[2.3.3] Misdesigned rape trial event

[NewbieOne]

The reason I'm not posting this in the Bug Forum, which I would have done in 2012-2013, is because I don't want to have any run-ins with people would defend this as WAD etc.

Here are the screenshots to see the event on your own eyes and make your own mind before seeing my conclusions:




1. There is nothing Arbitrary in finding proof of someone's innocence, come on! Or in consequently acquitting the accused
2. There is nothing Just is sentencing someone for rape when proof of the accused's innocence exists. That precisely is what's Arbitrary.
3. It's not Kind to rule that an alleged rape victim 'must obviously be lying' or something else like that.

Less importantly:

4. If nobody knows what happens and there is no proof that can be found — as suggested by the RNG (low 25% chances on individual traits) — the proper cause of action from Roman law, through mediaeval law to modern law is to acquit for lack of proof. (Admissibility of torture aside.) It could be Kind/Just for the ruler to offer compensation to the woman and her father on the basis of limited proof, but at the same time refuse to punish the accused whose guilt is not proved and can't be proved.
5. In the middle ages this could have led to a judicial duel (yes, despite the difference in social class).

Please be more thoughtful about the logic of events and dialogues in the future. This shouldn't have made it past very initial idea sketch phase. Especially QA/QC should have rejected it.

 

[Woifee]

Actually the word of a man was worthier than the word of a women. To believe him ist in medieval society just, not to believe her.

 

[Woifee]

Worthier seems wrong

Probably more worth.

 

[NewbieOne]

Actually the word of a man was worthier than the word of a women. To believe him ist in medieval society just, not to believe her.

As a witness, yes, but I don't really think a reasonable mediaeval judge would have used that rule to basically gimp all cases in which a woman was plaintiff. There were exceptions from some restrictions for women who pled their own cases.

 

[Rags17]

In Anglo-Saxon law the weight of evidence was based upon each persons testimony and wergild, which was based on their deemed annual income. Thus the testimony of a peasant father and daughter and 3-4 neighbours against the testimony of a single baron meant that it would have been thrown out of court. Different systems would have applied different weights or even different methods but I still think that any chance of conviction against the landed noble would have been highly unlikely to say the least. And no, trial by combat would have been out of the question since by definition peasants didn't have honor so could not take up the option.

Fundamentally the issue is that the daughter has had her virginity taken, which means that she has pretty much lost all of her value. Fair restituion would have involved giving the father compensation for the lost value, either by fining the baron or by the lord paying it himself. I agree that rape would (should) never involve imprisonment, but if the lord was looking for a reason to act then an argument could be made that it was necessary to protect the realm . . .

My suggestion would be to change the options to a) Imprison the baron and compensate the father 10 gold for his loss from the baron's wealth (big malus with baron AND with all other vassals), b) Find the claim unprovable and pay the father for his loss form the lord's wealth (everyone happy but lord down 10g) or c) Find the claim without merit and have the father and daughter whipped for slander and being a harlot (bonus with baron and with other vassals but increase local revolt risk). Chances for Arbitrary with the first option, Just or Kind with the second and Cruel with the last.

Easily fixed in a mod fwiw.

 

[NewbieOne]

In Anglo-Saxon law the weight of evidence was based upon each persons testimony and wergild, which was based on their deemed annual income. Thus the testimony of a peasant father and daughter and 3-4 neighbours against the testimony of a single baron meant that it would have been thrown out of court. Different systems would have applied different weights or even different methods but I still think that any chance of conviction against the landed noble would have been highly unlikely to say the least.

Yes, so far correct. However, rulers judges weren't necessarily restricted from investigating things on their own, so they weren't forced to limit themselves to just having the parties' testimonies, so it's not fully impossible for a minor knight to have got in trouble. Uncorroborated testimony against someone of much higher rank — that wouldn't have flown.

And no, trial by combat would have been out of the question since by definition peasants didn't have honor so could not take up the option.

Judicial duels, however, weren't about honour, at least not early on. They more like a test in place of proof, asking God to intervene and support the innocent party. Honour-related duels between nobles (who became exempt from the need for judicial authorization, since they were probably considered to be such judges/magistrates themselves in virtue of their status as local rulers and family members of such rulers) were an exception. There were even duels with women, in which case the man received handicaps to balance the chances (e.g. fighting with just one hand). I know of an instance in which a squire was knighted just so as to avoid the scandal of judicially duelling a full knight in the 15th century, but the 15th century was the end of the Middle Ages, things were different at that point.

Fundamentally the issue is that the daughter has had her virginity taken, which means that she has pretty much lost all of her value.

Nah, that's more like armchair theory. For peasant women virginity didn't necessarily matter that much, and for nobles the loss of hymen could have come from horse riding.

