Both the seventh and eighth amendments to the United States Constitution deal of trials, one criminal and one civil. Just like the previous amendments to the Constitution the seventh and eighth amendment could also find their legacy in the British monarchy and how it dealt with the American colonies. Just as with each of the previous amendments the Genesis can directly be traced to tyranny, and are listed as grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George.
The Seventh Amendment:
In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
As mentioned in Part 4 in regards sixth amendment, the right to trial the jury has a long history. But the seventh amendment deals lawsuits where the value of the dispute is greater than $20, not criminal trials. The Constitution ensures the right to trial by jury in criminal cases in Article III Section 2 and is reinforced sixth amendment to Civil cases. But no guarantee had been given that trial by jury would also be guaranteed in civil cases.
The seventh amendment carries two parts, one in regards to trials by jury in civil suits, and the second the decisions of the jury shall not be dismissed other than to the rules of common law.
In regards to the first section dealing with civil suits even though this trial by jury is not in regards to criminal trials, the purpose of the jury remains the same, to have your peers decide based on the evidence, this time in regards to property. The reason for this goes back to the distinction between what judges and juries do, judges are to rule on evidence what is and what is not allowed to be used in deciding the guilt or innocence or in case of civil trials the merits and facts of reward or liability. Juries are to decide based on those facts, do the facts of support the guilt of an individual in criminal or civil trials.
The history of the importance of jury trials can also be traced back to the Court of Star chamber in which judges held office during the pleasure of the King, meaning if they made decisions that were not to the liking of the King the King could have them removed causing an inherent conflict of interest. Where is a trial by jury does not have this interest at conflict that they are more likely to judge on fact in making their decision, but as was seen during the American Revolution even juries were not immune to political discourse in their decisions.
Even though the trial being guaranteed is not a criminal nature it still involves the rights of an individual, and because of this the same protections as personal liberty and freedom should also be protected and decided by a jury of their peers.
In regards the second portion of the seventh amendment dealing with re-examination, as with the sixth amendment this can be traced back to British tyranny both in Great Britain and the American colonies. The purpose of this clause was to prevent a jury from being overruled based on feelings, perception, or political motivations of another individual. The seventh amendment however does not preclude appeal, but the appeal must be based on common law (common law in place in 1791).
Overall the seventh amendment has the same basic Genesis as the sixth amendment guaranteeing the right of trial by jury, the only difference being in the seventh amendment in regards to civil cases where as in all other instances it was directly related to criminal cases. Even though the chief complaint of the Court of Star Chamber was mainly criminal prosecution of political dissidents, with the abolition of Star chamber on July 5, 1641 the following was stated:
WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land…
The abolition of Star Chamber also assured the rights of trial by jury in civil matters, "that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his freehold or liberties... But by the lawful judgment of his peers". The same basic quote is nearly identical to what was put in the Magna Carta in 1215:
(Part 29) No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised (to deprive wrongfully) of free tenement for his liberties for free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go again such a man or send him against and save by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell or deny of delayed right of justice.
The Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
The History of the Eighth Amendment Itself Can Be Traced Directly Back to the English Bill Of Rights from every 13th 1689:
And Excessive Bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
And excessive fines have been imposed;
And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
Throughout world history rule unusual or excessive punishments have been documented from the Greek and Roman empires, Egypt, Mesopotamia, East Asia and Europe. At times in history, the sentence of death required very little of the crime, simply speaking words was enough to be subject to it. Great Britain and the rest of Europe was not immune to this, they too also have a strong and long history of cruel, unusual and excessive punishments.
A Freeman Is Not to Be amerced for a small offence save in accordance with the manner of the offence, and for major offence according to its magnitude... (sic)
Even with these safeguards adopted in place the elimination of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines have not been eliminated. One example could be from 1692 with the Salem witch trials, in which people were pressed (boards placed on their chest with a gradual increasing of stones placed on the board to increase the weight) hanged or by other means of coercion, to solicit a confession or to bear witness against a suspected witch. Also, again referring to Star chamber we can see excessive excessive fines or punishments or even know be a little, a court, which was convened after the Magna Carta but prior to the English Bill of Rights.
As for the American colonies themselves very few cases of cruel and unusual punishment for the time can be found, except for those of political dissent. Political dissidents risk the crime of treason for speaking out against the crown, which was a crime punishable by death. Even though there is very little direct correlation between the colonial treatment by the British to the eighth amendment the history of Great Britain itself was a greatest influence the creation of the eighth amendment through the court of Star chamber, Britain's own history of cruel punishment, and the precedents in the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.
The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments all of the history back to some of the darkest times of Great Britain. Whether the Court of Star chamber, the tyranny of the tyrant and a king or queen the oppression of people by unjust laws or the suspension of the right of trial by jury. The American colonists all knew all too well what could happen without guaranteed protections against these type of acts. Most had ancestors that had come from Great Britain, and many Americans, especially the founding fathers were very rude well-versed in history.
William Blackstone in his treatise of 1760 Commentaries on the laws of England, understood that even with the protections in place of the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, it was up to the arbitrary decision of a judge;
[H]owever unlimited the power of the court may seem, it is far from being wholly arbitrary; but its discretion is regulated by law. For the bill of rights has particularly declared, that excessive fines ought not to be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted:
But the big difference between the American and English system of law is not so much in the wall itself, but in how the law is executed. With the right of trial by jury other courts having the ability to review fact and the burden of proof in addition to these constitutional guarantees helps limit a single arbitrary decision from violating any of these basic rights, many such safeguards which do not exist under the English court system. Even today. By placing these prohibitions and guarantees into place. The Founding Fathers were attempting to ensure the tools or mechanisms were in place to prevent any of these from happening
No comments :
Post a Comment