Torture was a genuine contest in which a resisting suspect could legally win

Evidence

But the examining magistrate did not employ torture without himself taking certain risks (apart, that is, from the danger of causing the suspect’s death); he had a stake in the game, namely, the evidence that he had already collected; for the rule was that if the accused ‘held out’ and did not confess, the magistrate was forced to drop the charges. The tortured man had then won. Hence the custom, which had been introduced for the most serious cases, of imposing judicial torture ‘pending proof’: in this case the magistrate could continue with his investigation after the torture had failed; the suspect was not declared innocent by his resistance; but at least his victory saved him from being condemned to death. The judge kept all his cards, except the principal one. Omnia citra mortem. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 91

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Judicial torture was a quantified technique, not lawless rage — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 83; The sovereign executed regicides with symbolic maximal torture — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 108; Public torture was spectacle designed to display sovereign power publicly — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 83 (+5 more)

Broader Connections