Amercement facts for kids

Kids Encyclopedia Facts

An amercement was a type of financial penalty, like a fine, used in English law a long time ago, especially during the Middle Ages. It was a punishment given by a court or by a group of people (peers). The word "amercement" comes from an old French phrase meaning "being at the mercy of." This meant that if someone broke a rule, they were "at the mercy" of the king or the court, who would decide their punishment.

Amercements were different from regular fines. A fine was usually a set amount of money for a specific offense, often decided by law. An amercement, however, was more flexible and could be changed depending on the situation. They were often used for smaller offenses, like trespassing on the king's land, instead of putting someone in prison.

History of Amercements
Modern Usage
- In the United States
- In Canada
  - Canadian Court Decisions
See also

History of Amercements

Early Norman Times

The idea of amercements started around the time of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. At first, if someone broke the law, they might owe money to many different people: the victim's family, their own lord, the lord of the land where the crime happened, or even the church. It became very hard for someone to get back to a peaceful life after breaking the law because so many payments were demanded.

Then, the King stepped in. If a person surrendered to the King and gave a promise (a "pledge"), their life and everything they owned were "at the King's mercy." This meant the King could do whatever he wanted. However, the King soon realized it was better to be fair. So, rules were made: the amount of the amercement depended on how wealthy the person was and how serious the offense was. Also, the amount was often decided by a group of the person's neighbors, like a jury. There were even attempts to set a maximum amount for amercements.

This led to a kind of price list for different offenses. The King usually followed these rules, but he still kept the right to ask for more. People were often "placed in mercy" for small things, like not showing up to a meeting or giving a wrong verdict in court. King Henry I had promised to get rid of amercements, but this never happened. It was almost impossible to go through life without facing an amercement at some point.

Magna Carta and Fairness

The Magna Carta, a very important document signed in 1215, tried to fix the problems with amercements. Three parts of the Magna Carta focused on making amercements fairer for different groups of people: ordinary citizens, important nobles, and church leaders.

Amercement of Freemen

The main goal of the Magna Carta was to stop the King from setting amercements unfairly. It set up rules to protect "freemen" (ordinary citizens who were not slaves or peasants).

For a small mistake, only a small amount of money could be taken. Records show that even before Magna Carta, small sums like three pence were common.
For serious offenses, a larger amount could be charged, but it had to fit the crime.
Most importantly, the person could never be left with nothing. They had to keep their "contenement," which meant their tools, land, or whatever they needed to make a living.
The amount of the amercement had to be decided by fair people, "honest men of the neighborhood," not just by the King.

Usually, the King's judges would suggest an amount, and then local officials, with the help of twelve neighbors, would adjust it based on what the person could actually afford to pay. For example, a priest was once ordered to pay a very large sum, but it was later lowered because his neighbors said he was poor. He was eventually pardoned completely because he had no money.

Amercement of Villeins

"Villeins" were like peasants who worked on a lord's land. Their lives were often very hard, and they had to work for their lord to keep their small plots of land. They didn't have many rights under the common law.

The Magna Carta offered some protection to villeins, but only from the King's amercements, not from their own lords. If a villein was "in the King's mercy," they would be treated like a freeman or a merchant. This meant they had to keep their "waynagium," which refers to their tools, crops, or land used for farming. The idea was to prevent them from becoming completely poor.

Some historians believe this was a kind act by the King. Others think it was because villeins were considered the property of their lords, and the King didn't want to damage the lords' property by taking everything from their villeins. Interestingly, a later version of the Magna Carta in 1217 clarified that the King would only protect villeins who belonged to someone else, not his own villeins on royal lands. This meant the King could still do what he wanted with his own villeins.

Amercement of Merchants

Merchants, or traders, were in a similar position to freemen. When they faced an amercement, their "merchandise" was protected. This meant their goods or their business itself had to be saved so they could continue to earn a living.

Some towns had already made their own rules about amercements. For example, the town of Dunwich had a charter saying its citizens could only be amerced by a group of twelve men. London had a special rule from King Henry I that no citizen would pay more than 100 shillings for an amercement. The Magna Carta helped strengthen these local rules and made sure merchants everywhere were protected, not just in special towns.

Later Plantagenet Times

Over time, the words "amercement" and "fine" became very different. An amercement was a punishment that someone had to pay, and they had no say in the amount. A "fine," on the other hand, became a payment someone offered to the King to get a favor or avoid a punishment. With a fine, the person suggested the amount and didn't have to offer anything if they didn't want to.

However, the King could sometimes get around the rules for amercements. He might imprison people for a long time and then let them offer a large "fine" to escape prison. This way, the King could still get large sums of money, even if he couldn't impose arbitrary amercements.

Eventually, the idea of a "fine" became what we know today (a set penalty), and the word "amercement" slowly stopped being used in everyday language.

Modern Usage

Today, the term "amercement" is rarely used, but the idea of a financial penalty or taking property as a penalty still exists in modern law, often called "asset forfeiture."

In the United States

In the United States, the concept of amercement has appeared in some court cases. For example, a court discussed whether a lawyer should face an "amercement" (a penalty) for filing a weak lawsuit. Also, a sheriff who refused to take property as ordered by a court could face an amercement.

Since 2006, some US banks have faced large financial penalties under laws related to international emergencies or trading with enemies. These are often civil penalties, meaning the banks are not declared criminally guilty, but their assets can be taken.

In Canada

By 2014, many provinces in Canada had "civil forfeiture acts." These laws allow the government to take property that was gained through illegal activities or used in illegal activities, even if no criminal charges are laid or convictions are made. The government only needs to show that it's more likely than not that the property was involved in illegal activity.

Alberta: Since 2001, Alberta's law allows property like real estate, cars, and cash to be taken if it was acquired illegally or used in illegal activities that could cause harm or illegal gain.
Ontario: In 2001, Ontario passed a law that was a first of its kind in Canada. It has been used to take large amounts of cash. For example, if a police officer found a large sum of money in a car and didn't believe the driver's explanation, the money could be taken.
British Columbia: In 2005, British Columbia introduced a similar law, which later created an office that can take property without a court process.
Manitoba: A woman supported the taking of a home belonging to a youth soccer coach who was accused but not convicted of a crime. She felt it was another way to make such activities riskier.
Saskatchewan: In 2010, a man's truck was taken because he used it to sell two pills to an undercover police officer. The court ruled the truck was an "instrument of crime."
Nova Scotia: Since 2007, Nova Scotia has a unit that takes property when there's evidence of wrongdoing, even if criminal charges aren't laid, such as for selling stolen goods.

Canadian Court Decisions

In 2009, Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, decided that Ontario's civil forfeiture law was constitutional. Some legal experts have also raised concerns that these laws might not fully protect property rights.