Definition
Outlawry is a formal legal process, originating in English law, by which a person who persistently refused or failed to appear before a court was declared outside the protection of the law. The declared outlaw forfeited the law's shield: he could not sue, could not be protected by royal courts, and in earlier periods could be killed by any person without legal consequence to the killer. The process applied in both civil and criminal contexts, though the consequences differed sharply depending on the nature of the underlying proceeding.
In criminal proceedings — particularly for treason or felony — outlawry operated as the functional equivalent of conviction and attainder. A person outlawed for treason or felony suffered the same legal consequences as one tried and found guilty: forfeiture of lands and goods and corruption of blood under the rules of attainder. In civil proceedings, outlawry served a coercive function, stripping the defendant of access to the courts while the plaintiff's claim stood uncontested.
The formal English procedure, as described by Bouvier, required proclamations at four successive county courts held month by month, each calling on the absent person to come in to the king's peace. Only after this sequence was exhausted could outlawry be formally pronounced. The process is described in Rapalje & Lawrence as one preceded by successive writs — venire facias, distringas, and capias — before outlawry could issue, and even then it was in practice rarely used by the time those sources were compiled.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A declaration that an individual cannot benefit from the protection of law in a jurisdiction; also, the state of being an outlaw or a condition of lawlessness generally.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of outlawing; the putting a man out of the protection of law, or the process by which a man (as an absconding criminal) is deprived of that protection; the state of being an outlaw.
The common and legal definitions are unusually close here, but a gap exists in one important direction: ordinary usage treats "outlawry" as a state or condition — being outside the law — while the legal term refers to a specific formal process with procedural steps and defined legal consequences, including, in the criminal context, consequences equivalent to conviction. The romantic or colloquial sense of an "outlaw" as simply a criminal or a fugitive papers over the procedural precision of the legal doctrine and its drastic effect on civil status.
---
Common Confusion
Outlawry is sometimes loosely conflated with banishment or exile, but these are distinct remedies. Banishment is an affirmative judicial sentence expelling a person from a territory; outlawry is a process triggered by a person's own refusal to submit to legal process — it is, in origin, the law's response to contempt, not a punishment imposed after trial. Outlawry is also distinct from attainder as such: attainder was the consequence of conviction or, in criminal outlawry, a consequence that outlawry produced — but attainder itself could follow trial as well. The two concepts intersect rather than overlap.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Outlawry is essentially a dead doctrine in American law, abolished or rendered obsolete well before the twentieth century, and researchers encountering the term in historical American sources should treat it as a window into English procedural inheritance rather than a surviving American practice. The key research trap is reading American colonial and early republic sources that reference outlawry without appreciating how quickly and unevenly the doctrine was absorbed or rejected by individual states. The Pennsylvania case cited in Black's 2nd edition — Respublica v. Doan — is a genuine early American outlawry case and signals that some states did attempt to operate the doctrine in the post-Revolutionary period.
For corpus researchers, the civil-criminal distinction is critical: when outlawry appears in civil process contexts, it functions as a contempt mechanism and belongs to the history of default and process; when it appears in criminal contexts, it intersects with attainder, forfeiture, and the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Researchers working in constitutional history should note that the Framers' concern with attainder likely absorbed concern about criminal outlawry, since both operated to produce conviction-like consequences without full trial on the merits.
In English legal history sources, the term will appear across centuries with shifting procedural details. The county court proclamation sequence described by Bouvier represents later, more formalized English practice; earlier medieval outlawry was far more brutal in its legal consequences and enforcement. Historical dictionaries do not always distinguish the medieval from the later common law form, which can produce anachronism in research.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry, though incomplete as reproduced, is useful precisely because it reflects the late nineteenth-century understanding that criminal outlawry process, while formally available, was by then "rarely or never done" — a signal to researchers that references to outlawry in contemporaneous sources likely gesture toward older authority rather than live practice.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's 1st and 2nd editions are in agreement on the core formulation: outlawry is a process, not merely a status, and in criminal matters it produced the consequences of conviction and attainder. Both editions cite Stimson's Law Glossary for that proposition. The 2nd edition adds three American case citations, which is significant because it suggests the doctrine had at least some American legal life beyond academic discussion.
Bouvier supplies the most procedurally detailed account, describing the sequential county court proclamations and the underlying logic — that outlawry is the response to contempt, to a person's refusal to become amenable to the court. This framing is analytically useful: it positions outlawry within the law of process and contempt rather than purely within criminal punishment.
Rapalje & Lawrence provides complementary detail on the preliminary writs that had to be exhausted before outlawry could issue, reinforcing that the doctrine was never designed for summary use. The practical obsolescence noted there aligns with Bouvier's implication that the doctrine was a relic even as these dictionaries were being written.
What the historical dictionaries collectively understate is the medieval brutality of early outlawry — the period when an outlaw was literally caput lupinum (wolf's head), killable on sight. By the time these Victorian and early-American sources synthesized the doctrine, they were describing its gentled, proceduralized successor. Researchers working in pre-modern English legal history should look beyond these dictionaries to sources such as Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law for the fuller picture.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Outlawry was never uniformly adopted across American states, and several states explicitly abolished it by statute in the nineteenth century. Where it did appear in early American practice, it was generally in the criminal context. The doctrine has no operative existence in modern American law. English outlawry was formally abolished by the Forfeiture Act 1870 and related Victorian legislation.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Attainder — for the constitutional and historical relationship between outlawry's consequences and the bill of attainder prohibition.
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Process (Criminal) — for the procedural sequence in which outlawry historically sat.
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Forfeiture — for the property consequences that outlawry in criminal matters produced.
---