From the Judge's ›Arbitrium‹ to the Legality Principle
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Format
From the Judge's ›Arbitrium‹ to the Legality Principle
Legislation as a Source of Law in Criminal Trials
Editors: Martyn, Georges | Musson, Anthony | Pihlajamäki, Heikki
Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History, Vol. 31
(2013)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Georges Martyn studied law and medieval studies in Kortrijk and Leuven (Belgium). In 1996 he defended his PhD thesis on early modern private law legislation in the Southern Netherlands. From 1992 to 2008 he was »advocaat« (lawyer/barrister). Since 1999 is Professor of Legal History, Legal Methodology and General Introduction to Law at the University of Ghent, where he is Director of the Legal History Institute. He is also a substitute magistrate (justice of the peace). His main fields of research are the history of the legal professions, legal iconography and early modern private and public law.Anthony Musson is Professor of Legal History at the University of Exeter and Co-Director of the Bracton Centre for Legal History Research. He has published extensively in the fields of criminal justice history, medieval political and legal culture including [with W.M. Ormrod] »The Evolution of English Justice« (Basingstoke, 1999) and »Medieval Law in Context« (Manchester, 2001). He has also published »Crime, Law and Society in the Later Middle Ages« [with Edward Powell] (Manchester, 2009) and several volumes of essays including »Making Legal History« (Cambridge, 2012) [edited jointly with Chantal Stebbings]. He has held research awards from the British Academy (exploring legal iconography, especially images of the law in art and the architecture of court buildings) and the Economic and Social Research Council (examining the private lives of medieval and Tudor lawyers).Heikki Pihlajamäki is professor of comparative legal history at the Faculty of Law of the University of Helsinki, and he is one of the leading legal historians and comparative lawyers in Northern Europe. Pihlajamäki has been a visiting professor at several European universities (Ghent, Frankfurt, Madrid). He has published many books, peer-reviewed articles and contributions on legal-historical themes of the early modern period, but also on other subjects and other eras. Professor Pihlajamäki is member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Max-Planck-Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte in Frankfurt and of the editorial board of four international legal history journals.Abstract
The legality principle characterizes all western legal systems, and it has become an integral part of the Western rule of law and the international human rights law. The principle dates back to enlightened jurists such as Cesare Beccaria and to social contract thinkers such as Charles de Secondat de Montesquieu, according to whom judges were to act only as the mouthpiece of the statutory law. Paul Johann Anselm von Feuerbach, the inventor of the famous maxim ›nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege‹, developed these thoughts further. The emergence of the legality principle links closely to the teachings on the division of powers. The studies of this volume cover most of Europe from England, Italy and Spain to Sweden, Russia and England, and both the South and North American continents. In most parts of Europe, the nineteenth-century criminal law reforms form an integral part of the ›liberal‹ agenda. These changes took place, however, at different times in different parts of the Western world, and for slightly different reasons. Comparative legal history shows, furthermore, that the roots of the principle date much further back in history than the eighteenth century. Before the formulation of the legality principle, written statutes already played a significant role in the criminal law in many parts of the Western world. The articles of the volume, written by the foremost experts on comparative legal history, demonstrate that the attitudes and practices toward written statutes as sources of criminal law varied greatly from one region to another. In most parts of the European continent judicial arbitration was carefully defined in legal scholarship (Italy, France), whereas in some regions written law played an important role from early on (Sweden). Although the nineteenth century was fundamental in shaping the legality principle, in some countries its breakthrough remained even then far from complete (Russia, the United States).The legality principle characterizes all western legal systems, and it has become an integral part of the Western rule of law and the international human rights law. The principle dates back to enlightened jurists such as Cesare Beccaria and to social contract thinkers such as Charles de Secondat de Montesquieu, according to whom judges were to act only as the mouthpiece of the statutory law. Paul Johann Anselm von Feuerbach, the inventor of the famous maxim $anullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege,$z developed these thoughts further. The emergence of the legality principle links closely to the teachings on the division of powers. The studies of this volume cover most of Europe from England, Italy and Spain to Sweden, Russia and England, and both the South and North American continents. In most parts of Europe, the nineteenth-century criminal law reforms form an integral part of the ›liberal‹ agenda. These changes took place, however, at different times in different parts of the Western world, and for slightly different reasons. Comparative legal history shows, furthermore, that the roots of the principle date much further back in history than the eighteenth century. Before the formulation of the legality principle, written statutes already played a significant role in the criminal law in many parts of the Western world. The articles of the volume, written by the foremost experts on comparative legal history, demonstrate that the attitudes and practices toward written statutes as sources of criminal law varied greatly from one region to another. In most parts of the European continent judicial arbitration was carefully defined in legal scholarship (Italy, France), whereas in some regions written law played an important role from early on (Sweden). Although the nineteenth century was fundamental in shaping the legality principle, in some countries its breakthrough remained even then far from complete (Russia, the United States).
