Douglas Hay England's Fatal Tree Summary

The Douglas Hay article ‘property, authority and the criminal law’ Hay’s chapter in ‘Albion’s Fatal Tree’ focuses on the argument that the Hanoverian period saw the development of the ‘Bloody Code’ due the increase of capitalism. There were several different laws that were put in place for the ‘Bloody Code’ this there to remove criminals out of the country and out of society. The bloody code imposed the death penalty for over two hundred offences. Those in court faced with this were expected to defend themselves with only the assistance of the judge. Douglas Hay expresses that the criminal law was concerned primarily with authority and secondly with the protection of property. Hay offers a range of ways in which this was carried out, such as …show more content…
The death sentence hung over anyone who broke in to steal his silver plate”. This shows how the upper class citizens manipulated the law in order to protect their property, fear mongering to ensure nobody attempted to commit a felony against them or their belongings. Douglas Hay also sees ideology as 'crucial in sustaining the hegemony of the English ruling class'. In this, process he sees 'three aspects of the law as ideology: majesty, justice and mercy'. However, Douglas Hay also examines a paradox; the eighteenth century saw a veritable inflation of new laws aimed at the maintenance of property, most of them capital offenses. He traces the escalation of “legal instruments which enforced the division of property by terror”. In analysing these concepts, Douglas Hay demonstrates how the ostensible failings of the criminal law system were symptoms of the system’s evident functionality as a means by which the dominant ideology of class was …show more content…
Douglas Hay. There are several main arguments which Langbein points out. He writes, “Hay does not seriously claim to have identified a cabal in the conventional sense of the term, that is, an accord to promote unlawful or wicked terminal”. He disagrees with Hay’s judgement that there was a ruling course of study conspiracy. Langbein suggests Hay gives a lack of evidence to accompaniment this point, and therefore believes it to be an unreliable suggestion. Langbein also believes that both felon s and victims tended to be amongst the poor people in society, however Hay argued that the victim tended to be the propertied individual and the criminal the poor man. Langbein comments, “Arthur Garfield Hays theory of working class conspiracy is impossible to reconcile with the reality of jury prudence ’, suggesting Hay again exaggerated to discretion of the panel. Members of the jury influenced condemnation due to judges being, “unwilling to antagonise a physical structure of esteem able look”, they wanted to show respect to the ruling class. Langbein also disagrees with Hay when considering the raise in statue. He saw the rise in legislative act but also the decline of actual executions, the opposition to Hay’s writings. All in all, Langbein accepts that there is different treatment between the ruling and working class, however simply because this was a general way of life. He believes