Punishment in Late Medieval Kampen

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of punishment in late medieval Kampen in order to provide a context for the use of banishment. It discusses various punishments utilised in Kampen, such as symbolic, shameful, corporal and capital punishments, fines and imprisonment, as well as some of the town’s officials involved in punishment.

The number of by-laws recorded in the Kampen sources suggest that banishment played a significant role in the town’s legal practice. This is confirmed by many of the other extant sources. But before we quantify and qualify banishment as a punitive and coercive measure, it would be useful to consider it in the context of punishment in late medieval Kampen as a whole.

It is difficult to get a complete overview of punishment, as relevant information is spread out across a number of sources, and these sources differ in character and purpose, as well as covering different periods. It is especially difficult to get an overview of the fines and what they were imposed for.¹ As such, there is little point in trying to quantify precisely how often specific punishments were imposed in Kampen in this period. It is possible, however, to sketch more broadly the different types of punishment and indicate their approximate use (in as far as they appear in the extant sources) in comparison to that of banishment.

It is clear that the most common punishment that was imposed by the Kampen courts was a fine. This was the same in most places in Europe at this time.² Fines were paid to make amends for wrongs done to victims, a chance for the culprit to redeem themselves and become a full member of the community again. This corresponds to the original meaning of the Germanic words for fine (Buße, boete): an amendment, also used in religious contexts as an atonement or penance.³ In fourteenth-century Zürich, for example, there were two different kinds of amends: one to the city (Stadtbuße) and one to the victim (Klagerbuße).⁴ In Kampen, fines could range from 2 lb. for small offences, such as insult, to 200 lb. for woundings that had taken place at night.⁵ Violent offences especially, if they did not result in death, were punished by imposing fines. These fines are detailed in the Kampen by-laws and appear to have been strictly enforced by the lower court, as will become clear below. The same offence would receive the same fine every time, irrespective of the social status of the offender or the victim.⁶ As mentioned in Chap. 2, the fine would be doubled when there were certain aggravating circumstances. Charging equal fines for equal crimes on first inspection gives the impression of a fair system. But as Zaremska justly points out, it is only fair to those who could actually afford to pay the fine.⁷ Culprits who could not afford it received additional punishments, such as banishments. Fines were mostly imposed by the lower court of burgomasters and only very occasionally by the higher court, judging by the sources regarding its business. There is no evidence that the victims were compensated for any kind of crime, such as was the case in Zürich in the fourteenth century. By that time, the development from a system of amends made to victims to one of fines paid to the administration had apparently come to a conclusion. The town was amended for a breaking of the peace and the culprit was punished.⁸

Other punishments appear more regularly in the records of the higher court. This court had a great variety of measures at its disposal and appears to have been more flexible than the lower court in imposing these. In its verdicts, the court seems to have taken into account personal circumstances, though it is often unclear what these were. This will be discussed further below. In addition to having a range of punishments at its disposal, the court also made use of its discretion in merely giving a warning to an offender which often included the threat of a future punishment. In fact, warnings make up about half of the measures imposed in the Liber Causarum between 1474 and 1500. They account for a slightly lower share in the Digestum Vetus in the third quarter of the fifteenth century. This lower share can be attributed to the fact that the Digestum Vetus also records cases which resulted in capital or corporal punishments, whereas the Liber Causarum does not. The warnings given to offenders could include the threat of a wide range of punishments, such as banishment, imprisonment, shameful punishment or a loss of rights. Often it also included vaguer descriptions, most commonly that offenders would be made an example of (‘dat sich dair een ander exempel aen nemen sall’).⁹

The next most common punishment in the Liber Causarum and Digestum Vetus (not counting capital punishment) was banishment, which was imposed in about one in six cases in these registers.¹⁰ Another punishment which was handed out regularly was the loss of rights. This could range from a ban on exercising a certain profession or particular tasks, to being declared dishonourable (and as such unable to act as witness) or ‘onmondig’ (incapable of self-government), to losing one’s burgher rights. For example, Dyrck Selle, a barber, in 1484 was forbidden to conduct any more bloodletting, since people had died or had become ‘lame’, confirming to the court that he was not competent in bloodletting (‘wair wt blijket dat hie vant laten ghien verstant en hefft’). He was also banned from barbering and shaving on Sundays.¹¹ In 1495 Ghyse Koperslager lost his burgher rights as a result of ignoring written orders to appear in court. The court stated that he would not be able to regain these rights, but just over a year later a settlement had apparently been reached and Ghyse was given back his burgher rights after all.¹²

Though monetary fines were only occasionally imposed in the higher court, a more regular type of punishment meted out was a fine payable in stones. These stones could be utilised for the building and maintaining of public works such as the town wall. A fine in stones also appears to have had a more symbolic function, in that an offender could be considered to contribute to the common good more directly than when simply paying in coin. In addition, fines in stones were sometimes imposed on offenders who had requested to be granted mercy instead of a punishment. For example, in 1486 Geertken Schele was convicted of dishonourable behaviour. She was granted mercy, although the court stated that she actually deserved a harsher correction (‘scarper correctie’). She had to contribute 80,000 stones to the common good, a relatively large amount.¹³

