1. Langbein, John H., Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Ibid., 10–12, 48, 64–67.

3. Schmoeckel, Mathias, Humanität und Staatsraison: Die Abschaffung der Folter in Europa und die Entwicklung des gemeinen Strafprozeβ- und Beweisrechts seit dem hohen Mittelalter (Köln: Böhlau, 2000), 359, 536, 591Google Scholar.

4. Langbein, , Torture, 137–38Google Scholar. Schmoeckel does not regard England as fundamentally different from the continent. See Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 54Google Scholar. For views supporting Langbein's description of England as a special case, see Peters, Edward, Torture (New York and Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985)Google Scholar; and Hanson, Elizabeth, “Torture and Truth in Renaissance England,” Representations 34 (1991): 53–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Both Peters and Hanson regard English torture as exceptional and, unlike its continental variant, unsystematic. See also Heath, James, Torture and English Law: An Administrative and Legal History from the Plantagenets to the Stuarts (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982)Google Scholar, who carefully lists torture cases but refrains from making comparisons with the continental situation. Heath's study nevertheless supports Langbein's argument in general.

5. See, for instance, Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law (London: Methuen, 1956), 488Google Scholar.

6. Langbein, , Torture, 137–38Google Scholar.

7. Cited in Hanson, , “Torture and Truth,” 57Google Scholar.

8. The warrants are listed in Langbein, , Torture, 94–128Google Scholar, and reproduced in Heath, , Torture and English Law, 201–39Google Scholar.

9. Hanson, “Torture and Truth.”

10. Langbein, , Torture, 138–39Google Scholar.

11. Stiernhöök, Johan, De iure sveonum et gothorum vetusto (orig. 1674; repr. Stockholm: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1962)Google Scholar. Almquist, J. E., “Johan Stiernhöök, vår förste rätthistoriker,” in Rättshistoriska studier: Band 2 (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1957), 162–214Google Scholar. Almquist has shown that Stiernhöök began his work on the older Swedish law when a professor in Turku in the 1640s, although the final version of De iure was not published until 1674. See also Inger, Göran, “Såsom i en spegel: Några reflektioner kring Johan Stiernhöök's arbete De iure sveonum et gothorum vetusto (Om svears och götars forna rätt),” in Johan Olofsson Stiernhöök: Biografi och studier 1596–1996, ed. Modéer, Kjell Å. (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1996), 45–55Google Scholar.

12. Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 57–58Google Scholar. In order to be fair to Schmoeckel's monumental work and to put the criticism presented here into a perspective, it should be noted that the part concerning Sweden is only two pages long, as against the nearly six hundred pages of the entire book.

13. Åstrand, Björn, Tortyr och pinligt förhör: Våld och tvång i äldre svensk rätt (Umeå: Umeå universitet, 2000)Google Scholar.

14. Gemmel, Hugo, Om ställande under framtiden för brott (Norrköping: Johan Jönson, 1911), 30Google Scholar.

15. Inger, Göran, Institutet “insättande på bekännelse” enligt i svensk processrättshistoria (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1976), 31Google Scholar. On torture in Sweden, see also Anners, Erik, Humanitet och rationalism: Studier i upplysningstidens strafflagsreformer—särskilt med hänsyn till Gustav III:s reformlagstiftning (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1965), 186–206Google Scholar; Ankarloo, Bengt, Trolldomsprocesserna i Sverige (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1971)Google Scholar; and Pihlajamäki, Heikki, “‘Swimming the Witch, Pricking for the Devil's Mark’: Ordeals in the Early Modern Witchcraft Trials,” Journal of Legal History 21. 2 (2000): 35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. See Inger, Göran, Erkännandet i svensk processrättshistoria, vol. 2, 1614–1948 (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1994), 103Google Scholar.

17. Munktell, Henrik, “Tortyren i svensk rättshistoria: Ett bidrag till straffrprocessrättens historia I-II,” Lychnos 1939: 102–35Google Scholar(I) and 1940: 132–65 (II). Ankarloo shares Munktell's opinion. See Ankarloo, , Trolldomsprocesserna, 257Google Scholar.

