Although it is true that prisons were rare, they did exist. But keeping someone locked up was not seen as punishment only as containment. If there were people you needed to keep track of you threw them in the dungeon, but criminals were punished in higly ritalized torture ceremonies.
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:58:49 +1100
> From: "Michael O'Brien" <mob_at_bayswater.schnet.edu.au>
> Subject: Pent Ridge
>
<removing cool scenario hooks>
> (BTW, the Byzantines thought mutilation a *merciful* alternative to
> execution. The criminal, deprived of nose/tongue/hands/eyes/feet/whatever
> was the fashion would have ample time to pray for forgiveness of their evil
> deeds, learn humility and prepare themselves for the hereafter while they
> slowly starved to death in a life of destitute beggary. If they were killed
> straightaway, they would have had no opportunity to repent and would
> therefore be condemned to hell for eternity!)
In europe mutilation and torture was a result of the view of evidence & truth and the need for a confession. There were categories of different types of evidence and rules for combining them (by combini two half evidence one got a complete evidence etc). This with the fact that a 'half evidence' made you 'half-guilty' explains what seems like a paradox today: mixing investigation and punishment as seen in the torture ritual. At the same time you were never 'realy guilty' unless you confessed. The torture gave you an opportunity to clear your name if you were innocent, and if you were guilty well then you deserved it.
Frank Rafaelsen
Homo Ludens
Powered by hypermail