Salem Witch Trials vs. the Spanish Inquisition

[haas mark]

I never claimed to know mucha bout the Inquisition other than torture methods.

Then you should've asked for more info!

And you think the point of this thread was what again...?

And speaking of 'kick Ver in the balls day"...*kick*

*Waits a few minutes...*

Oww.....

Like I said, I am lucky enough to not feel it right away....

[salm]

I never claimed to know mucha bout the Inquisition other than torture methods.

Then you should've asked for more info!

And you think the point of this thread was what again...?

And speaking of 'kick Ver in the balls day"...*kick*

*Waits a few minutes...*

Oww.....

Like I said, I am lucky enough to not feel it right away....

how many vodka bulls have you had tonight?

[haas mark]

Then you should've asked for more info!

And you think the point of this thread was what again...?

And speaking of 'kick Ver in the balls day"...*kick*

*Waits a few minutes...*

Oww.....

Like I said, I am lucky enough to not feel it right away....

how many vodka bulls have you had tonight?

None. I have never felt it right away.

[salm]

And you think the point of this thread was what again...?
*Waits a few minutes...*

Oww.....

Like I said, I am lucky enough to not feel it right away....

how many vodka bulls have you had tonight?

None. I have never felt it right away.

oh, not because of you delay mechanism on testicular pain but because of your delay mechanism on rational thinking.

[haas mark]

None. I have never felt it right away.

oh, not because of you delay mechanism on testicular pain but because of your delay mechanism on rational thinking.

Haha very funny.... No, I seriously have never felt the pain right away.

[salm]

None. I have never felt it right away.

oh, not because of you delay mechanism on testicular pain but because of your delay mechanism on rational thinking.

Haha very funny.... No, I seriously have never felt the pain right away.

that´s... weird. because a kick in the nuts is ueberpainful in a minimum amount of time.

[haas mark]

Haha very funny.... No, I seriously have never felt the pain right away.

that´s... weird. because a kick in the nuts is ueberpainful in a minimum amount of time.

I know. I'm just lucky like that!

[haas mark]

Haha very funny.... No, I seriously have never felt the pain right away.

that´s... weird. because a kick in the nuts is ueberpainful in a minimum amount of time.

I know. I'm just lucky like that!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'll say it again; the reason why the Inquisition wasn't as bad was because due process existed as part of Inquisitorial procedure. The Salem Witch Trials were basically mob justice; the Spanish Inquisition gave you a fair trial. Now, of course, under certain circumstances torture could be used to compel you to name accomplices, and you were being tried in regard to crimes of a spiritual nature, by a panel of three inquisitors acting as your judges, without an advocate - But it was basically a system where you could defend yourself.

So what you are saying is that the Spanish Inquisition was fair because they had a corrupt "due process" involved, but the Salem Witch TRIALS didn't? I will agree with you that you received a trial, but how in the world, by the furthest stretch of the imagination could you conceive that it was fair? The Inquisitors purposely tried to find anything they could to find "evidence" of their victims were heretics.

After all, you had to prove to the Inquisition that you hadn't committed heresy. That meant proving to the Inquisition that your spiritual beliefs were in line with the Church's, IE, Orthodox. So it was a knowledge test of doctrine if you were smart, effectively, the Inquisitors judging what you understood the faith - and how it was supposed to be practiced (Incorrect practice of the faith was the usual evidence for the accusation of being a "Secret Jew" or "Secret Muslim") - And this being the basis for an innocent or guilty verdict.

Did you read what you posted? "YOU had to prove to the Inquisition......." And this is fair? Dear god man!!! One's accusers already had their verdicts already spelled out in their minds and were determined to brand you as a witch. Granted, I am sure some people did magage to defend their innocence, but nowhere near the amount of people who were duped into confessing something they never done. Like I said earlier, the Queen of Spain had her little own version of Christianity, if you didn't live up to her standards, you were a heretic. Kinda hard to pass the test of faith eh? Especially when people all over Spain and Europe are not practicing the same version of Christianity. Paganism and Christiandom intermingled and I wouldn't have any doubts that people would easily screw up on "faith tests".