18. In 1974, Langbein raised serious doubts as to whether the inquisitional features of the medieval German procedure could have developed without the influence of ecclesiastical canon law. See Langbein, John, Prosecuting Crime in the Renaissance: England, Germany, France (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), 154–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Trusen's article in 1984 proved Langbein's doubts correct. See Trusen, Winfried, “Strafprozess und Rezeption: Zu den Entwicklungen im Spätmittelalter und der Grundlagen der Carolina,” Strafrecht Strafprozeβrecht und Rezeption: Grundlagen, Entwicklung und Wirkung der Constitutio Criminalis Carolina, ed. Landau, Peter and Schroeder, Friedrich Christian (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1984), 29–118Google Scholar.

19. Trusen, , “Strafprozess und Rezeption,” 44Google Scholar.

20. Åstrand, , Tortyr, 90Google Scholar.

21. Of course, it may well be asked how systematic a practice the twenty-four torture cases in the 140 years (1474–1614) of Åstrand's study represent. Inger has previously researched the same material and a large amount of other lower court material, both printed and unprinted. See Inger, Göran, Das Geständnis in der schwedischen Prozessrechtsgeschichte, vol. 1, Bis zur Gründung des Svea Hofgerichts 1614 (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1976), 192–206Google Scholar.

22. The archival material covered all the criminal cases (a total of approximately 2000) in the sample years proceeding from the Lower Court Districts of Masku (the Lower Court at Nousiainen, Masku and Lemu; and the Lower Courts at Pöytyä and Mynämäki; year 1640; archive reference: Masku I KO a 2 1637–1643, at the National Archives, Helsinki, Finland) and Pien-Savo (The Lower Courts at Leppävirta and Puumala; years 1663–1665, 1673–1675, 1683–1685, 1693–1695, 1703–1705, 1723–1725, and 1744; archive reference: Pien-Savo KO a 1–5 1663–1696, a 14–15 1703–1705, a 23–25 1723–1725, a 33–35 1733–1735, and a 42 1734, at the National Archives, Helsinki, Finland). Masku is close to Turku, at that time the most important of Finnish towns, and Pien-Savo was a court district in Eastern Finland. Unlike, for instance, Sweden's possessions in Livonia or Germany, Finland was an integral part of Sweden. If compared to other Swedish regions, there is thus no particular reason to doubt that Masku and Pien-Savo are representative.

23. See Inger, , Erkännandet, 103–6Google Scholar. See also Ankarloo, Trolldomsprocesserna; and Rudolf Thunander's fine study on the Göta High Court criminal law practice, which confirms Inger's findings for that particular high court. Thunander, Rudolf, Hovrätt i funktion: Göta hovrätt och brottmålen 1635–1699 (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1993)Google Scholar. One may in fact pick up practically any collection of printed early modern case material from Sweden and search in vain for signs of systematic judicial torture. See, e.g., Johan Stiernhööks ålandska domböcker; Ålands domböcker 1641–1643, ed. Roos, John E. (Helsinki: Åland, 1946)Google Scholar; and Lagläsaren Per Larssons dombok 1638, ed. Edling, Nils (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1937)Google Scholar.

24. Again, no cases of hard prison are found in my Finnish case material (see note 22).

25. Inger, , Erkännandet, 102–6Google Scholar, which includes references to an extensive archival material.

26. On the royal permission to use judicial torture in witchcraft trials, see Ankarloo, , Troll-domsprocesserna, 177Google Scholar.

27. Ibid., 115, 256–62.

28. For Germany, see Winfried Trusen, “Strafprozeβ und Rezeption”; for France, Véronique Pinson-Ramin, “La torture judiciaire en Bretagne au XVII siècle,” Révue historique du droit (1994): 459–568Google Scholar; and for Spain, Francisco Tomàs y Valiente, La tortura en Espana: estudios històricos (Barcelona: Ariel, 1973)Google Scholar. My own, hitherto unpublished studies (conducted for another research project) on Livonian court practice from the Swedish period (1630–1710) show that judicial torture was used in Sweden's Livonian possessions. Hardly incidentally, Livonian lower court judges were legal professionals. I have found the torture cases in the archives of the Lower Courts of Dorpat and Pärnu, and in the High Court of Dorpat. The cases mostly date to the first decades of the Swedish rule (1630s and 1640s) after which their number drastically decreases, thus reflecting the general downward trend of European judicial torture. These findings, however, cannot be taken to reveal anything of the situation in Sweden itself (comprising roughly present-day Sweden and Finland), as the Livonian legal culture had traditionally been heavily influenced by German gemeines Recht. For Livonian torture cases, see the infanticide case of the Lower Court of Pernau vs. Madge on February 17, 1641, Estonian State Archive (at Tartu), 915/1/4, fol. 15a.

