Laws and life

Here is Psalm 50 from the Bible in Latin (Psalm 51 in the King James version): 

  
  Miserere mei, Deus: secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
  Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum, dele iniquitatem meam.
  Amplius lava me ab iniquitate mea: et a peccato meo munda me.
   

If you were a criminal brought to the English court roughly between 12th and 18th century, you had a chance to have your case dismissed by just being able to read this psalm aloud. The reasoning behind it was that, since,  in medieval England, only priests could read (with rare exceptions), this means you belong to clergy and, thus, a subject to an ecclesiastical court only. The latter was much more lenient.

So, children, study hard at school! One day it may save your life!

This rule, called Benefit of Clergy was established in England in 1172. The essence of the rule was based on the fact that members of the clergy were not subjects of secular courts. 

Before 1166, English courts had been jointly presided over by a bishop and a local secular magistrate. But in 1166, Henry II established a new system of courts based on the royal authority only. Thomas Becket objected and was murdered in 1170. It was so brazen violation of any civilized rules that public opinion forced the king to agree that the secular courts had no jurisdiction over the clergy (with a few exceptions).

At first, to plead the benefit of clergy, one had to appear wearing an ecclesiastical dress. Well, anybody could put on a monk’s garb. That’s why the literacy test was introduced. Naturally, this rule was used by everybody who could read. The English dramatist Ben Jonson, for example, avoided hanging this way in 1598. Psalm 51 became known as the “neck verse”.

Even illiterate person could memorize the Psalm and claim the benefit of clergy. To get around it courts would ask the accused person to read a different passage from the Bible. 

This literacy test was abolished in 1706.

In the United States, the benefit of clergy was eliminated in 1790. Nevertheless, some state courts continued to use it even in the 19th century until it just stopped being used without formal abolition.

This story confirmed again my observation that laws often follow life, although we used to think otherwise and become surprised or even upset observing how the current administration defies tradition and challenges laws.

Law is the law until somebody succeeds in challenging it. But to succeed, one has to have public opinion (life) on his side. Is this the long game of the current administration? And I thought they have no chance against the law.

Children, study history! It helps to understand modern events.