Decisory oath

According to John Henry Merryman, "The Decisory Oath worked in the following way: Party A could put Party B on his oath as to a fact at issue that was within Party B's knowledge. If Party B refused to swear, the fact was taken as conclusively proved against him. If Party B swore, the fact was taken as conclusively proved in his favor."[1] Mary Gregor explains that this procedure was "designed to protect the judge from threats from the wealthy and the powerful."[2]

Notes

John Henry Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969): 126, as cited in Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 83n25 (emphasis added)
Kant, loc. cit.

gollark: I will check this later. Although having retransmission of things being an extension is not ideal.

gollark: It does at most once delivery, not at least once, as far as I know.

gollark: Byzantine generals problem.

gollark: I'm pretty sure TCP cannot actually guarantee that.

gollark: Alternately, if you're having data from some chatroom being relayed to you via multiple paths, though I don't know if XMPP does this.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] John Henry Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969): 126, as cited in Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 83n25 (emphasis added)

[2] Kant, loc. cit.