Table of Contents
Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
---|---|---|---|
Table of Contents | 5 | ||
Georges Martyn: Introduction: From Arbitrium to Legality? Or Legality and Arbitrium? | 7 | ||
I. Presentation of the general theme: the legality principle | 7 | ||
II. Some introductory questions and some elements of response from a Flemish point of view | 14 | ||
III. A variety of responses | 21 | ||
IV. Acknowledgements | 31 | ||
Anthony Musson: Criminal Legislation and the Common Law in Late Medieval England | 33 | ||
I. Introduction | 33 | ||
II. Inception of Statutes | 35 | ||
III. The Reception of Legislation | 40 | ||
IV. Conclusion | 46 | ||
Massimo Meccarelli: Dimensions of Justice and Ordering Factors in Criminal Law from the Middle Ages till Juridical Modernity | 49 | ||
I. Introduction | 49 | ||
II. Facere iustitiam as moment of determining justice | 50 | ||
1. The fields of tension of criminal justice in the Medieval and Modern Ages | 51 | ||
2. Negotiated and hegemonic justice | 51 | ||
3. Accusatio and inquisitio | 53 | ||
4. Ordinarium and extraordinarium | 55 | ||
III. Morphology of the trial order in ius commune | 57 | ||
IV. Value of the centrality of the judge within the ius commune trial order | 60 | ||
V. Towards the facere iustitiam as moment of administering justice | 63 | ||
Wim Decock: The Judge’s Conscience and the Protection of the Criminal Defendant: Moral Safeguards against Judicial Arbitrariness | 69 | ||
I. Introduction | 69 | ||
II. Theologians, the Morality of Judging, and Criminal Law | 71 | ||
III. The judge’s conscience, public order and the moral foundations of legality | 79 | ||
IV. Putting the protection of the innocent criminal defendant centre-stage | 86 | ||
V. Conclusion | 92 | ||
Sébastien Dhalluin: Control of the Arbitrium of the Criminal Judge of the ‘Parliament of Flanders’ by Royal Legislation | 95 | ||
I. Introduction | 95 | ||
II. Legal framework of the judge’s arbitrium | 96 | ||
1. The judge’s arbitrium in the determination of the final punishment | 96 | ||
2. Torture: the preparatory inquisition or the legal admission of arbitrary practices | 98 | ||
III. A legislative attempt to abolish the judge’s arbitrium | 101 | ||
1. Preservation of public safety | 101 | ||
2. The forced conversion of Protestants to Catholicism | 104 | ||
IV. Conclusion | 107 | ||
Mathias Schmoeckel: The Mystery of Power Verdicts Solved? Frederick II of Prussia and the Emerging Independence of Jurisdiction | 109 | ||
I. Introduction: the ‘Müller Arnold’ case | 109 | ||
II. The Prince as supreme judge in the ius commune | 113 | ||
III. The constitution of the State according to Calvin | 120 | ||
IV. Calvinist authors | 125 | ||
V. Frederick’s position in the discussion | 130 | ||
VI. Conclusions | 139 | ||
Sylvain Soleil: “Lex Imperat”: Creation and Exportation of the French Model of Legality Principle (18th-19th C.) | 145 | ||
I. The creation of the French model of legality | 146 | ||
1. ‘All punishments are arbitrary in this kingdom’ | 146 | ||
2. ‘By virtue of the law ...’ | 148 | ||
3. The codification of crimes and penalties | 151 | ||
4. The exaltation of the law | 153 | ||
5. The establishment of the system | 154 | ||
6. Terror and the suspension of the principle of legality | 155 | ||
II. The circulation of the French model of legality | 157 | ||
Heikki Pihlajamäki: Legalism before the Legality Principle? Royal Statutes and Early Modern Swedish Criminal Law | 169 | ||
I. Ius commune and the early modern system of legal sources | 169 | ||
II. The legal history of Swedish statute law | 172 | ||
III. Statutes in medieval Swedish law | 175 | ||
IV. Statutes in early modern Swedish law | 180 | ||
V. Conclusions | 187 | ||
Matthew C. Mirow: The Legality Principle and the Constitution of Cádiz | 189 | ||
I. Introduction | 189 | ||
II. Legality, criminal law, and the debates | 192 | ||
III. Constitutional limitations on the official discretion of the king | 195 | ||
