Английский язык(перевод текста)

CRIMINAL LAW: The Issue of Public Wrongs
At earliest English law, because of a lack of legislative law and because of a lack of a place and process to tu
to, people were left to blood feuds for resolution of conflict. You hurt me, I killed you. Then your uncle killed me, so my dad killed your dad, etc.
The community got tired of this. The local baron was worried about the drain on his fighting force. And local religious leaders had a hard time putting a feud into theologically permissive behavior.
So, a “local law” began to appear, with an incentive to people to settle cases by compensation. People in conflict were “invited” to come and sit with others of a community to seek resolution of the conflict.
When the parties could not agree and no one could prove “truth”, they were left without a remedy. To have a law is wonderful. To have a process is better. But no remedy means a law or process is of little value.
To determine truth, trial by “ordeal”, “combat”, or “oaths” was instituted. In “combat”, each party got a sword, and fought it out under the theory that God would protect the innocent one. If a person was found “guilty”, he, or his heirs, paid something to the injured party and sometimes something to the local baron.
With the Norman Conquest, the new king, intent upon consolidating power, established “King's Courts”. Here an injured person (plaintiff) brought action against a wrongdoer (defendant). But all monies (fines) went to the king rather than to the victim; the king had to pay judges, keep an army (the police) fed and clothed, etc. Thus developed Criminal Law, the key components of which are:
The king (state, people) is seen as victim. Crime is considered to be an act which the public desires not to be done, and which the public is willing to punish if it is done. It is a public wrong.
Because the remedy is punishment, some protections of the accused become necessary; we do not want to punish an innocent person. Thus, there can be no crime...