Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

A confession is in many ways a religious experience. At the end of the Middle Ages everywhere in Europe a new system of evidence was introduced in which torture still had a place (the following is based on Langbein, 1977 ). The new rules replaced divine judgement with human judgement. It was understood, however, that assessing the evidence could only be trusted to humans if they were guided by strict rules. Thus, only a few types of evidence were allowed: (i) The court could convict on the statement of no fewer than two witnesses who actually saw the crime take place. (ii) If there were fewer than two witnesses, the suspect could only be convicted if he confessed. (iii) Indirect or circumstantial evidence alone, however convincing, could not secure a conviction. So, two witnesses or a confession could constitute full proof, but because in many cases there were no eyewitnesses, the suspect's confession played a major role. If a suspect did not confess voluntarily, a confession could be extracted by force, using torture. Torture, however, could only be used in cases of the more serious crimes – crimes that carried the death penalty or some form of maiming. The rules did not apply to less serious crimes, the delicta levia . In these cases the court could convict on its belief, which in turn could be based on indirect, circumstantial evidence alone, so in these cases torture was no ... log in or subscribe to read full text