Clergy, Boston Massacre
↑ Wrightson, Keith E. (2009). "Early Modern England: Politics, Religion, and Society under the Tudors and Stuarts: Lecture 15 — Crime and the Law". Open Yale Courses. ... it is perfectly clear that the magistrates and the judges were permitting any kind of stumbling through the neck verse—often from memory, probably—in order to allow them to have this means of escaping the death penalty. Ca. 38:37.
↑ 4 Hen. 7
↑ 4 Hen. 8
↑ Jeremy Horder, Provocation and Responsibility (1992), p.12
↑ See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 337 fn 47, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, 404, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 2775 (1972) and references cited therein.
↑ Henriques, Henry Straus Quixano (October 1905). "The Civil Rights of English Jews". The Jewish Quarterly Review . The Jews and the English Law. 18 (1). Oxford: Horace Hart, Printer to the University: 40–83. doi:10.2307/1450822. hdl:2027/mdp.39015039624393. ISSN 0021-6682. JSTOR 1450822. OCLC 5792006336. A Jew was, unless he had previously renounced his religion, incapable of becoming a clergyman; and therefore Jews who had committed crimes and been convicted of them could not, according to the opinion of many great legal writers, avail themselves of the benefit of clergy which other malefactors, on a first conviction for felony were at liberty to plead in mitigation of punishment.
↑ Briggs, John (1996). Crime and punishment in England: an introductory history. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-312-16331-2.
↑ R. v Cavenagh (1689) 12 State Trials 629
↑ Crimes Act of 1790, ch. 9, § 31, 1 Stat. 112, 119.
↑ "Benefit of Clergy", Henry Shultz and his Town of Hamburg, SC: Economic War to the Death in the Antebellum South; August 19, 2015; accessed 2022.09.21.
↑ 2013 Rhode Island General Laws Title 12 - Criminal Procedure Chapter 12-19 - Sentence and Execution Section 12-19-3 - Deodands – Benefit of clergy – Petit treason.