[1747] Boden de Usu et Abusu Torturæ Th. XII. Damhouder declares this practice to be unjustifiable, though not infrequent (Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 12).—Bonifazio de’ Vitaliani speaks of it as a common but evil custom.—De Quæstionibus, Rubr. Quæ indicia, § 7.
[1748] He represents the judge as addressing his victim “Tu sei il reo di un delitto, dunque è possibile che lo sii di cent’ altri delitti: questo dubbio mi pesa, voglio accertarmene col mio criterio di verità: le leggi ti tormentano, perche sei reo, perche puoi esser reo, perche voglio che tu sii reo.”—Dei Delitti e delle Pene, § XII.
[1749] Martini Bernhardi Diss. Inaug. de Tortura cap. I. § 4. Scialoja, in 1653, assures us that this torture after confession to prevent appeals was no longer permitted in the Neapolitan courts, and that it was only allowed for the discovery of accomplices (Praxis torquendi Reos. c. i. Nos. 8-10).
[1750] Scialojæ, op. cit. cap. i. No. 14.
[1751] Damhouder, Rer. Crimin. Prax. cap. xxxv. No. 9, cap. xxxviii. No. 14.—Werner Dissert. de Tortura Testium, pp. 76 sqq.
[1752] Damhoud. cap. xxxix. No. 6.
[1753] Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 26.
[1754] Emer. a Rosbach Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. x. Nos. 8-16.—Simancæ Cath. Inst. LXV. 17.
[1755] Bernhardi, loc. cit. The difference between the practice and principles of the law is shown by the rules laid down in 1647 by Brunnemann, coexisting with the above. He directs that the proceedings are to be exhibited to the accused or his friends, and then submitted to a college of jurists who are to decide as to the necessity of torture, and he warns the latter that they can have no graver question placed before them—“Et sane nullam graviorem puto esse deliberationem in Collegiis Juridicis quam ubi de tortura infligenda agitur.”—Brunneman. de Inquisitionis Processu cap. VIII. Memb. iv. No. 10; Memb. v. No. 1.
[1756] Passerini Regulare Tribunal; Praxis, cap. viii. No. 170.