Not that the Inquisition was all bad, despite what you may have heard. Here's a pretty interesting article on the Spanish Inquisition by Thomas Madden. It's actually worth a look.
Here's an insight: when medieval people were suspected (probably by their neighbors) of malicious heresy or other deviltry, the options were the following (1) trial by your medieval lord, who might have a vested interest in a guilty verdict, since he could penalize you by taking your home and property; (2) mob action, in which you might die rather quickly and badly; or (3) the Inquisition (the word means, simply, "Investigation," neither more nor less) in which the Church had actual, well, investigations.
Bottom line: it was a search for evidence, with witnesses, advocates, cross-examinations, etc.: without a doubt the fairest as well as the most lenient courts in Europe. (Gotta see this in context.) The Inquisition practically invented procedural due process.
Madden: "By the 14th century, the Inquisition represented the best legal practices available. Inquisition officials were university-trained specialists in law and theology. The procedures were similar to those used in secular inquisitions (we call them “inquests” today, but it’s the same word).
"The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule."
OK, flame on. I mean, let the discussion continue.
It's true.
The counter-argument is the Monty Python sketch.
Which proves that Alinsky was right.