3 ms·
Not really. Lots of societies have required accused criminals to be tortured until they confess. Presumably they would generally only torture people they believ
by gweinberg 3y ago
Not really. Lots of societies have required accused criminals to be tortured until they confess. Presumably they would generally only torture people they believed were guilty, but there was no reason to be more confident the person was guilty after confession than before. The confession was purely of ritual significance.
- madsbuch 3y ago> Presumably they would generally only torture people they believed were guilty, so in their system of belief, they are truthfully guilty. the question I am asking is whether you can divorce truth from confession. if the society cannot believe that a confessing person is indeed guilty, then it will not uphold societal order.
- ang_cire 3y agoGladiatorial combat was used to help preserve the social order. Public executions were often just that but skipping the combat part, and people would often cheer them on like a football game. You'd be surprised how little people care about innocence and justice. They care more about the entertainment value and reddit drama of discussing the convictions than actual justice or truth. People want to hear that bad things are being done to "bad people", and won't interrogate that label too deeply.
- madsbuch 3y agoI think the point is believe. I agree that it takes just little to believe anything. But my point is that we can not divorce the belief