TheAgitator.com
Trial By Ordeal
Monday, February 1st, 2010My crime column this week looks at a fun new paper by economist Pete Leeson on the Dark Ages practice of settling criminal trials with ordeals.
Monty Python make an appearance.
13 Responses to “Trial By Ordeal”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I thought this was a fascinating paper. On seeing so many cases (quite a bit more than a hundred) of people not harmed by searing iron Leeson of course concludes that the priests rigged the ordeals. But the Fortean in me can’t help but wonder: what if they really were protected by their own belief? I’m not so sure that Occam’s Razor is on Leeson’s side, here.
Well, if Monty Python gets involved we could finish up the Afghanistand and Iraq wars with Catapults and Cows.
It’s not hard to find some parallel to criminal trials today. Just as the community believed in the validity of the ordeals and their tests, we today are asked to believe in the validity of the justice system and evidence presented in cases. Just think about an investigator lying to a suspect about evidence they have of their guilt. Would a guilty suspect continue to maintain their innocence if they knew they could be proven guilty and face a much worse punishment?
What I find more interesting is that if the priests were rigging the ordeals, that would indicate that they were truly interested in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. Compare that to an overzealous prosecutor more interested in convictions than justice.
I wasn’t to surprised by the results. The ‘placebo’ effect is still in use somewhat today. Though in this case it seems the clergy was helping in some regards and it wasn’t just mind over matter. Very interesting read though.
Huh. Fascinating.
Of course, if the clergy were actually rigging the ordeals, that would mean they knew damn well that no god was going to step in and save the guy.
The priests didn’t have to worry about being re-elected, so the incentives were quite a bit different.
“But God, why didn’t you save me from the flood?”
“What do you mean? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!”
The underlying paper is pretty interesting, although Leeson overstates his case a bit. He concedes that to get a “separating equilibrium” of support for the position that ordeals are iudicia Dei, priests needed to condemn “innocent probands” (innocent assuming you believe that all those who voluntarily agree to undergo the ordeal are innocent because they honestly believe God is deciding their fate). Leeson contends priests, by necessity, condemned as few innocent probands as necessary to maintain the belief in iudicia Dei, and that the “overwhelming majority” of those that underwent ordeals were found innocent.
But where actual numbers are available, in examining the Regestrum, of the 208 cases where defendants underwent ordeals, 130 were exonerated and 78 failed. The ratio is 62.5% to 37.5%. I would hardly call that an “overwhelming majority.” If you believe that the failures are innocent people condemned by the clergy in a cynical attempt to maintain the public’s belief in the sanctity of ordeals, that’s a hell of a margin of error.
deja vue.
Pope Innocent, you rennaissance clergyman!
-bear
Very interesting, relevant, and you should continue to do more articles like this.
I have an interest in witch trials (especially Salem – see my link for my book – available free as a PDF). There was no trial by ordeal in Salem, although they did use some “enhanced interrogation techniques” to get statements. But they all were guilty of witchcraft (a form of terrorism in the 17th century) so it was well deserved.
Today, prosecutors KNOW that whoever is on trial is guilty, regardless of the truth. Furthermore, they can box in defendants to where even innocent people find it in their self-interest to plead guilty to something. Harvey Silverglate, in his wonderful new book, Three Felonies a Day, writes that prosecutors have the kinds of weapons today that preclude actual guilt and innocence.
Thus, who actually is more civilized, the people who put forth ordeals or the people of our “justice” system today?
William, I think one former US Attorney who writes for NR wrote recently that it was okay to torture people who they “know” are terrorists. The same logic was used to torture people into witchcraft confessions. Personally, I think the judges at Salem look fairly civilized compared to this Neo-Con crowd.
A very thought-provoking and well-written article Radley. Thanks.