Even when guilty, of course, you could recant your heresy and thus avoid the most serious punishment. So really the vast majority of people who stood before an Inquisitorial tribunal were either found innocent or got off with penance, and the number "turned over to the secular arm" was in the low thousands.

Psssssft. As history reminds us, there were some German towns ( I believe they were German) who had virtually no women in them. The vast majority of people accused were found guilty although you state otherwise. You act as if these trials were ones "a jury of your peers" like we have today. We may never know the exact numbers of people killed during the Inquisition. It is generally thought that the numbers were below one million and *documented* executions state 100 thousand. Jesus Duchess......

Why the hell are you talking about Germany? What sort of idiot are you? This entire discussion has been about The Spanish Inquisition. SPANISH. For the record, it only operated in SPAIN. I am completely unconcerned with the Medieval or the Papal Inquisition for the moment; but I will cover it shortly. Do not blur the two, however! They are unrelated; and the Spanish inquisition was rather more a matter of royal authority, than holy ambition.

From the following webpage:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)
Cited in Will Durant, The Reformation (1957):
Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.
In contrast to the high estimate cited above, Durant tosses his support to the following low estimates:
Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490.
An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.
PGtH: 8,800 deaths by burning, 1478-1496
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910): 8,800 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada. (acc2 Buckle and Friedländer)
Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 10,220 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada
Britannica: 2,000
Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 35,534 burned.
Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch.IV: 32,000 burned
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 32,000 k. by burning; 20,226 k. before 1540
Wertham: 250,000
Rummel: 350,000 deaths overall.
MEDIAN: 8,800 under Torq.; 32,000 all told.
Punished by all means, not death.
Fox: 309,000
P. Johnson: 341,000
Motley: 114,401

So, as we can see, the majority of the estimates are for between 20,000 - 40,000 killed, with only two higher than that, and by extreme margins which render them implausible (Though total numbers for those punished in some fashion are in that rough range). Most are lower than that, indeed considerably. The General Secretary of the Inquisition in the late 18th century himself estimated somewhat less than 32,000 killed. Considering he had access to their records, that figure seems reasonable. Over a period of around 250 years in a country of millions, that really isn't very many people. A single day in WWI would chew up more. Averaged out over the entire period, we're talking about around 160 people a year; hardly a systematic persecution, though granted it was heavier in the beginning, under Torquemada, etc.


As for persecution of those accused as being witches:

Witch Hunts (1400-1800)
Wertham: 20,000
Jenny Gibbons [http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/fmuntean/POM5a1.html] cites:
Levack: 60,000
Hutton: 40,000
Barstow: 100,000, "but her reasoning was flawed" (i.e. too high.)
Davies, Norman, Europe A History: 50,000
Rummel: 100,000
Bethancourt: The Killings of Witches, lists 628 named and 268,331 unnamed witches killed as of Dec. 2000, and estimates that between 20,000 (?possibly a typo for 250,000 as in earlier versions of the site.) and 500,000 people were killed as witches. [http://www.illusions.com/burning/burnwitc.htm?]
M. D. Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897): 9,000,000 burned for witchcraft.
5 Jan. 1999 Deutsche Presse-Agentur: review of Wolfgang Behringer's Hexen: Glaube - Verfolgung - Vermarktung:
estimates cited favorably
Thomas Brady: 40-50,000
Merry Wiesner: 50-100,000
Behringer, at lowest: 30,000
estimates cited unfavorably
Gottfried Christian Voigt (1740-1791) extrapolated from his section of Germany to calculate 9,442,994 witches killed throughout Europe. From this came the common estimate of 9M.
Mathilde Ludendorff (1877-1966): 9M
Friederike Mueller-Reimerdes (1935): 9-10M
Erika Wisselinck: 6-13 Million
MEDIAN: Of the 15 estimate listed here, the median is 100,000. If we limit it to just the ten estimates that are cited favorably, the median falls between 50,000 and 60,000.

So the median suggests 50,000 - 60,000 or up to 100,000 people killed during a four hundred year period in western europe during the persecution against "witchcraft". Again, considering the violence of that era, it is not considerable. Even the highest figure would average to only 250 people a year executed for witchcraft. 250 people a year to many, but a modern country could conceivably execute that many criminals for legitimate offenses; it's not like some kind of systematic genocide was happening.

