144 For Calonius, evaluation of evidence is, thus, a matter of degree: he states that the evidence does not amount to a sufficient “grade of certainty.” Evidence could not be placed on a “geometrical yardstick,” but had to be discerned by an “enlightened person according to their moral estimation.”^ Furthermore, “legal proof” was defined as “a legal act by which a party seeks to convince the judge of the truth and certainty of what the party has claimed, or which “leaves no plausible reason to believe that the matter be otherwise. When this certainty was reached, the result was placed in the categorv of full proof, as “law itself determines the degrees of significance of a piece of evidence.Thus, evidence could produce a more or less strong conviction in the judge; the outcome of the evaluative process had, then, to be placed in one of the categories established by law. As long as a basically categorical world view was held, there was no contradiction between a truth pre-established by law and a personal or moral conviction. The two could and had to coincide. Although, in Calonius, the necessity of the judge’s personal conviction is implied, this tendency did not go all the way. This is left clear by his doctrine of witness testimony, which is virtually a repetition of Nehrman’s teachings: two concurring, “classic,” witnesses produce full proof.This effect did not seemto depend on the judge’s personal conviction. Calonius’s teaching on division of criminal procedure into inquisitio generalis and specialise and on circumstantial evidence, did not essentially differ fromNehrman’s. As for petty crimes, a sentence in the formoipoena ordinaria could be given even without full proof if the facts are clear; in more severe cases, poena extraordinaria (forced labor for life or a limited period) could be used if the facts of the case were evident. Poena ordinaria in severe cases always required a confession.*2 In Calonius’s Supreme Court statements, two sodomy cases are found in which poena extraordinaria was emploved for the lack of full proof. For Calonius, there were “inner” and “outer” ways of forcing a confession. The inner methods (typically oath) carry a religious tinge to them, and they were meant to work on the accused’s mind. These methocfs were used in cases of petty and non-capital crimes. The outer methods were imposed on the suspect’s body; of these, some directly caused pain to the body (torture proper), others were more tolerable but could last longer (such as confessional ^ Calonius (Civil Procedure) pp. 75-76. 7 Ibid. p. 73. * Calonius 1813 p. 51. ’ Calonius (Civil Procedure) pp. 75-76. Ibid. pp. 84. '■ Calonius 1813 pp. 24-36. >- Calonius 1829-1836 IV pp. 276, 306-307. Calonius 1829-1836 IV pp. 250-252/August 14, 1797, and pp. 430-432/April 24, 1798. In both cases, the extraordinary punishment consists of flogging (20 pairs of lashes) and a banishment from the region; furthermore, the animal was to be ousted fromthe community. ”7 ”8
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=