2 ms·

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

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.

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.