When we discuss torture we think of words like inhumane, degrading, and painful. But one word that is not quite the first thing that pops into our heads is judicial. Adding this word judicial in front of torture suddenly makes it seem like it's okay, that it's legal and that there are rules. Levack talks about a few rules, which varied from place to place, like the prohibition of torture unless the judge could prove that a crime had actually been committed. This is interesting because witchcraft is not actually a crime that judges could prove had been committed. Being accused of witchcraft almost entirely relies on confessions and stories from others. This being said it is also interesting that the most serious tortures were saved for the accused of witchcraft not because it was a heinous crime, Levack says, but because judges feared they would employ magic to help them withstand pain.
Levack also talks about how the torture greatly increased the chances of witches being convicted. He says that the use of torture resolved the problem of having insufficient proof and made the conviction of anyone who incurred the suspicion of witchcraft possible. Levack says that there is no question about it, without torture the convictions of witches would have been much less common. So is it correct in saying that without torture the witch hunt and conviction of witches would be almost nothing? Can we thank torture for giving us this great topic to study?
I think that torture was an integral part for the witch-hunts to have been possible. There was little else to induce confessions from the accused witches besides torture. Torture for the prosecutors was likely seen, in my opinion, to have been the only way to obtain the evidence needed for a supernatural crime that by its very nature left little physical evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to imagine the pain and suffering that tortured individuals had to go through. It leaves little doubt that the use of torture contributed greatly to the events of the early modern period. I believe that had torture not been utilized to extract the confessions of accused witches there would have been a significantly lower number of individuals that were found guilty of being a witch. Evidence of this is seen in the case of Johannes Junius of Bamberg who wrote to his daughter after confessing to being a witch that he did so under the duress of torture. He also noted that his accusers had done so similarly. Thus torture created the desired results for the judicial officers. It gained them confessions as well as the names of many others who were "guilty" of like crimes. Thus the cycle would continue as long as accused people confessed and the public did not grow tired of the inquisition. Thanks for the post!
ReplyDeleteReally great post Kayla. I would have to say that without torture the success of the witch hunts would be drastically lower if even non existent. Because as you and Levack point out, without the confessions there wouldn't have been enough "proof" to condemn people. And in reference to the readings of victims, the torture not only produced confessions it also gave the jailers/inquisitors new names to target.
ReplyDeleteThinking about what we said in class, about how torture was a public activity where the general public attended. Whenever the victims would confess names of others active in "witchcraft" were the newly accused immediately arrested? just a thought...