2 ms·
I would have assumed around 99%. At least it's much better than that.
by squeaky-clean 9y ago
I would have assumed around 99%. At least it's much better than that.
- Kiro 9y agoNot sure why you're getting downvoted. I expected the same.
- Bartweiss 9y agoMe too, which is why I'm a bit surprised at all the negativity towards this article. Sure, it's sort of 'defending' trial by ordeal, but it's not new that this practice was real and terrible. What's novel to me is that it wasn't just a way to automatically convict every suspect; a 2/3 acquittal rate is vastly higher than I would have guessed.
- squeaky-clean 9y agoYeah, I really enjoyed this article too! Trial by ordeal has always confused me for that reason, obviously 100% of people holding burning iron will get burnt hands, wouldn't they find it fishy if 100% of the people undergoing trial end up guilty? And this gives a really sensible explanation for that.
- DubiousPusher 9y agoYeah, my problem is that the article is titled "Why the trial by ordeal was actually an effective test of guilt" and not "Why the trial by ordeal was a less horrifying meat grinder of human stupidity than you might otherwise think."