IV. Constitutional limitations on the official discretion of the courts | 196 | ||
V. Constitutional aspects of legislativity, specificity, and codification | 198 | ||
VI. Conclusion | 201 | ||
Appendix | 202 | ||
António Manuel Hespanha: The Pale Shade of Legality: The Resilience of Arbitrary Criminal Iudicia after the Era of Revolutions – the Portuguese case | 207 | ||
Alejandro Agüero: Law and Criminal Justice in the Spanish Colonial Order: the Problematic Enforcement of the Legality Principle in the Early National Law in Argentina | 229 | ||
I. Introduction | 229 | ||
II. A different conception of law and authority | 230 | ||
1. Religious heteronomy | 231 | ||
2. Factualism, particularism, casuism and customary law | 232 | ||
3. A rule of judges, not of laws: iurisdictio and arbitrium | 233 | ||
4. Flexibility and localization | 235 | ||
III. Law in action: the ‘other sources’ of justice | 235 | ||
1. Religion and doctrine as source of law | 236 | ||
2. Indulgence, dissimulation and bargaining | 237 | ||
3. Utility, custom and convenience | 240 | ||
4. Local power and the limits of arbitrium | 242 | ||
IV. After the colonial period: the paradox of a legality principle jurisprudentially enshrined | 246 | ||
V. Epilogue | 250 | ||
Aniceto Masferrer: Principle of Legality and Codification in the Western Criminal Law Reform | 253 | ||
I. Introduction: legal chaos and the need for legal reform(18th–19th centuries) | 253 | ||
II. Political and liberal reformism and the principle of legality (19th century) | 262 | ||
1. Principle of legality, criminal law reform through codification in the civil law tradition | 271 | ||
2. Principle of legality and criminal law reform through statutes / codes in the common law tradition | 275 | ||
III. Concluding considerations | 288 | ||
Tatiana Borisova: Legislation as a Source of Law in Late Imperial Russia | 295 | ||
I. Introduction | 295 | ||
II. For whom laws were published? | 296 | ||
III. Emergence of a legal community and a change in the procedure of law publication | 304 | ||
IV. Conclusion | 314 | ||
Marju Luts-Sootak / Marin Sedman: Ambivalences of the Legality Principle in the Penal Law of the Baltic Provinces in the Russian Empire (1710-1917) | 317 | ||
I. Introductory remarks | 317 | ||
II. Historically developed plurality of penal laws until 1846 | 320 | ||
III. The situation after the Code of Criminal and Correctional Penalties of 1845 entered into force | 334 | ||
IV. The Russian judicial reform of 1864 and the state established problem of plurality of penal laws | 341 | ||
V. The judicial reform of 1889 in the Baltic Provinces – the plurality of penal codes increases even more | 345 | ||
VI. The Penal Code of 1903: ambivalent attempt to organize criminal legislation | 347 | ||
VII. Conclusion | 348 | ||
Kimmo Nuotio: Legality over Time: the Path of the Nullum Crimen Principle to a Fully Anchored Legal Principle in Finnish Penal Law | 351 | ||
Markus D. Dubber: The Legality Principle in American and German Criminal Law: An Essay in Comparative Legal History | 365 | ||
I. The alegality of American penality | 365 | ||
II. A Critical analysis of the legality principle through comparative legal history | 370 | ||
1. History | 371 | ||
2. Law | 373 | ||
3. Comparison | 375 | ||
4. The legality principle in German criminal law: a critical analysis | 379 | ||
III. Conclusion | 384 | ||
Michele Pifferi: Indetermined Sentence and the Nulla Poena Sine Lege Principle: Contrasting Views on Punishment in the U.S. and Europe between the 19th and the 20th Century | 387 | ||
I. Introduction. Indetermined sentence and the principle of legality | 387 | ||
II. The new targets of criminology: prevention and social defense | 389 | ||
III. Quarrels at the international congresses | 394 | ||
IV. Getting round the legality: the bifurcation into verdict and sentence | 397 | ||
V. Unworkability of the indetermined sentence | 400 | ||
VI. Return to legality | 403 | ||
Contributors | 407 |