71 proof; the sufficiency of evidence was evaluated arithmetically.^^ “Observationes” does not, however, contain any sophisticated theory of circumstantial evidence, poena cxtraordmaria, or judicial torture. Considering that he must have been well aware of such theories by way of his thorough studies of German scholarship, this may appear surprising.Some parts of the continental Juristic writing are accepted, others rejected. For Rålamb, the legal rules of proof had far from completely replaced the native Swedish law of proof. Therefore, Rålamb can best be said to represent a transitory period fromone system to another. According to Rålamb, it was up to the judge to consider carefully which party was to be allowed to produce witnesses; then the judge was to convict accordingly.^*^ Clearly, the witnesses were not conducive to material truth for him- as the legal theory of truth had it -, but rather equal to oath-helpers. In Rålamb, the evidentiary question had to be decided, fromthe modern point of view paradoxically, before the evidence was actually presented.^*^ Claudius Kloot published his main work “Then Swenska Lagfarenheetens Spegel” (“The Mirror of Swedish Law”) in 1676. Like Rålamb, Kloot evaluated evidence in an arithmetical, albeit crude, manner. The accused could defend himself or herself by taking a purgatory oath, if the plaintiff presented a half-proof (“halfwa Skääl, Tekn och Lijknelse sumptioner”) or when the accusation was based on a well-founded suspicion; the suspicion, in turn, had to be confirmed by persons of good reputation. In comparison to Rålamb, Kloot had moved farther away fromthe old oath procedure, closer to the ius commune legal theory of proof. Kloot accepted the basic axiom of the legal theory: confession or two reliable eyewitnesses made up full proof. To be valid, a confession had to be voluntary and given without torture in front of the court. Furthermore, it needed to be plausible, certain and clear {“verisimilis, certa, clara”).^^ For Kloot, extrajudicial confession was also valid if given in the presence of two or three reliable witnesses of sound mind and if confirmed by oath in court. Extrajudicial confession was not, however, worth full proof in serious crimes punishable by death; for them, “prohationes luce meridiana clariorcs” were needed.**- Here, the basic ius commune division between serious and other crimes is met with again. Ibid. pp. 79-83. ’’’’ On judicial evidence and poena extraordinaria, see Carpzov 1684 pp. 127-152, 176-208, and 271-278. On torture and Indizienlehre, Brunnemann 1672 pp. 149-181. Rålamb 1679 p. 97. The medieval Swedish systemdid not thus essentially differ from what in German literature has been called Bcu’cisurteil. See Letto-Vanamo 1995 pp. 53-56. Kloot 1676 pp. 345, 353. Ibid. pp. 364-365. Ibid. pp. 358-359. man elliest kallar prae- som 80
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=