29. The High Council in a way continued the tradition of castle courts (borgrätter), in charge of the administrative and legal affairs of the royal castles during the reign of Gustavus I, but it was restructured more as a supreme court. See Rosén, Jerker, Studier kring Erik XIV:s höga nämnd (Lund: Gleerup, 1951), 19, 28–34Google Scholar; and Inger, Göran, Svensk rättshistoria (Lund: LiberLäromedel Lund, 1980), 112Google Scholar.

30. Rosén, , Studier, 28–34Google Scholar. The Instruction is printed in Handlingar rörande Skandinaviens historia: Tjugosjunde delen (Stockholm, 1845)Google Scholar.

31. Inger, , Geständnis, 197Google Scholar.

32. Rosén, , Studier, 43Google Scholar.

33. The aftermath of Eric's reign resembles the legal consequences of the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689. The trials of the later Stuarts, particularly during the Popish Plot (1678–1680), the Rye House Plot (1683), and the Bloody Assizes (1685), led to the Treason Trials Act of 1696, introducing legal reforms intended to remedy the shortcomings of the earlier trial procedures. However, judicial torture was not an issue. Instead the discussions revolved around the defendant's right to trial counsel. See Langbein, John H., The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 3, 78–85Google Scholar.

34. Munktell, , “Tortyren I,” 117–27Google Scholar.

35. On the Rules, see Schmidt, Gerhardt, Die Richterregeln des Olavus Petri: Ihre Bedeutung im allgemeinen und für die Entwicklung des schwedischen Strafprozessrechts vom 14. bis 16. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966)Google Scholar. The English-language translation used here is by Augustine, Linda and Tontti, Jarkko, “Some General Rules Which a Judge Should Abide by Closely,” Associations: Journal for Legal and Social Theory 4 (2000): 118–28Google Scholar.

36. It has been shown that Olaus's statements on torture are textually closely related to the corresponding passages in Constitutio Criminalis Bambergensis. The Bambergensis represents a typical ius commune torture doctrine. See Munktell, , “Tortyren I,” 112Google Scholar.

37. Pihlajamäki, Heikki, “Gründer, Bewahrer oder Vermittler? Die nationalen und inter-nationalen Elemente im Rechtsdenken des Olaus Petri,” in Juristische Fakultäten und Juristenausbildung im Ostseeraum, ed. Eckert, Jörn and Modéer, Kjell Åke (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004), 29–38Google Scholar.

38. See Björne, Lars, Patrioter och institutionalister: Den nordiska rättsvetenskapens historia,vol. 1, Tiden före 1614 (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning grundat av Gustav och Carin Olin, 1995)Google Scholar.

39. See Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 58Google Scholar.

40. Åstrand takes the torture definitions of the United Nations Convention against Torture (1975) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo (1975) as the basis of his observations. See Åstrand, , Tortyren, 14Google Scholar.

41. This was one of the typical solutions in Europe; see Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 260Google Scholar.

42. “Lagförslag i Carl den niondes tid,” Handlingar rörande Sveriges historia, andra serien (Stockholm, 1864), 555Google Scholar.

43. Ibid., 555, 558.

44. Ibid., 558, 563.

45. Ibid., 563.

46. In an illuminating work, Paolo Prodi has worked out the complex relationship between law and moral theology. See Una storia della giustizia: Dal pluralismo dei fori al moderno dualismo tra scienza e diritto (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000)Google Scholar.

