Obstinate juries, impudent barristers and scandalous verdicts? Compensating the victims of the Gordon Riots of 1780 and the Priestley Riots of 1791
Compensating the victims of the Gordon and Priestley riots
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4558081 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jonathan Atherton (Newman University; Birmingham, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 88 |
| Issue | 242 |
| Pages | 650-673 |
| Publication date | 2015-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Historical Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0950-3471 • E-ISSN: 1468-2281 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-2281.12096 |
| OpenAlex | W1938598900 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
Historians have devoted considerable attention to both rioting and the rise of the adversarial trial in the eighteenth century. Despite this, no research has explored how victims of riot used the courts to seek compensation. Through a comparison of the Gordon Riots and Priestley Riots, this article examines the factors that determined the relative success or failure of such cases at trial. It is suggested that the ambiguities of the Riot Act, the choice of counsel and the political and socio-economic context in which the trials were held could all influence the juries' verdicts
Adversarial system · Criminology · Political science · Politics · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Historical Economic and Social Studies · History · Law · Medieval and Early Modern Justice · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |