In the Boston Globe this weekend, the economist Peter Leeson argues that trial by ordeal—testing guilt by, say, forcing the hand of the accused into a vat of boiling water to see whether it burned—was a pretty effective way of judgment.
It’s a wild, and goofy, and interesting essay—but what struck me, on a first read, is how no religious intellectual these days would dare make that argument, even in a semi-facetious way. In fact, as Leeson notes, one of the main causes in the decline of the effectiveness of trial by ordeal was that the Church turned against it. But, still, the fear of the charge of medievalism is too great to allow any theologian to write the interesting thing that Leeson has produced.
I certainly wouldn’t have tried it—and I’m actually fascinated by similar questions about things like the effectiveness and social effect of trial by combat and code duello, or the arguments in favor election by lot that Cicero, as I recall, mounts.
But, then, I’ve internalized the Enlightenment critique and can’t shake free of it.
February 1st, 2010 | 7:40 am
It’s still an enlightenment style appraisal of trial by ordeal. The possibility that God might intervene in such a trial is not considered at all.
February 1st, 2010 | 10:19 am
I think we still have trial by ordeal for celebrity Americans. Rather than a vat of boiling water, we offer the pounding of media attention. There is some assumption that the hounding of the paparazzi is an adequate substitute for trial by jury.
February 1st, 2010 | 11:37 am
1) “nonsuperstitious” society? Is he referring to us? Hmmm
2) agree with David above: although this is a much more balanced evaluation of trial by ordeal than I’ve ever seen before, it’s still ‘enlightenment style’. A truly balanced eval would include such items as where the culture was coming from (the utterly brutal and ‘per-logical’ Franks, for example. The idea of settling conflicts by any kind of trail at all, as opposed to simply resorting to a string of revenge killings) and the ghastly outcomes of Enlightenment thinking, such as the French Revolution, that would have appalled our ‘dark age’ ancestors.
But, not bad, really. He even gives medieval priests credit for being human beings.
February 1st, 2010 | 4:35 pm
The selection of the lower house by lottery has the immediate advantage of improving both the character and temperament of that body.
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:42 am
[...] The Boston Globe: Medieval trial ordeals were surprisingly effective. (Hat tip: First Thoughts) var addthis_pub = ''; var addthis_language = 'en';var addthis_options = 'email, favorites, digg, [...]
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:04 am
I am not surprised that an economist wrote this because behavioral economics emphasizes the placebo effect, or power of expectations to shape our perceptions the world. However, he is engaging in speculation. We do not know how effective trial by ordeal was and there is no way to find out. We also do not know how effective our current criminal justice system is and there is no way to find out. What percentage of those who are found guilty are actually innocent? How many people who are guilty are never punished? No one knows. It is quite possible that trial by ordeal was a more effective system of justice than our system. And like the system of trial by ordeal, our system depends on confidence, the belief of citizens that the system works. If people lose confidence in our system, it too will become less effective.
March 23rd, 2010 | 1:57 pm
I don’t think the brutality of trial by ordeal is as much of an issue as the internal effects of the system on the accused. Faith in an absolute is one of the only ways to incentivize full discolsure.
The following article is interesting in how it contrasts Trial by Ordeal with modern science. Both depend on mysticism somewhat, but science by comparison is very cynical and cannot be bent as easily to grant mercy to the innocent.
.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact