|
What I mean by the "old Dunking test" is the test to see if someone was lying (It was also used to test if someone was a witch). If you were "accepted" by the water, you were telling the truth (Or God had Forgiven you for the lie or for practicing witchcraft, which in the middle ages was grounds for charges to be dismissed). If you floated, you had neither been forgiven for the lie AND you had lied.
In over 90% of the cases, the subject to the test sunk, and thus was accepted by the water i.e. ruled INNOCENT of the charge. While the dunking test is often accused of being a false test, i.e. you floated and thus be convicted or you drowned if you were innocent, in reality no one was permitted to drown, all that was needed is for you to sink. If a person is round up in a ball shape so he or she can NOT breath in much air, you will almost always sink.
My favorite story was about the Bishop who agreed to the test, but in the week before the actual test, he per-tested himself and every time he sunk during all of the pre-tests. In the actual test he actually floated for the first time. He then had to admit his guilt (For he was guilty of the Charge, he did the crime, which had to do with lying to the king about money owned to the King). People have speculated on the results, why did he float on the day of the actual test? Apparently he took in to deep a breath, thus he had air in his system that made him float. The question is why so much air on that day, as opposed to the other day? The argument is that he was so nervous in the day of the test he took in more air then on the pre-test days and thus had enough air to float.
Back to the main topic, the float test had a 90% track record, 90% of the people who underwent the test passed it (Which was why the Dunking test was so popular, when dealing with people filled with superstition, it was easier to use the dunking test to show that someone was innocent of the charge against him or her, then to show, in a conventional trial, that the charge was false. Think about it, during the Witch Trials of the 1690s, Rhode Island also tried witches, but used the dunking test to see if they were witches or not (And all of the alleged Witched were found to sink, thus were NOT witches under the Dunking test). On the other hand Salem Massachusetts dismissed the dunking test as medieval device with no real Science behind it. Salem had conventional trials, permitting in "Spectral" evidence to prove that people were witches. The convicted were then tortured will their either died, confessed or hanged (The people who Confessed all lived for the fact that they had confessed meant they can ask for forgiveness and could testify against others, as such they lived long enough for even the people of Massachusetts to accept that the witch trials were wrong).
Think about it, we have more people executed as Witches AFTER the dunking test was outlawed then the time period when the Dunking test was the rule.
Side note: The main reason the various "tests" to determined if someone was telling the truth or not were phased out had nothing to do with ill-reliability, but the fact that the error in such tests was to ruling someone "Not Guilty" as oppose to "Guilty" (either because he or she was innocent OR God had forgiven them). As we entered the Renaissance greater effort was being made to suppress the lower classes, more by the raising Middle Class (About 10% of the population, roughly those people whose income was between 90-97% of of all incomes) then by the older Nobility (Roughly people whose income were in the top 3% of the income of that society).
The peasants (And later the urban working classes) whose income earning was between the 10% of the population that even the Communist call the "Poor" and the top 10% of the population representing the Middle and Noble Classes of Society, the better modern term is "Upper Middle Class") were the people such Middle Class and Nobles wanted to control, and to do so the old "Tests" were to liberal to permit to survive. Thus were abolished and called the product of Medieval superstition (and attacked as such, do to the "tests" bias to find someone innocent).
Even the Jury Trial went through a transformation between 1500 and 1800. Prior to 1500, Juries tended to be made up of peasants or if the person on trial was a Noble, a jury of Nobles (The classic case is a Maryland case from the late 1600s, involving a woman who had killed her new born baby, the jury was made up of all women, her "peers" NOT men as would have been the case after about 1700). After about 1700, (and Clearly by 1800) juries were made up of Upper Middle Class males, it was almost impossible for a peasant or working man to get on a jury before 1900 (and it took while pass the 1950s to get people on juries who were NOT upper Middle class, and then only as a result of Civil Rights Movement that demanded African Americans get on the Jury, since they were very few Upper Middle Class African Americans, the States were forced to change their rules to included ALL people no matter their income, home ownership status or even registration to vote).
Even today, while it is possible to have non-upper middle class people on Juries, most juries tend to have more Upper Middle Class people on them then is the norm for the population as a whole. Even today Judges and Lawyers tend to prefer people like themselves, people in the upper 10-15% of income earners. Some juries do consist of all lower middle class and poor people, but those are much rarer then juries with upper middle class people on it. Various efforts have been made to expand the jury pool, but the fact that the poor move more often then any other group, tend to have NOT registered to vote, tend to have a criminal record, tends to work against them being a member of the Jury pool. Upper Middle Class people tend to be more willing to convict people then are the lower classes if the evidence is weak (If the evidence is strong, both groups will convict but it is rare for such cases to go to trial, some plead bargain is generally agreed to while before trail). Given this bias by Upper Middle Class people, Juries tend to want to convict, and prosecutors tend to want Upper Middle Class people on the Juries for that reason.
I mention the jury, for it shows how it has changed do to the desire of the Upper Middle Class to want to control society. It is for this same reason the various "Tests" were abolished, less to do with them being unreliable, more to do with the desire of the Upper Middle Class to convict people of crimes they are accused of and do to that ability to deal out "Justice" control society.
The use of such Camera to determine if someone is telling the truth will only be used to maintain control, it if for this reason Lie Detectors have stayed around so long. When it comes to actual truth, the courts will rely on Juries to make such determination, but Juries pre-deposed to convict. Thus such Cameras have no use in the Court and thus like Lie Detectors will NOT be admitted.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(571 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
