ABSTRACT
As confession was central to the investigation and trial, the main goal of an investigation was to extract it in any way possible. However, in marital homicides perpetrators rarely denied their involvement, concentrating instead on justifying their actions. But torture was used anyway even in the situation when the accused confessed right away, mostly to understand if the murder was premeditated. In the 1627 case cited above, Oksin’itsa, the wife of a cossack stationed in Tobol’sk (Siberia), confessed immediately after she was arrested. The authorities still proceeded to use torture to confirm her confession and also to extract the names and details of any accomplices she might have had and, especially, to extract any information about the involvement of her lover, Pervushka, to establish premeditation. Pervushka was also tortured (8/LV RIB). The torture in this case was of the ‘hard and solid’ type (nakrepko) and might include burning with a hot iron, lifting on the rack and knouting (30-50 strokes) (see descriptions of torture in Kotoshikhin, 1884, pp. 129-130; see also Kollmann, 2012, pp. 141-154; Anisimov, 2006, Chapter 6). Oksin’itsa gave a detailed account of her preparations (that she decided to kill her husband right after he had threatened to kill her lover, slaughtered him the next day and disposed of his body by throwing it in the river). Therefore, her intentions were clear and premeditation was firmly established to inflict the proper sentence (which was the death penalty by burial). Pervushkawas tortured to understand if he had any knowledge of her intentions and if he assisted her. Both denied his involvement, so he was released. That was a typical use of torture in the inquisitorial procedure during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries until the repeal of torture in 1763.