Fair restituion would have involved giving the father compensation for the lost value, either by fining the baron or by the lord paying it himself.

Typically, yes, considering the low value placed on that, and the inequality of the parties. But not always, not at all times.

I agree that rape would (should) never involve imprisonment,

Depending on the time and place, it could even involve castration, without necessarily exempting the ruler's own closest collaborators who harmed common women.

My suggestion would be to change the options to a) Imprison the baron and compensate the father 10 gold for his loss from the baron's wealth (big malus with baron AND with all other vassals), b) Find the claim unprovable and pay the father for his loss form the lord's wealth (everyone happy but lord down 10g) or c) Find the claim without merit and have the father and daughter whipped for slander and being a harlot (bonus with baron and with other vassals but increase local revolt risk). Chances for Arbitrary with the first option, Just or Kind with the second and Cruel with the last.

Sounds pretty okay, though I think one could use an option to throw the claim out but pay damages from your own coffers. Just like in those rulership focus events about camp fires and destroyed fields etc. where you can dodge the displeasure of your vassals by paying out of your own pocket. So here you would for example pay the damages (e.g. 10 gp) plus perhaps a dowry (e.g. further 10 gp and chance of Charitable) to prevent her from staying unmarried as a result of the situation. But these are just details.

The most important point is that it's not Arbitrary to acquit someone when you have proof of his innocence, and it's not Just to punish someone who is accused of something awful but it hasn't been proved.

Easily fixed in a mod fwiw.

Yes, of course, but (just pointing things out, not getting confrontational about it) CK2 is a game, not a modding platform. Ease of modding doesn't remove the need of fixing stuff.

 

[Rags17]

Yes, so far correct. However, rulers judges weren't necessarily restricted from investigating things on their own, so they weren't forced to limit themselves to just having the parties' testimonies, so it's not fully impossible for a minor knight to have got in trouble. Uncorroborated testimony against someone of much higher rank — that wouldn't have flown.

First off, we're talking about ALL of Europe over a 700 year time span, so making generalisations about how the law worked is pretty hard. That being said in all cultures across all times making a charge stick against a landed noble was a pretty hard uphill climb. I have a book on Medieval legal cases (Street Life in Medieval England - great book) and even though some cases went against the nobles these were either dead obvious (thinking Gilles de Rais here), politically motivated or low level nobles, eg knights or squires. In short, nobles start with a massive advantage so it would take a big weight of evidence to overcome that.

Judicial

duels, however, weren't about honour, at least not early on. They more like a test in place of proof, asking God to intervene and support the innocent party. Honour-related duels between nobles (who became exempt from the need for judicial authorization, since they were probably considered to be such judges/magistrates themselves in virtue of their status as local rulers and family members of such rulers) were an exception. There were even duels with women, in which case the man received handicaps to balance the chances (e.g. fighting with just one hand). I know of an instance in which a squire was knighted just so as to avoid the scandal of judicially dueling a full knight in the 15th century, but the 15th century was the end of the Middle Ages, things were different at that point.

No, judicial duels were about determining the truth via God's will. To do that the parties need to be near "equal" in legal terms, the only deciding factor being presumably who God favoured. (Of course things like dueling skills, strength etc weren't considered so there were one or two flaws in this theory !). A peasant couldn't be expected to duel a lord NOT because he had lower or nil fighting skills (which is true), but because he did not have the same social status or divine favour as a lord.

Besides, if the peasant killed the lord it would have been dishonourable whereas the lord killing the peasant would not have resolved the core question of guilt

Nah, that's more like armchair theory. For peasant women virginity didn't necessarily matter that much, and for nobles the loss of hymen could have come from horse riding.

Wow,wow, and wow. You really don't get it do you ? For a fair approximation of medieval jurisprudence try taking a look at modern Sharia law. Both systems were/are a religion based form of Civil law systems, not Common law. Case law, presumption of innocence and even the charge being leveled don't enter into it. This is not to say this is a bad thing, just that the entire approach to the law is wildly different.

In Sharia Law as well as medieval ecclesiastic law the "answer" are all in the Good Book (bible/Koran), supplemented perhaps by various other teachings, determinations and gospels. The job of the judge is to determine the facts of the case, apply the relevant canon law and pass judgment - in theory no interpretation necessary. That's why there is no prior presumption of innocence or even idea what the charge is.

Which brings me back to your point. A loss of virginity can mean one of two things - adultery or rape. The first presumption is adultery, unless witnesses can be found that will vouch for the rape. But seeing as most witnesses have a strong interest in shutting up rape is very hard to prove under Sharia or medieval canon law, which is why we are treated to the spectacle of rape victims in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan being flogged for adultery.

Depending on the time and place, it could even involve castration, without necessarily exempting the ruler's own closest collaborators who harmed common women.

