In the early Middle Ages, people used to rely on ordeals to determine guilt or innocence, believing that God would reveal the truth through these tests. However, this approach was eventually abandoned due to its lack of religious legitimacy. Instead, a high standard of proof was imposed, requiring either two eyewitnesses or a voluntary confession for a conviction. But this system was not practical in cases involving covert crimes or unrepentant criminals. As a result, the law of torture emerged, where a defendant could be tortured into confessing. This confession was considered voluntary once the torture stopped. Similarly, in modern law, plea bargains serve as a substitute for trial, motivated by the threat of a harsher sentence if a person insists on going to trial. The use of torture and the reliability of confession have been debated throughout history, with various legal systems attempting to address their flaws. In Chinese law, even witnesses could be subjected to torture, and clever judges often recognized when false confessions had been coerced. These historical examples raise the question of why torture continued to be used despite recognizing its problems. Possible explanations include punishment without conviction and the belief in a competent interrogator’s ability to distinguish truth from lies. Some legal systems even required the accuser
https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/torture