Legal Definitions - de bono et malo

The term de bono et malo is not an acronym. It is a Latin phrase that historically held two distinct meanings within the legal system.

1. Full Submission to a Verdict

Historically, de bono et malo referred to a criminal defendant's complete and unconditional submission to the judgment of a jury. By declaring themselves "for good and evil" before the jury, the defendant indicated they would accept the verdict, whether it was favorable (good) or unfavorable (evil), without further challenge or appeal.

• Example 1: In a medieval court, a peasant accused of stealing grain might stand before the jury and state, "I place myself de bono et malo before your judgment," signifying that he would accept their decision of guilt or innocence, whatever the outcome.

  Explanation: This illustrates the defendant's full trust in the jury's process and their willingness to abide by the verdict, whether it brought a positive result (acquittal) or a negative one (conviction).

• Example 2: During a historical trial for a minor offense, a defendant, rather than attempting to argue further or challenge the jury's authority, might have formally declared their submission de bono et malo, hoping that this demonstration of respect for the court would be viewed favorably.

  Explanation: Here, the phrase highlights the defendant's acceptance of the jury's ultimate power to decide their fate, acknowledging that the outcome could be either beneficial or detrimental.

2. A Historical Writ of Jail Delivery

In another historical context, de bono et malo referred to a specific type of legal order, or "writ," that judges would issue to bring individual prisoners from jail to be tried. This was a cumbersome process, as a separate writ was required for each prisoner. Over time, this system was replaced by a more efficient "general commission of jail delivery," which allowed judges to try all prisoners in a jail without needing individual writs.

• Example 1: Imagine a judge arriving in a circuit town in the 17th century. To try a single prisoner accused of horse theft, the judge would have to issue a specific de bono et malo writ, directing that particular individual to be brought from the local jail to the courtroom.

  Explanation: This demonstrates the original, individualized nature of the writ, where each prisoner required a distinct legal order for their trial to proceed.

• Example 2: If there were ten prisoners awaiting trial in a county jail, each accused of a different crime, the judge would historically have needed to issue ten separate de bono et malo writs, one for each prisoner, before any of them could be brought to trial.

  Explanation: This example highlights the inefficiency of the old system, where the administrative burden of issuing multiple individual writs for every prisoner was significant.

• Example 3: Before the introduction of a general commission, a judge on a traveling circuit might find a jail full of prisoners. To legally try each person, from a petty thief to someone accused of a serious felony, the judge would have to meticulously prepare and issue a distinct de bono et malo writ for every single individual.

  Explanation: This illustrates the practical challenges and time-consuming nature of the system that the later general commission was designed to replace, streamlining the process of bringing all prisoners to justice.