Guilty or Not Guilty. You still rot in Jail/Witch Frenzy!!

I have to admit, I am a little overwhelmed from this chapter. Not only was it long but it was very thorough. To me this chapter was about methodically charging and sentencing someone accused of witchcraft/heresy.

This process is so delicate yet utterly confusing. In a sense, its just one big cycle/loop. Once you get accused, innocent or not, you are going to go through a lot of #$%$#, pardon my french. Take for instance, page 221: "they have revoked their evidence and confessed that they have out of malice put that crime upon the accused. Therefore the prisoner in such as case is not to be sentenced hastily, but must be kept for a year or more before he is delivered up to the secular Court." So the person that is charging me and is my sole witness, says they lied and I still have to wait over a year before anything else happens. What kind of system is that? Moreover, Kramer's logic is so contradicting.

Let's dive a little further in the chapter and Kramer. He published this infamous book "Malleus Maleficarum," after being expelled from Innsbruek. (Wikipedia) I have very few good things to say about this fellow. He refutes anyone who disagrees with him especially about the existence of witchcraft. He depicts women as fragile and easily corrupt. In the chapter Kramer says "what else is a woman but a foe of friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, ...and domestic danger" (pg. 183). The chapter expands on the devil, the process of accusing, the process of judgment, etc.

Now let's dive into what's going on in my thoughts. Kramer talks about torturing the accused to produce a confession. I see copious things wrong with that. If it were me in that position, I would admit to whatever they are torturing me for. Having read how the system works, either way I'm screwed. It would takes miracle to walk out of this. Furthermore, Kramer uses the term "conjuring" as something a Judge or Priest can say, even though they are punishing a civilian("witch") for practically doing the same. In page 215, Kramer states that "the Judge or priest may use some method ...and say I conjure you by the bitter tears shed on the Cross by our Saviour..." This is the very typical style of witchcraft that Kramer sheds light on. The only difference is who is invoked.

I can't fathom what would have been going through the mind of some of the people. All the jargon coming out of priests and Judges would be so confusing. Unless you were an educated scholar, it wouldn't make sense. The jargon they use is so blended and mixed with multiple meanings. It's just a never ending cycle. Then you have the questioning and torture. Kramer says you are innocent till proven otherwise, but they practically treat the accused as guilty. The delicate process of getting accused and charged is so meticulous, but also incredibly contradicting. If you are accused your screwed.

Also, if you look up facts about Kramer and this publication, it's a very infamous book that led whether directly or indirectly 600,000-9,000,000  (over 250 years) of bled shed.(Wikipedia) The Malleus was the hand guide for inquisitors to identifying, prosecuting, and dispatching witchcraft/witches. I find that incredibly disappointing since this publication is contracting and harsh.