47. See Lutheran Reformation and the Law, ed. Mäkinen, Virpi (Leiden: Brill, 2006)Google Scholar.

48. Gothus, Laurentius Paulinus, Ethica Christiana I (Strängnäs, 1633), 72Google Scholar, 76. On the relationship of the moral theology of Paulinus Gothus and contemporary law, see Pihlajamäki, Heikki, “Omantunnon lait: Laurentius Paulinus Gothuksen Ethica Christiana ja puhdasoppisuuden ajan kontrollijärjestelmä,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 4 (2005): 294–308Google Scholar; and on Lauterbeck, , Georg Lauterbeck: Regentenbuch, ed. Philipp, Michael (Hildesheim: OlmsWeidmann, 1997)Google Scholar.

49. “Altera [causa] est ab odio tortura, quam nunquam, nec in semiprobatis quidem criminibus, admiserunt…” Stiernhöök, De iure, 124.

50. “Huic in iure Svetico nusquam fit mentio veritatis aut confessionis per tormenta vel quaestionis violentas eliciendae.” Quoted in Munktell, “Tortyren I,” 129.

51. “Nec[tortura] apud nos hodie in usu est, sed plane in desvetudinem abiit.” Kloot, Claudius, Synopsis rerum criminalium, 2d ed. (Gothenburg, 1676), 275Google Scholar. See also Kloot, Claudius, Then Swenska Laagfarenheetz Spegel (Gothenburg, 1676), 365Google Scholar, according to which torture is “at this time no longer in use.”

52. Nehrman-Ehrenstråhle, David, Inledning til Then Swenska Processum Criminalem efter Sweriges Rikes Lag och Stadgar (Stockholm and Upsala: Kiesewetter, 1759), 158–59Google Scholar.

53. “Laga bewisning skier genom egen bekännelse, när swaranden friwiljandes och otwingat in för Rätten […] bekänner…men ingen bör pinas och plågas til någon bekännelse, efter som then samma uti Kongl. May:tz Rike obruklig samt i sig sielf fahrlig och owiss är.” The same wording was repeated in the Sea Articles of 1685. “Kongl. May:tz Förordning huruledes och hwad wid General och Regementz Rätterne under thes Militie hållas och uti acht tagas bör jämte någre korte Reglor som wid samme Rätter angående Laga Process, ransakning och domb observeras och efterlefwas skole,” in Kongl stadgar, förordninar, brev, och resolutioner, ifrån åhr 1528. in til 1701. angående Justitiae och Executions-ehrender, ed. Schmedeman, Johan (Stockholm: Upsala Acad. Boktryckiare, 1706), 837Google Scholar, 963 [hereafter Schmedeman, Justitiewercket]. In 1686 the king ordered the High Court of Dorpat, the highest court in Sweden's Livonian possession, to “follow the general usage of the Kingdom and the content of the War Articles.” Schmedeman, , Justitiewercket, 1088Google Scholar.

54. “…mycket betänkligt att låta någon pinas till sanningens utsäjande, som är osäkert och minsta sanning därmed utletas; varandes bättre uti slika mörka och tvivelaktiga mål, där sanningen på annat sätt efter mänskligt förstånd och all använd flit icke utletas kan, att hellre lämna de misstänkte under Guds dom än plåga och döma några oskyldiga.” Schmedeman, , Justitiewercket, 1087Google Scholar. Charles XII answered likewise to the Livonian High Court in 1699 and to Svea High Court in 1700; see Wedberg, Birger, Karl XII på jusititietronen:Rättshistoriskbiografisk studie (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1944), 173Google Scholar; and to the High Court of Estonia, see Munktell, “Tortyren II,” 146.

55. “…den bekännelse som med tortyr uttvingas är intet fast skäl att fälla eller döma någon uppå.” Cited at Wedberg, Karl XII, 174–75.

56. In a case from the Svea High Court in 1696, Charles XI seems to have actually granted a torture warrant to extort a confession as well, although this may be interpreted to allow hard prison only. The Svea High Court turned to the king and his Council of the Realm asking how the court ought to proceed in a basically clear embezzlement case in which confession was however difficult to obtain. Wallenstedt expressed as his opinion that the suspect should be placed “under strong torture” (under stark tortyr). The king did not quite consent to this, stating that “handcuffs should be placed on [the suspect's] hands and they ought to be screwed really hard or whatever other means the High Court might find to make [the suspect] confess the truth.” My interpretation (of which I cannot be sure) is that the king was referring to hard prison, which would be in line with the his other decisions. Wedberg thinks this was torture, perhaps correctly. However, the fact that the suspect did not confess but was nevertheless convicted seems to support my view. Wedberg, , Karl XII, 171–72, 174Google Scholar.

