From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Civil Outlawry Section[edit]

The civil outlawry section contains this quote: "Since [civil outlawry has become obselete], failure to find the defendant and serve process is usually interpreted in favour of the defendant, and harsh penalties for mere nonappearance (merely presumed flight to escape justice) no longer apply" [emphasis added]. I follow the point that the defendant does not get in as much trouble as in the past for not appearing at a divil suit but I hardly believe that it help's the defendant's case to not appear. Should the quote not convey that the failure of the defendant to appear in a civil matter is usually interpreted in favor of the plaintiff. It still looks bad for a defendant to not show up to court even if the defendant isn't labeled an outlaw like they would have been in times past. --Rotellam1 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what they were getting at is the fact that plaintiffs have the burden of serving the defendant with notice, and they have to prove to the court that they did. If the person evades notice without making it obvious to the court that they are doing so, then yes, it could work to their advantage. But that is pretty difficult these days. And the risk is that the plaintiff will tell the court you are aware of the lawsuit and evading them, and they can get a default judgment in their favor and win their suit automatically. So you don't become a civil outlaw and lose your property rights, you just lose your court case. This section should definitely be reworked, although I'm not sure of the best way to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the Nuremberg Trials[edit]

Currently the article says:

Prior to the Nuremberg Trials, the British jurist Lord Chancellor Lord Simon attempted to resurrect the concept of outlawry in order to provide for summary executions of captured Nazi war criminals. Although Simon's point of view was supported by Winston Churchill, American and Soviet attorneys insisted on a trial, and he was thus overruled.[citation needed]

I think that this is incorrect what was proposed was an act of attainder as was used by Parliament against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford in 1641. Men like Strafford were not outlawed instead a special act of Parliament was passed to have them executed without a need for a trial to find the guilty of a crime, so their executions were specially sanctioned within the law. Americans are more familiar with impeachment which is in some ways similar. Nasty if there is no trial to establish guilt, but not outside the law! -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Civil death[edit]

Civil death appears to cover the same topic as outlaw, but not as well. The two topics do not seem sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles. LukeSurl t c 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is mostly because civil death is not described very well. It meant e.g. that all your goods were divided under your heirs, because you were 'dead' now and your wife was no longer your wife, because her husband was 'dead'. You could not make any contracts either. But there was no price on your head, as you were already dead. Jcwf (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not the same. Outlaw is from Germanic Law and Common Law (G.B, U.S), Civil death is from Roman Law (Continental Europe). Priests in some countries were declared as "civil dead". This gave inheritance rights for their families. See Mort_civile in French Wikipedia --GM83 (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


As I understand it, in Islamic law any person who is not a Muslim is an outlaw (because God requires all people to convert to Islam). Thus robbery, rape, and murder of a kafir is simply not a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talkcontribs) 02:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)