courts of appeal in norway The role of the lawman was now to facilitate rational and objective argumentation in the appeal courts and so in the legal system as a whole.54 This can be illustrated by a series of rulings concerning alleged witchcraft. Especially in the most northern part of Norway, Finmark, such witchcraft-trials were, for reasons still unclear, exceptionally numerous at this time.55 Immoral behavior was frequently stigmatized as the work of the devil, and it was seen as a duty of the state authorities to maintain the social peace by punishing all morally reprehensible behavior. Torture, even though it was forbidden as an instrument to force a confession,56 was legally used to convict abettors of a witch who already had been found guilty.57 As a consequence several innocent women were accused and convicted on no grounds other than such forced testimony. When the lawman of Steigen in Hålogaland was presented with such a case in the year 1653 he addressed the local community gathered together in the court house with the question of whether or not anybody knew from his or her own experience and was willing to testify under oath that the convicted woman had used magic or in other ways displayed unacceptable behavior.58 The community consistently answered that this was not the case. This, however, was not yet enough to acquit the poor woman. The appeal court judge quoted in addition art. 18 of a royal recess from 54 The same conclusion was reached by Næss, Hans Eyvind 2014 27 p. 360 who emphasizes especially the “legalistic” approach for many lawmen as the main reason why lawmen were hesitating to contribute to haunt of witches. 55 On witchcraft trial in Norway, see Blix Hagen, Rune, Dei europeiske trolldomsprosessane [The european witchcraft trials], Oslo 2007, p. 87 ff.; Willumsen, Liv Helene, 2010, p. 5 ff.; Nissen, Gunnar 1966 p. 42 ff.; Sunde, Jørn Øyrehagen 2010b p. 183 ff. In particular, on the trials in Finmark, Falkanger, Aage Thor 2007 p. 128 ff. and 148 ff. From a more international perspective: Michalsen, Dag 2012 p. 244 ff. 56 See Kolding Recess from 13. Dec. 1558 § 19. This provision was yet not respected in all parts of the realm as is revealed in the proceedings in a case brought up to the Herredag (cf. e.g. Herredagsdomsbøker 1597 p. 123). 57 See e.g. the trial of Jngeborgh, Oluff Morgensen’s wife formHaffingbergh (9 April 1634), English translation in Willumsen, Liv Helene 2010 p. 84: “When the said Jngeborgh had heard her sentence, she was interrogated under torture […] and she said that Erich Quern’s wife in Matkurff was in the likeness of a goose and cast a spell on […]. On the 21st of April this woman, Marrite Thamisdatter, was sentenced to death and afterwards tortured and denounced again other women”. 58 In more detail Falkanger, Aage Thor 2007 p. 128. 294
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=