57. Förarbetena till Sveriges Rikes Lag 1686–1734, VI: Lagkommissionens förslag 1719–1734, ed. Sjögren, Wilhelm (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1904), 523Google Scholar.

58. Cf. Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 58Google Scholar.

59. “Känd sak är så god som vittnad när then som tilkäres, och til laga ålder kommen, och ej vanvettig är, vidgår frivilligt saken för Rätta, och ej ther til pint, skrämd, eller svikeliga förledd är. Men ej bör någor i brott, som å lif gå, fällas på egen bekännelse, utan the omständigheter finnas, som bekännelsen styrcka.”

60. “Varder någor i brottmål bunden til saken med klara skiäl, och fulla bevis, äntå at han ej kan förmås til bekännelse; ther gälle ej hans nekande. Ej må Domare, eller Befalningshafvande låta någon til bekännelse pinas och plågas: giör thet någor; plichte som saken är til. I grofva brottmål må Domaren försoka med svårare fängelse, at få sanningen i liuset, ther bindande liknelser och omständigheter finnas emot then, som anklagad är: förfare doch ther med varsamliga.”

61. On Nehrman's position in the contemporary Swedish scholarship, see Anners, , Human-itet, 131Google Scholar.

62. On peine forte et dure, see Langbein, , Torture, 74–77Google Scholar.

63. Cited in Peters, , Torture, 1Google Scholar.

64. For the devices used, see Fiorelli, Piero, La tortura giudiziaria nel diritto commune I-II (Milan: Giuffré, 1953–1954), 192–209Google Scholar; and Langbein, , Torture, 14–15Google Scholar.

65. Langbein, , Torture, 15Google Scholar.

66. Carpzov, Benedict, Practica nova imperialis Saxonica rerum criminalium, pars III (Wittemberg, 1670), 97 (p. III, q. CXI, 22–25)Google Scholar.

67. Ibid., 63 (p. III, q. CVI, 101).

68. Ibid., 99 (p. III, q. CVI, 45).

69. “Debent autem vincula & ferramenta adhiberi secundum qvalitatem delicti & personae.” Ibid., 100 (p. III, q. CVI, 50–51). The famous Italian criminal lawyer Prospero Farinaccio argued that the incarcerated suspect could not be placed in handcuffs or chains, unless he had already confessed or there were vehement indicia that spoke for his guilt.

70. Carpzov, , Practica nova, 99Google Scholar(p. III, q. CVI, 42).

71. Nehrman-Ehrenstråhle, , Inledning, 112–16Google Scholar.

72. For a modern view of Calonius, see Björne, Lars, Patrioter, 131–40Google Scholar.

73. “Gratulari autem nobis debemus in ea nos natos & educatos esse civitate, quae suis legibus…equuleum in forum admisisse numquam legitur…” Calonius, Matthias, “De elicienda in foro criminali reorum confessione,” in Calonius, Matthias, Opera omnia II (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1830), 304Google Scholar.

74. “Et cum exigua illa, quam in commendato sibi cauto admodum & circumspecto arctioris custodiae usu, invenisse se credebant, torturae umbra, occasionem captassent judices, reos in tenebrosos, squalidos & subterraneos carceres conjectos foetore & frigore excruciandi…” Calonius, “De elicienda,” 305.

75. For the conservativeness of Calonius, see Björne, , Patrioter, 138Google Scholar.

76. “Här förbiudes, at någor skall pijnas och plågas till bekännelse, det och i långliga tijder har igenom åthskillige förordningar warit förbudit, och ändå tillätes i grofwa bråttmåhl at försökia med swåra fängelse at få sanningen i dagsliuset. Detta är äfwen en tortyr, coh ehuru någon gång kunnat hända, at sanningen genom bekännielse dymedelst kommit i dagliuset, är och så händt, att domaren af slijkt undersökningssätt ej fådt mera uplysning sedan än förr. Därföre är skiäligt att all tortyr åfwen med swåra fängelse aldeles förbiudes, ty at fast bättre är, at gifwa en bråtzlig löös, än att pijna och plåga den, som obråttzlig är.” Cited in Förarbetena till Sveriges rikes lag 1686–1736, VIII, ed. Sjögren, Wilhelm (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1909), 236Google Scholar.

