February 1, 2010
In the Dark Ages, guilt or
innocence was sometimes determined by ordeal, a painful
ritual in which the accused was asked to submerge his arm in
boiling water, carry pieces of hot iron, or dunked in a frigid lake
or stream. If the accused was innocent, the thinking went, God
would protect him from harm. But as Reason Senior Editor
Radley Balko writes, a new paper from economist Pete Leeson argues
that ordeals were actually surprisingly accurate at separating the
guilty from the innocent, and it was the citizenry's very
superstitions that made the process so successful.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245