Torture - Justice in the Witch-Hunt

From the reading, I would like to focus on Roper’s take on torture- its application and the relational aspects at play between the accused and the various overseers of justice. Firstly, Roper emphasized how torture was incorporated into the entire legal process of the time period, not singularly in the witch-hunts carried out. As the author states, “the widespread conviction that pain freed the tongue of the criminal was a cornerstone not only of the legitimacy of the witch hunt, but of the entire legal edifice of the time” (Roper 46). In essence, torture was acceptable as a tool in a broader legal context, applied in degrees to ultimately seek truth. Overall, torture was part of an intact system of justice, a procedural way to extract the information believed to be available- especially in regards to the Devil (Roper 51).  In this way, the author suggests that torture was not an extreme reaction utilized only in the case of the witch-hunts. Moreover, the text supplies evidence that women did, at times, endure torture without confession. For example, “Maria Noll of Nordlingen resisted sixty-two applications of torture and her steadfastness eventually undermined the basis of the Nordlingen panic” (Roper 50). Therefore, torture was a crucial element in the confession-driven landscape of the hunts, but it was not necessarily a unique application itself.

However, Roper develops ideas of torture that do situate its uses more specifically to the witch-hunts. The author delves into the interactions amongst those carrying out justice and those accused, identifying a relationship between interrogator and accused as “unequal” yet still somehow collaborative (Roper 58).  This bond becomes reflected by a “particular kind of empathy” by the interrogator, who is also at times a “compassionate philanthropist” (Roper 57).  This does fit into the pattern of Roper always considering the very human and very real aspects of the witch-hunts through the lens of psychology and emotion. Yet, as a reader, the above-noted ideas sit uncomfortably for me. I am not positive I agree with Roper’s terminology, if I understand the attempt to demonstrate that the perspective of the interrogator was not simply cruelty. An interrogator was subject to the new strict moral order, as well as the systematic approach of the legal system with the purity of justice at the heart. In effect, justice required the interrogator to take into account all the factors- to listen to relations of daily life and to seek a wide range of information. I am just not convinced empathy is the right word here.

What did you think of Roper’s approach/ideas in the reading?