Now, the start of the Medieval Inquisition was really the Albigensian Crusade. So let's review casualty figures for the Albigensian Crusade as well:

Albigensian Crusade (1208-49)
Rummel: 200,000 democides
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History: 1,000,000
Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (1998): 1,000,000
Individual incidents:
PGtH: 20,000 massacred in Beziers.
Ellerbe:
Beziers: 20-100,000
St. Nazair: 12,000
Tolouse: 10,000
Newton: 20-100,000 massacred in Beziers.

So during a 41 year conflict, somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed. That's not really surprising; the technology of mass slaughter had not advanced far enough to support a major change when during the Thirty Years War some seven millions or more died over the course of that conflict, between 1618-1648.

The extreme numbers, furthermore, are usually the numbers of someone admittedly with a bone to chew - That can be seen above based on the attributions.

As for the process of the Spanish Inquisition:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIB

The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Horrible source, I know! But they have no reason to lie about the actual court process - That is a simple fact. One might assume that there were many abuses of said process - Though I can prove that it was more than a potemkin court - but that is the basic process and legal procedure used, as quoted:

(2) Organization

At the head of the Inquisition, known as the Holy Office, stood the grand inquisitor, nominated by the king and confirmed by the pope. By virtue of his papal credentials he enjoyed authority to delegate his powers to other suitable persons, and to receive appeals from all Spanish courts. He was aided by a High Council (Consejo Supremo) consisting of five members -- the so-called Apostolic inquisitors, two secretaries, two relatores, one advocatus fiscalis -- and several consulters and qualificators. The officials of the supreme tribunal were appointed by the grand inquisitor after consultation with the king. The former could also freely appoint, transfer, remove from office, visit, and inspect or call to account all inquisitors and officials of the lower courts. Philip III, on 16 December, 1618, gave the Dominicans the privilege of having one of their order permanently a member of the Consejo Supremo. All power was really concentrated in this supreme tribunal. It decided important or disputed questions, and heard appeals; without its approval no priest, knight, or noble could be imprisoned, and no auto-da-fé held; an annual report was made to it concerning the entire Inquisition, and once a month a financial report. Everyone was subject to it, not excepting priests, bishops, or even the sovereign. The Spanish Inquisition is distinguished from the medieval its monarchical constitution and and a greater consequent centralization, as also by the constant and legally provided-for influence of the crown on all official appointments and the progress of trials.

(3) Procedure

The procedure, on the other hand, was substantially the same as that already described. Here, too, a "term of grace" of thirty to forty days was invariably granted, and was often prolonged. Imprisonment resulted only when unanimity had been arrived at, or the offence had been proved. Examination of the accused could take place only in the presence of two disinterested priests, whose obligation it was to restrain any arbitrary act in their presence the protocol had to be read out twice to the accused. The defence lay always in the hands of a lawyer. The witnesses although unknown to the accused, were sworn, and very severe punishment, even death, awaited false witnesses, (cf. Brief of Leo X of 14 December, 1518). Torture was applied only too frequently and to cruelly, but certainly not more cruelly than under Charles V's system of judicial torture in Germany.

So there actually was right to consul, and furthermore, the verdict did have to be unaminous.

[Guest]

Why the hell are you talking about Germany? What sort of idiot are you? This entire discussion has been about The Spanish Inquisition. SPANISH. For the record, it only operated in SPAIN.

OOPS! I was speaking in terms of the Inquisition as a whole i.e. Medieval/Spanish/Roman. With that mistake aside, you are stating that the Spanish Inquisition was "fair" and implying the Salem Witch Trials were not:

the reason why the Inquisition wasn't as bad was because due process existed as part of Inquisitorial procedure. The Salem Witch Trials were basically mob justice; the Spanish Inquisition gave you a fair trial

Your reasoning behind this fabled "fairness" is because "well, at least they had counsel." Then I guess you are right and I am wrong. All those people who were executed for their crimes is justifiable simply because they were represented by counsel in a fair trial. But what is funny is the very next thing you say is :

..... torture could be used........ a panel of three inquisitors acting as your judges, without an advocate - But it was basically a system where you could defend yourself.

