I came across a fascinating little law called the “benefit of clergy” over at the Overcoming Bias blog. The basic idea of this wonderful law was that one could be tried in an ecclesiastical court as opposed to a secular……

The English literate classes had quite a conspiracy going to help themselves at the expense of others!

Egad! Never thought they would be so blatant. They even added the illiterate peers into the mix to preserve their privileges.

Clergy, the privilegium clericale, or, in common speech, the benefit of clergy, had its original from the pious regard paid by Christian princes to the church in its infant state, and the ill use which the popish ecclesiastics soon made of that pious regard. The exemptions which they granted to the church were principally of two kinds: 1. Exemption of places consecrated to religious duties from criminal arrests, which was the foundation of sanctuaries. 2. Exemption of the persons of clergymen from criminal process before the secular judge in a few particular cases, which was the true original and meaning of the privilegium clericale.

But the clergy, increasing in wealth, power, honour, number, and interest, began soon to set up for themselves; and that which they obtained by the favour of the civil government they now claimed as their inherent right, and as a right of the highest nature, indefeasible, and jure divino. By their canons therefore and constitutions they endeavoured at, and where they met with easy princes obtained, a vast extension of these exemptions, as well in regard to the crimes themselves, of which the list became quite universal, as in regard to the persons exempted, among whom were at length comprehended not only every little subordinate officer belonging to the church or clergy, but even many that were totally laymen.

In England, however, although the usurpations of the pope were very many and grievous till Henry the Eighth entirely exterminated his supremacy, yet a total exemption of the clergy from secular jurisdiction could never be thoroughly effected…

In any case, the medieval power struggles between the Church and secular rulers that resulted (among many other things) in the English institution of the benefit of clergy were much more complex than either Blackstone’s simplistic anti-popish story or a mere class-solidarity conspiracy of the literate. It’s questionable if the real history of this institution can even be written given what we know today.

One theory about why it was always the same verse is that the judges administering it were not literate; and it seems likely, though not necessary, that they were part of any such conspiracy.

As it happens, I’ve read the same Clark material Hanson has. None of us is confused is about it being the first verse – nor is Wikipedia, which you will note does quote the first verse in one of Hanson’s ellipses. That it is not specific & clear about this, even if it is implied by the ‘Neck Verse’ quote, is not an error or confusion.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

One verse is trivial to memorize.

Even the whole damn thing isn’t too difficult for someone of an oral culture. It’s not like it wasn’t translated with an eye to being memorable. The prospect of hanging wonderfully focuses the mind, and the entire Psalm is comparable in length to things like the Lord’s Prayer or the Nicean Creed or many popular songs and ballads.

And slightly more seriously: Bartleby gives it as “Psalm li. 1″, a form of notation indicating the first verse. This is what I learned in school as well, so I’m fairly confident that Wikipedia is wrong, and it seems Robin Hanson is either naive or cynical to be accepting it.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/11965.html