77. One of the types of early modern royal Swedish legislation was called “letter” (brev).

78. Anners, , Humanitet, 186–88Google Scholar.

79. Cf. ibid., 262–63.

80. Calonius, , “De elicienda,” 30Google Scholar.

81. The Justice Revision (Justitierevisionen) was the section of the Council of the Realm in charge of assisting the king in legal affairs. The Law Commission (lagkommissionen) was a permanent expert organ that issued statements on statutory proposals. Abolition of hard prison would in fact have overstepped royal prerogatives and violated the Parliament's legislative powers. See Anners, Humanitet, 186–202. The king had already answered the questions on the same matter posed to him by the Göta High Court and the General Court Martial of the Artillery (Artillerigeneralkrigsrätten), stating that hard prison could still be used.

82. “…nådiga föremålet därmed endast varit det slags fängelserum, som ej hade någon grund i lag utan hos anklagade delinkventer kunde medföra någon emot mänskligheten stridande pina.” Cited in Anners, , Humanitet, 189Google Scholar.

83. Ibid., 191.

84. Ibid., 292.

85. A large body of literature discusses the varying levels of pain. Discussing criminal punishment and torture in ancient Rome, for instance, Jill Harries speaks about “the inevitability of pain and its use in judicial contexts which seems most alien to modern western perception.” Harries further remarks that “Before the invention of anaesthetics, pain from a variety of natural causes was something to be anticipated and endured.” Harries, Jill, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 133–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the human experience of pain, see also Scarry, Elaine, The Body in Pain: The Making and the Unmaking of the World (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

86. See Whitman, James Q., Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 10Google Scholar. According to Whitman, “high-status punishments have slowly driven the low-status punishments out” in continental Europe in the last two centuries.

87. Peters, , Torture, 2Google Scholar.

88. If Anners is correct, hard prison had not been used since 1774. Anners, , Humanitet, 197Google Scholar.

89. Förslag till Allmän Criminallag (Stockholm, 1832), 146Google Scholar. “andamålet med häktning är endast att behålla den häktade förvarande. Han kan ej med rättvisa underkastas någon hårdare behandling, än som för detta ändamål är nödvändigt fordras. All skillnad emellan svårare och lindrigare häkte är följaktligen obehörig. Hvarje häkte måste vara så svårt, som säkerheten kräfver, men alldeles icke svårare.” Because it became part of a larger criminal law reform, hard prison was actually not abolished until 1868.

90. See Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London: Penguin Books, 1977)Google Scholar; and Spierenburg, Pieter, The Spectacle of Suffering, Executions and the Evolution of Repression: From a Preindustrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 189–90Google Scholar.

91. See the infanticide case against Cristine Benct clensmidz dottir in Stockholm on June 14, 1484. Instead of the statutory death sentence, Cristine was fined 20 marks and banished from the town. Stockholms stads tänkeböcker 1483–1492 [The courts records of the city of Stockholm 1483–1492] (Stockholm: Stockholms stad, 1921), 5Google Scholar. See also Pihlajamäki, Heikki, “On the Verge of Modern Law: The Mitigation of Punishment in Nineteenth-Century Finland,” Ius Commune: Zeitschrift für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte 28 (2001): [269Google Scholar–94.

92. Schmedeman, , Justitiewercket, 238Google Scholar. A similar Letter was issued in 1647, when Queen Christina came of age. Ibid., 269. The first high court, the High Court of Svea, was founded in 1614.

