4 ms·

> The Spanish Inquisition managed to get similar rates Is that claim about the Inquisition conviction rates based on some source? This is a diversion, but acc

> The Spanish Inquisition managed to get similar rates Is that claim about the Inquisition conviction rates based on some source? This is a diversion, but according to what I've read, Spanish Inquisition was a lot better than its reputation, which is largely a myth (about torture etc). http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spani... says nothing about conviction rates, but it says about torture something that probably surprises people: "Modern researchers have discovered that the Spanish Inquisition applied torture in only 2 percent of its cases. Each instance of torture was limited to a maximum of 15 minutes. In only 1 percent of the cases was torture applied twice and never for a third time."

CamperBob2 12y ago
Wow. Some people will try to rehabilitate anything. The next time you catch yourself typing a sentence like "Modern researchers have discovered that the Spanish Inquisition applied torture in only 2 percent of its cases," read it first, then hit Post if you still think it's appropriate. Especially if the sentence you're typing is a quote from "Crisis Magazine: A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity."
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Yes, anything should be "rehabilitated" if that serves truth, or helps to put things into proportion. I'm not Catholic, I'm not Spanish. I have no axe to grind except truth. Earlier I read a lot of stories about how bad the Inquisition was. That 2 percent figure is certainly less than what I had expected based on the myths I heard previously. Overall, I think it is unfair to use the Inquisition as a particularly heinous example of juridic cruelty and oppression, if it actually wasn't bad for its times - comparing it to today is anachronistic. Wikipedia: "As with all European tribunals of the time, torture was employed. The Spanish inquisition, however, engaged in it far less often and with greater care than other courts." A couple of sources are given for this. Anyway, I'm just curious to know if the Spanish Inquisition's conviction rate actually was 99.6 %, or something like that?
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    All I will say is, when I have a question about Lyman spectroscopy or the history of the National Football League, I find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource and guide to further reading. But when I have questions involving powerful religious entities who have historically tried to downplay their involvement in various scandals, exerted undue political influence for many centuries, actively tried to cover up atrocities, promoted ridiculous beliefs, or simply tried to make someone or something look good or bad in contexts where the facts are not always unequivocal, Wikipedia is the last place I look. It's simply a matter of using different sources appropriately to research different subjects. Edit: And another thing. Here in the US, we can't even agree on what constitutes "torture" now, much less assign precise frequencies of occurrence to acts that might or might not have been considered "torture" at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Attempting to boil down a complex historical picture to a simple numeric figure like "X tortured people 2% of the time, while Y used torture in 5% of trials, therefore X was better" is a fertile ground for fallacy.
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      This thread was spinned off from such a comparison: comparison of cybercrime conviction rates to conviction rates of the Spanish Inquisition. That sounds anachronistic indeed in my opinion. I'm also curious if someone has good sources pointing out that the conviction rate of the Inquisition really was 99.6 %. But of course, if we go back to cybercrime, a conviction rate of 99.6 % may be indicative of two different things: either the courts will convict almost any and every prosecution, or then only rock-solid cases are even prosecuted. I tend to think that it's mostly the latter: a small proportion of all cases is ever prosecuted, but those cases are then so clear regarding "what happened" that conviction rates are high. It is then another matter "what it means", i.e. the facts are not disputed but the interpretation of law is, and this is why convictions may be repealed on appeal.
jacquesm 12y ago
Makes you wonder why it wasn't done a third time. Or did you think that was some kind of strange coincidence? Imagine: If we only tortured 2% (assuming your statistic is correct) and we did that in such a way that the word got around, don't you think that would have a positive effect on the ratio of accused that would immediately capitulate and sign anything to avoid the torture? I think 2% is on the high side, those must have been extremely brave people. And those that survived the first round of torture without a confession apparently were given a second helping to see if that changed their minds.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Wow. Some people will try to rehabilitate anything. The next time you catch yourself typing a sentence like "Modern researchers have discovered that the Spanish Inquisition applied torture in only 2 percent of its cases," read it first, then hit Post if you still think it's appropriate. Especially if the sentence you're typing is a quote from "Crisis Magazine: A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity."

ptaipale 12y ago
Yes, anything should be "rehabilitated" if that serves truth, or helps to put things into proportion. I'm not Catholic, I'm not Spanish. I have no axe to grind except truth. Earlier I read a lot of stories about how bad the Inquisition was. That 2 percent figure is certainly less than what I had expected based on the myths I heard previously. Overall, I think it is unfair to use the Inquisition as a particularly heinous example of juridic cruelty and oppression, if it actually wasn't bad for its times - comparing it to today is anachronistic. Wikipedia: "As with all European tribunals of the time, torture was employed. The Spanish inquisition, however, engaged in it far less often and with greater care than other courts." A couple of sources are given for this. Anyway, I'm just curious to know if the Spanish Inquisition's conviction rate actually was 99.6 %, or something like that?
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  All I will say is, when I have a question about Lyman spectroscopy or the history of the National Football League, I find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource and guide to further reading. But when I have questions involving powerful religious entities who have historically tried to downplay their involvement in various scandals, exerted undue political influence for many centuries, actively tried to cover up atrocities, promoted ridiculous beliefs, or simply tried to make someone or something look good or bad in contexts where the facts are not always unequivocal, Wikipedia is the last place I look. It's simply a matter of using different sources appropriately to research different subjects. Edit: And another thing. Here in the US, we can't even agree on what constitutes "torture" now, much less assign precise frequencies of occurrence to acts that might or might not have been considered "torture" at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Attempting to boil down a complex historical picture to a simple numeric figure like "X tortured people 2% of the time, while Y used torture in 5% of trials, therefore X was better" is a fertile ground for fallacy.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    This thread was spinned off from such a comparison: comparison of cybercrime conviction rates to conviction rates of the Spanish Inquisition. That sounds anachronistic indeed in my opinion. I'm also curious if someone has good sources pointing out that the conviction rate of the Inquisition really was 99.6 %. But of course, if we go back to cybercrime, a conviction rate of 99.6 % may be indicative of two different things: either the courts will convict almost any and every prosecution, or then only rock-solid cases are even prosecuted. I tend to think that it's mostly the latter: a small proportion of all cases is ever prosecuted, but those cases are then so clear regarding "what happened" that conviction rates are high. It is then another matter "what it means", i.e. the facts are not disputed but the interpretation of law is, and this is why convictions may be repealed on appeal.

jacquesm 12y ago

Makes you wonder why it wasn't done a third time. Or did you think that was some kind of strange coincidence? Imagine: If we only tortured 2% (assuming your statistic is correct) and we did that in such a way that the word got around, don't you think that would have a positive effect on the ratio of accused that would immediately capitulate and sign anything to avoid the torture? I think 2% is on the high side, those must have been extremely brave people. And those that survived the first round of torture without a confession apparently were given a second helping to see if that changed their minds.