Defense or Torture: Legality through the Malleus Maleficarum

A few interesting ideas about justice and the legal process emerge from the Malleus Maleficarum. For one, the authors of the Malleus emphasize discretionary privileges, as well as general rules of conduct for the Judge at hand. For example, the text states, “If the accused...is asking to defend herself...let the Judge take note that he is not bound either to publish the names of the deponents or bring them before the accused (Kors 206). As the authors were likely aware, such a concept appears aimed at disarming attempts at defense by the accused. In the Malleus, the secular Judge is an active limb of the law, a powerful, enabled controller of justice. Thus, unsurprisingly, Kramer’s work encourages the use of torture by the empowered Judge; the text describes, “let her [the accused] be often and frequently exposed to torture” (Kors 213). The document asserts torture as a standard, a commonality of trial, a natural tool of the secular court.

Torture is not in question per se, if defense is more subject to consideration. Hence, the idea that there is a “question of allowing the accused to be defended, and whether she should be examined in the place of torture, though not necessarily in order that she should be tortured (Kors 206). Consequently, the overall tone of the text conveys a justifiable application of torture in most cases, as defense becomes questionable. In general, the text incorporates new legal standardization into the objective of the prosecution of witches, namely female. To me, the document places the Judge as a symbol of state power, while the more intensely procedural aspect of the legal world, as the authors employ it, make the arguments seem more rational, if not necessarily so.

How do you perceive “the Judge” in the text?