93. See Thunander, Hovrätt i funktion.

94. For France, see Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 403Google Scholar. 95. In statutory law, confessional imprisonment was based on three letters patent, besides provision 17:32 of the Procedural Section (of the Law of the Realm of 1734). According to the Letter Patent of April 12, 1753, the cases that the court deemed appropriate to “leave to the future” were to be referred to the king. The Letter Patent of November 11, 1756, orders that if a case was left to the future the accused could be held prisoner for a “shorter or longer time.” Finally, the Letter Patent of March 22, 1803, ordered that when someone accused of a serious crime was “almost proven guilty” (i det närmaste förvunnen), denied his guilt, and when his dangerous character (ondska och wanart) endangered public security, the accused could be held prisoner for a “shorter or longer” time in order to force a confession. Inger, Insättände, 35, 37, 49–50. On the decision categories, see Pihlajamäki, Heikki, Evidence, Crime, and the Legal Profession: The Emergence of Free Evaluation of Evidence in the Finnish Nineteenth-Century Criminal Procedure (Lund: Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning), 181–90Google Scholar.

96. Langbein, , Torture, 137–38Google Scholar.

97. Nämndemän were the lay court members. The judges presiding over the lower courts remained untrained in law long into the seventeenth century.

98. See Letto-Vanamo, Pia, Käräjäyhteisön oikeus: Oikeudenkäyttö Suomessa ennen valtiollisen riidanratkaisun vakiintumista (Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, 1995)Google Scholar.

99. See Crime and the Law: The Social History of Crime in Western Europe since 1500, ed. Gatrell, V. A. C., Lenman, Bruce, and Parker, Geoffrey (London: Europa Publications, 1980)Google Scholar.

100. See Pihlajamäki, , Evidence, 61–67Google Scholar.

101. See Rosén, Studier.

102. Schmoeckel, , Humanität, 542–43, 591Google Scholar.

103. See Lindroth, Sten, Svensk lärdomshistoria: Stormaktstiden (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1997), 129–40Google Scholar.

104. Lindroth, , Stormaktstiden, 573–77Google Scholar; and Lindroth, Sten, Svensk lärdomshistoria: Frihetstiden (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1978), 502Google Scholar. On the Enlightenment in Sweden, see Lindroth, , Frihetstiden, 501–14Google Scholar; and Lindroth, Sten, Svensk lärdomshistoria: Gustavianska tiden (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1981), 166–93Google Scholar.

105. The cornerstones of this literature are Elias, Norbert, Über den Prozess der Civilisation: soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen 1–2 (Basel: Verlag Haus zum Falken, 1939)Google Scholar; and Spierenburg, The Spectacle of Suffering. For the Scandinavian literature, see Österberg, Eva, “Våld och våldsmentalitet bland bönderna: Jämförande perspektiv på 1500– och 1600–talets Sverige,” Scandia 49 (1983): 5–28Google Scholar; Ylikangas, Heikki, “What Happened to Violence? An Analysis on the Development of Violence from Mediaeval Times to the Early Modern Era Based on Finnish Source Material,” in Five Centuries of Violence in Finland and the Baltic Area, ed. Lappalainen, Mirkka (Helsinki: Academy of Finland, 1998), 7–128Google Scholar; Jarrick, Arne and Söderberg, Johan, Odygd och vanära: folk och brott i gamla Stockholm (Falun: Rabén Prisma, 1998)Google Scholar; Lilieqvist, Jonas, “Violence, Honour and Manliness in Early Modern Northern Sweden,” in Crime and Control in Europe from the Past to the Present, ed. Lappalainen, Mirkka and Hirvonen, Pekka (Helsinki: Academy of Finland, 1999), 174–204Google Scholar; and Matikainen, Olli, Verenperijät: Väkivalta ja yhteisön murros itäisessä Suomessa 1500–luvulla (Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, 2002)Google Scholar.

106. See Ylikangas, , “Violence,” 106–11Google Scholar.

107. See Karonen, Petri, “A Life for a Life versus Christian Reconciliation: Violence and the Process of Civilization in the Towns of the Kingdom of Sweden during the Years 1540–1700,” in Five Centuries of Violence, 172Google Scholar.

108. Koskivirta, Anu, “Sisäinen vihollinen”: Henkirikos ja kontrolli Pohjois-Savossa ja Karjalassa Ruotsin vallan ajan viimeisinä vuosikymmeninä (Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, 2001), 56Google Scholar. See Anners, , Humanitet, 157–66Google Scholar.

109. See Anners, , Humanitet, 236–40Google Scholar, 298–323.