>I think that requests for compensation are rarely dealt with at the
tribal level. Instead they are handled by formal legal claims before
the offending clan. <
So do I but I think the reason is because they are usually settled out of court. Justice is about compensation, redressing balance, not guilt. Individuals can achieve this as well as courts.
I think there is always formal action because:
> 1. The clans want to know what's going on
The clans want to settle their grievances, most people know what is
going on - these are small kin-based communities.
> 2. It limits the rings' ability to deal in "back room politics"
No, because the approach is still made though the clan. The chief deals with outsiders.
> 3. Justice must be done but also must be seen to be done
I don't think so. Justice is about redressing balance, preventing furhter conflict, not Romanized notions of crime and fit punishment
> 4. It gives the participants, including ring members, jurors,
witnesses, lawspeakers, etc a chance to shout, posture, and yak in
front of an audience
So would a meeting of emissaries and ring.
> 5. It livens up market days
> 6. Heortlings love ritual and spectacle
There is already the clan moot and tribal moot for this though.
>But the clans are both going to want some sort of inquest before
they get involved in a potentially troublesome situation; why not
keep it out in the open?<
Because kin-groups don't want to air the dirty-linen in public :-)
> What's bad is when the injured bloodline just sends some killers to
take an appropriate revenge -- that's circumventing the law,<
In many cases blood revenge is legal, frx in Icelandic law it was legal from the offence until the time of the next Allthing.
Ian Cooper
Powered by hypermail