Nevermind the super charged atmosphere of polictics, religious zealotry, fear and supersticion of the time period. Apparently it was a fair trial because it had to be unanimous and they had counsel and even though torture could be used - something your Catholic Encyclopedia admits too. The Salem Witch Trials were horribly unfair because they didn't have counsel, one man was tortured. Nevermind the fact that there was a panel of judges that preceded over the hearings, nevermind the fact that people began to question the Witch Trials themsevles and criticize them, nevermind the fact that "evidence" was gathered through questioning, other's statements. In reality, neither was fair and it is ridiculous to say that one or the other trully a fair system to try people. They both opperated on a riduculous premise and a twisted sense of justice. However,the Spanish Inquisition was far greater in scope; human life, lenght of the persecution of an entire country, far disgusting reasons than the Salem Witch Trials. But in light of this you state "The Spanish Inquistion was not that bad because it allowed people to defend themsevles through proper due process of law and the availabity to counsel." You are right though, they were found guilty by due process, but they were really:

Guilty of being a Jew
Guilty of being pagan
Guilty of not practicing Queen Isabella's standard of Catholocism

And these people were exectuted because of their different beliefs by way of the scapegoat of heresy/witchcraft. You try to downplay the mockery of justic in the procedings. You act as if they had Miranda rights, protected by the United States Constitution or that the Inquisitors really gave a damn about the proper carrying of justice. People were accused via word of mouth and were expected to accuse others. Torture was used to make people confess (this you and your source even admit too) and this is what you call due process and a fair trial. You imply that the judges and prosecution wrenched their very conscience "What if this person is innocent...dear God what have I done!" This is nonsese, people were found guilty moreso than innocent on the basis of a laughable justice system.

So, as we can see, the majority of the estimates are for between 20,000 - 40,000 killed, with only two higher than that, and by extreme margins which render them implausible (Though total numbers for those punished in some fashion are in that rough range). Most are lower than that, indeed considerably. The General Secretary of the Inquisition in the late 18th century himself estimated somewhat less than 32,000 killed. Considering he had access to their records, that figure seems reasonable. Over a period of around 250 years in a country of millions, that really isn't very many people. A single day in WWI would chew up more. Averaged out over the entire period, we're talking about around 160 people a year; hardly a systematic persecution, though granted it was heavier in the beginning, under Torquemada, etc.

And about your numbers of the accused....it does not really matter to this thread. Although you cite a personal web page as a resource in spite of the author of the page specifically stating:
"Let me emphasize that again: this is a very incomplete listing. This means that I don't want you going around quoting this list as the definitive treatment of the subject. I don't want you to assume that just because something is missing here, it wasn't very bloody."
Again, I was speaking of the entire Inquisition. To give you some credit, it was not a systematic persectution, at least not on day to day basis. But no one can argue against the fact that it was a persecution based on political, religious, and various other personal means by scapegoating a specific group of people. But to play the numbers game, you claim that it would have been 160 people killed per year and this is why you say it was not a systematic persecution. That is 13 people a month. In Salem 24 people were killed...19 killed for witchcraft, 1 was pressed to death, and the other four died in prison. So that comes to 2 people a month in comparision to 13, a 650% increase. But numbers do not matter. What matters is your claim that the Spanish Inquisition was "fair."

Since you like to be rude, I will end with your own quote "What kind of idiot are you?"



Whatever.

[NecronLord]

*kick*

It should be noted that on the loong list of things the Inquisition charged people with, Witchcraft did not appear. At least the crimes the Inquisition charged people with were actually possible, if religious and petty.

[Guest]

*kick*

It should be noted that on the loong list of things the Inquisition charged people with, Witchcraft did not appear. At least the crimes the Inquisition charged people with were actually possible, if religious and petty.

It all depends on which one you are speaking about. I do not know if Jews were formally charged with witchcraft, or for that matter anyone else, but there were accusations of witchcraft during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. However, not nearly to the degree as the Medieval and Roman Inquisitions.