History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.133.5

v2.c20.133.5

Any European or American could claim to be tried by a mixed jury of which not less than one half had to be Europeans or Americans, while an Indian offender could not claim the privilege in his own country that not less than one half of the jury that tried him must be Indians. In England even now a peer indicted for treason or felony must be tried by his peers and not by the tribunals that try ordinary men (vide Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Ed. vol. 25 p. 46). The brāhmaṇas had to submit to trial in the ordinary courts and the smṛtis do not generally provide for trial of brāhmaṇas in special ecclesiastical courts of their own class. The only approach to this western doctrine of benefit of clergy is to be found in the Āp. Dh. S.,³²⁰ where it is said that the teacher and others who have authority over a brāhmaṇa guilty of transgressions should prescribe prāyaścittas for him: if he does not abide by their orders, he should be taken to the king who should hand him over to his own *purohita*; the latter was to prescribe prāyaścittas (penances for atonement) for brāhmaṇa offenders. If the latter did not carry out the penances then he was to break them by disciplines according to their ability except that he (the purohita) was not to prescribe corporal punishment and slavery for brāhmaṇa offenders.