Nah, never going to happen EVER, unless there was a political angle involved. Even if a vassal was found guilty through overwhelming evidence, if the lord sentenced him to castration then every other vassal in the realm would go nuts. Castration for a simple rape of a peasant girl - who the hell does this guy think he is ?

Yes, of course, but (just pointing things out, not getting confrontational about it) CK2 is a game, not a modding platform. Ease of modding doesn't remove the need of fixing stuff.

Agreed, but after you lodge your complaint/bug report that's all you can do really.

 

[NewbieOne]

First off, we're talking about ALL of Europe over a 700 year time span, so making generalisations about how the law worked is pretty hard. That being said in all cultures across all times making a charge stick against a landed noble was a pretty hard uphill climb. I have a book on Medieval legal cases (Street Life in Medieval England - great book) and even though some cases went against the nobles these were either dead obvious (thinking Gilles de Rais here), politically motivated or low level nobles, eg knights or squires. In short, nobles start with a massive advantage so it would take a big weight of evidence to overcome that.

Not sure how that undermines anything I've said.

No, judicial duels were about determining the truth via God's will.

That's not a no, that's just the same what I said.

To do that the parties need to be near "equal" in legal terms, the only deciding factor being presumably who God favoured.

Social equality was not a factor in who God presumably favoured, but only who was right.

(Of course things like dueling skills, strength etc weren't considered so there were one or two flaws in this theory !)

They may or may not have been. Initially not, but eventually duels between members of the nobility began to exclude professional fencers from being able to pick swords vs amateurs.

A peasant couldn't be expected to duel a lord NOT because he had lower or nil fighting skills (which is true), but because he did not have the same social status or divine favour as a lord.

Status was an issue but divine favour nope. A direct duel was allowed in some places, in others maybe a champion was necessary (as with a woman or cleric), but it's not like Europe universally banned judicial duels (not typical honour-driven duels) between non-equals.

Besides, if the peasant killed the lord it would have been dishonourable whereas the lord killing the peasant would not have resolved the core question of guilt

In a judicial duel, the lord killing the peasant would have resolved the issue of guilt, and it would only maybe have been dishonourable to have died at a peasant's hand while having it 'proved' to you that you treated him unfairly and lied in defending yourself from his complaints to your king. But not necessarily much outrage beyond that.

Wow,wow, and wow. You really don't get it do you ?

Easy, man, did I just insult your family or steal your lunch money?

For a fair approximation of medieval jurisprudence try taking a look at modern Sharia law.

You've got no idea what you're talking about.

Both systems were/are a religion based form of Civil law systems, not Common law. Case law, presumption of innocence and even the charge being leveled don't enter into it.

That honestly makes it look like you don't have an idea.

In Sharia Law as well as medieval ecclesiastic law

This is mediaeval secular law, not mediaeval ecclesiastic law. How did you tie mediaeval ecclesiastic law into this?

Mediaeval ecclesiastic law didn't do duels, it operated on proof regimens and very much used the presumption of innocence. Modern presumption of innocence actually came from old traditions passed through canon (ecclesiastic) law and Roman law.

the "answer" are all in the Good Book (bible/Koran), supplemented perhaps by various other teachings, determinations and gospels. The job of the judge is to determine the facts of the case, apply the relevant canon law and pass judgment - in theory no interpretation necessary. That's why there is no prior presumption of innocence or even idea what the charge is.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1/

Happy reading.

Which brings me back to your point. A loss of virginity can mean one of two things - adultery or rape.

Adultery is between married persons. And loss of hymen doesn't mean loss of virginity yet.

But seeing as most witnesses have a strong interest in shutting up rape is very hard to prove under Sharia or medieval canon law, which is why we are treated to the spectacle of rape victims in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan being flogged for adultery.

The primary problem in those systems in some of their forms is that they didn't fully recognize the meaning of lack of proof. They most of all presumed that someone had to punished — either the accused for the rape or the accuser for slander. Nothing in between. In modern law, it's possible to acquit both the accused of the rape and the accuser (complaining self-alleged victim) of slander, false accusation etc. This is the weak point of mediaeval law, where you had to choose who was lying or failure to prove implied lying.

Nah, never going to happen EVER, unless there was a political angle involved. Even if a vassal was found guilty through overwhelming evidence, if the lord sentenced him to castration then every other vassal in the realm would go nuts.

That's just your opinion. It has merit up to a point.

Agreed, but after you lodge your complaint/bug report that's all you can do really.

Can't see where you're driving at. Post this thread is all I did. What have I done that's too much?

 

[Onisuzume]

Castration for a simple rape of a peasant girl - who the hell does this guy think he is ?

Except that in the case stated in the OP, it isn't a peasant girl, but the daughter of some minor noble at the least.

Anyhow, I'm missing the option to follow the India-route of lynching/killing rapists.