A defence in the Inquisition is of little use to the prisoner, for a suspicion only is deemed sufficient cause of condemnation, and the greater his wealth the greater his danger.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A prisoner in the Inquisition is never allowed to see the face of his accuser, or of the witnesses against him, but every method is taken by threats and tortures, to oblige him to accuse himself, and by that means corroborate their evidence.
To be fair to the Inquisition, they only used confessions extracted after the torture had ended, which let them claim that admissions had been freely given; the fact that the torture would have started again if they hadn't confessed was a minor detail.
For there is no defense for a man who, in the excess of his wealth, has kicked the great altar of Justice out of sight.
In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.
It is better by noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half the evils we anticipate than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what might happen.
Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles with all its might against the attempts of crime.
The secrets of slavery are concealed like those of the Inquisition.
Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is folly for an eminent man to think of escaping censure, and a weakness to be affected with it. All the illustrious persons of antiquity, and indeed of every age in the world, have passed through this fiery persecution.
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots - suspicion.