Talk:Benefit of clergy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A person convicted by an ecclesiastical court could be defrocked and returned to the secular authorities for punishment, but over time, the English ecclesiastical courts became increasingly lenient, and by the 15th century, most convictions in these courts led to a sentence of penance.

I'm a bit confused by this. Since many of the people weren't actually clergy could they be defrocked? I guess perhaps the reasoning was that the only reason they could get the benefit of clergy was because they claimed to be clergy and could 'prove' it by reciting a passage from the bible so perhaps they were always considered clergy and therefore could be defrocked. But couldn't this person claim the benefit of clergy again or did being defrocked mean your weren't clergy no matter what you could recite? Also, was claiming to be clergy when you weren't legal? Was there any way to disprove you were clergy other then the reading test? For that matter if you failed the reading where you punished more then you would otherwise be? Finally, for people who weren't clergy so were branded (even though they were still considered clergy) what would happen if later after being branded they had the extra evidence that they were clergy (e.g. they became a real clergy in the mean time)? Nil Einne 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Also, I guess this means that the ecclesiastical courts weren't even used any more? I.e. you claimed you were clergy but all it meant was that you were branded and jailed instead of hung, with no difference between real clergy or not, and no requirement to recite a bible passage? Nil Einne 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] States in which still survives?

Could anyone research in which states this still survives? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) From what I understand, the federal government abolished this in 1790, so no, no states still have such a statute on the book.

Actually, a black man convicted of raping a white woman (but who was clearly innocent by the judge's assessment) was allowed to claim benefit of clergy in 1825 in Kentucky (White, Legal Antiquities, "Benefit of Clergy" pages 241-242). He was branded and freed. Seeing as this was after the 1790 abolition of benefit of clergy, it is possible this legal loophole could still be on the books somewhere in America. 74.134.255.73 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Meredith

[edit] Women and Benefit of Clergy?

Does anyone know why women were offered partial benefit of clergy in 1624?