You're joking right? You must be joking.
Let me ask you one question that will tell me much of what I need to know going forward.
Did the Inquisition go after Jews for being Jews? Answer me that question.
In the Spanish Inquisition, it was responsible for religious offences or heresy, blasphemy, bigamy, and other specific crimes against the faith, committed by Catholics of birth or converted from other religions. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The penalties imposed by the Inquisition were applied by the civil authority, while the ordinary civil courts dealt with civil and criminal offenses.
When a person was denounced by two witnesses began an investigation without them knowing it, including its past, its reputation, its predecessors, their businesses, and partners. If evidence were “clear, certain and specific” (were required the concurrence of the three) that could be certain the charges, then began the process. Then it was cited to the Court or else be arrested him if there was danger that could run away.
It could only remain prisoner if (1) five witnesses, with satisfactory evidence, testified against him. (2) If had decided by common agreement the Bishop, the inquisitors and the Prosecutor, after investigations, which had wrapped heresy in the case; (3) by Decree of the Bishop, under certain conditions. In all cases the approval of the Supreme Council was needed until he could a defendant being arrested. Finally, two doctors had to examine the mental state of the accused.
The prisoner had to receive a view of your case within three days of his arrest. They were then submitted to a judge swearing to tell the truth. Are you reported the charges raised against him, evidence and is urged him to confess and be reconciled with the Church. If the accused refused, then received another view in ten days. Still given another chance if it remained stubborn. After that last chance began the interrogation.
Torquemada’s instructions were that the inquisitors had to be “cautious, and charitable”, looking for nothing more than the truth. During the interrogation should be present as defenders of the reo two Clergy, not members of the Court. After four days read them his statements and the defendant could make any clarification and are granted many new views he requested.
When he finished the interrogation, the Prosecutor presented their evidence to inquisitors, asking his judgment in accordance with the law. Then read you to the accused, from beginning to end, the accusation, with a pause at each article so that the accused could replicate, while a notary took note of their bowel movements.
If he was poor, was assigned to the defendant, a lawyer paid by the Holy Office. If he chose not one determined, then the court appointed one well prepared and great reputation who would defend him with great zeal, loyalty, impartiality and good faith.
The defense counsel had access all minutes them of the trial, could rebut charges of the Prosecutor wings, dismiss witnesses, request new information or new views, and had full access to the accused, which in turn could also see copies of the process, although the names of the witnesses were omitted. The defendant could, however, appoint all his enemies and all those who might have a motive to harm him, things that the Inquisitor took into account.
Unfortunately, torture was normal in those times and, despite all the falsehoods against Torquemada, he tried to limit it and mitigate its, clarifying that it should not be used as a means of punishment but to obtain absolute proof of something that had already been tested more than reasonable doubt. The accused had to have been contradicted in serious matters being evident bad faith, and evidence of prevailing witnesses.
If you came to the conclusion that you should resort to torture, a doctor would examine it to determine if their physical condition could bear it. A doctor had to be present and had to suspend torture if the doctor so ordered.
Catholics who were tied to the legs of four horses during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I of England, were not offered no legal protection. Times of great barbarity were when attached to a monarch English the privilege of the divorce by the beheading of his wife.
The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.