69 of legal security. Many of his concerns seemto concentrate on the questions of proof - more specifically, on the necessity of avoiding false convictions.As did the Carolina, Olaus Petri seems keen on limiting the use of torture to severe crimes: “The judge shall torture no-one, unless he has reasons and obvious evidence on his side.”^’ Thus, he was not completely against torture.^- He discarded the prevailing system based on oaths in favor of legal proof. Although his teachings hardly amount to a full-fledged legal theory of proof, Olaus can be characterized as the first in Sweden to grasp the possibilities that the early modern state had to achieve material truth by means of the statutory theory of proof.^-^ Olaus makes references to the central rules of Roman-canon theory of proof in his Instructions to Judges, still printed on the inside cover of Swedish and Finnish statute books: the need to base a conviction on the statements of more than one witness (instruction 16/8) or a confession (instruction 16/17). Presented together by Olaus, the requirements indicate the clear influence of the ius communeAlthough allusions to Roman-canon theory of proof are far fromnumerous in Olaus’s writings, they are clear enough to demonstrate his awareness of the continental jurisprudence. The scarcity of legal literature is, thus, a typical feature of the Swedish law of proof in the seventeenth century; in this respect, the Swedish lawof proof differs significantly from the continental one. Yet in comparison to the following century, the 1600s was a period of relative abundance in legal literature.This wealth of legal treatises did not, however, reflect much on the questions of procedure. Nevertheless, at least three writers, Johan Stiernhöök,^^ Clas Rålamb,^^ and Claudius Kloot,^^ are worth a closer look. Schmidt 1966 p. 135; Ylikangas 1986 p. 42. Instruction 31; “Domaren bör ingen plågha, medh mindre han haffuer skääl och vppenbara bewijs för sigh.” Cited at Schmidt 1966 p. 358. Inger 1976 (a) p. 191. Ylikangas 1988 p. 56. The Instructions date approximately to the end of the 1530s; see ibid. p. 20. Although formallv not valid as law in Finland or Sweden, the Instructions continue to exert a considerable cultural and moral influence on legal professionals. In general, see Almquist 1951 and Schmidt 1966. See Almquist 1946 pp. 11-12; Björne 1993. Johan Olofsson or Stiernhöök (1596-1675) studied in Uppsala, Leipzig, Jena, Wittenberg and Rostock in 1619-1624. He was professor at Academy of Turku in 1640-1647, but the major part of his career was devoted to judicial administration. He worked for lengthy periods as a lawreader in Northern Finland (1636-1640) and Aland (1641-1646), in the High Court of Turku (1630-1647), thereafter as judge at Svartlösa (1642-1651) and in Örbyhus (1646). He was also active in various legislative commissions. Stiernhöök is often considered both Sw'edcn’s first legal historian and also the most influential jurist of seventeenth-century Sweden. Almquist 1946 p. 22. Ralamb (1622-1698) studied in Uppsala and abroad in 1642-1644. He was occupied by high government posts, such as the presidency of the Göta High Court. Ibid. p. 26. Claudius Kloot (ca. 1612-1690). Kloot pursued law studies in Uppsala and the Netherlands, and worked thereafter in different posts of justice administration. Ibid. p. 24.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=