Other punishments also had a decidedly symbolic purpose in that offenders had to publicly show their humility and right the wrong which they had committed, either by asking a pardon, by taking back words or by taking part in a church procession. The latter meant that the offender had to appear bareheaded and barefooted, usually carrying a wax candle of a certain weight. Such processions of humble offenders were not particular to Kampen—they have been recorded in many places, such as Aberdeen.¹⁴ This common legal culture can no doubt be linked to the influence of the Church and its practices of repentance. In Kampen, in 1485, Rolof Zwarte and his wife were convicted of ‘kwade herberg’ (‘bad inn’—facilitating prostitution). They received a fine of 15,000 stones. If they were unable to afford this, their alternative punishment was to walk in front of the church procession with bare feet and a bare head carrying a burning candle weighing half a pound on six Sundays: on three occasions they had to walk around St Nicholas church yard and on three other occasions around St Mary’s churchyard.¹⁵ This way, their public penance would be witnessed by the members of the two main parishes of the town.

Insults usually incurred a fine, but at times they had to be renounced by the offenders. In 1493 Henrick Gosensz had to stand on the ‘callebanck’ (‘callen’ meaning to talk or to tell, but also to babble or talk nonsense) and ‘swallow’ the words he had spoken against Reyner Warnbolsz.¹⁶ At other times, especially when an official had been insulted, offenders were made to ask forgiveness, such as in the case of Dirck Kerchoff who had displayed a ‘drysten onhoeftschen mont’ (‘bold and discourteous mouth’) when speaking about a burgomaster. He was made to ask the whole council for forgiveness while bareheaded.¹⁷ A more extensive procedure was recorded when Dyrck van Allenkerken had insulted the wife of Johan Wenemersz in 1486. This was considered to have been such an attack on her reputation that witnesses (‘gueder manne ende vrouwen’) had been called in and that Dyrck was sentenced to doing a public penance. Firstly, he had to repeat a lengthy statement, before he had to take part in three church processions. In addition, Dyrck would be declared dishonourable. In the end, the sentence was not read out to Dyrck, because he fled before he could receive it. Apparently, he sought sanctuary in the Broederkerk, one of the churches in Kampen, which is unusual considering he was unlikely to receive a corporal punishment.¹⁸

The interesting thing about this case is that the statement was recorded in the register. It presents us with a clear message about the importance of reputation in late medieval society:

All the dishonourable words which I have told or spoken secretly or publicly in any way concerning Johan Wenemersz’ housewife, I have altogether made up and they are false and untrue [more words about the false nature of what he had said] and I ‘cloppe’ these words altogether in my mouth once, twice, three times, and confess that I have acted like a crook, as I only know her to be a good woman. And furthermore, I pray to the honourable council of Kampen, the aforesaid woman, and all her friends, men, and women, that they will forgive me, and that they will hold and consider those words to have been false and untrue.¹⁹

Renouncing words, asking for forgiveness and other such measures had a number of functions: first of all, the offended party was offered, in public, a symbolic compensation for a slight, but also an opportunity to showcase their generosity and mercy. The offender had to show humility publicly, and to admit their wrongdoing, but they were also offered a way to be reconciled with the person offended and the town community more generally.²⁰ Taken together, such symbolic punishments were also reasonably common.

Of a slightly different character were shameful punishments, which were equally public but entailed a more unpleasant psychological and, at times, physical experience for the offender. The ‘kaak’, a type of pillory, features regularly in legal language, but its use was less common in practice than the references in by-laws and warnings suggest. Only one person was punished by being made to spend time on the ‘kaak’ directly according to the verdicts in the Liber Causarum and the Digestum Vetus.²¹ This is contrary to the scene depicted in the Digestum Vetus, where the platform at the top of the pillory appears rather crowded (see Fig. 3.1), with three (nearly) nude offenders on display. An official appears to be on his way down from the ladder. This illustration accompanies a by-law about adultery, and seems to be rather a representation of public power than a depiction of an actual situation. The ‘kaak’ features in the oerveden register more regularly, as does carrying the stone, a punishment mainly for women (see Fig. 3.2).²² In the meantime, when not used, pillories stood on medieval market squares throughout Europe as symbols of political power. On the rare occasion that shameful punishments were imposed, the impact on the culprit could vary depending on social status. Those with more of a reputation to uphold were likely to be damaged more than a person with a low status from outside of town. As a result, magistrates probably also had less scruples using shameful punishments on the latter group.²³ The impact of shameful punishments could be increased by the staging of different aspects of it. The culprits could be forced to walk through town wearing ridiculous clothing, or be presented naked or in their underwear. They could be made to carry silly or symbolic attributes and be accompanied by sounds that attracted attention (bells, drums, pipes, etc.).²⁴ The shame of being displayed on a high pillar in the square by the town hall without one’s clothes as markers of social status is apparent in the image of the ‘kaak’ in the Digestum Vetus.²⁵ There are no details of the practice of carrying the stone in Kampen and the illustration is not particularly informative in that regard, despite the fact that it accompanies an entry in which a woman is sentenced to carrying the stone for perjury.²⁶ In medieval Flanders, some stones and details about them and their use have survived. They were quite heavy, for example: surviving stones from Damme weigh 6 kg each, and elsewhere they were laid down to be 9 kg a piece. Offenders had to walk a significant distance with them accompanied by officials and others. In the by-law of Dorialmé, wearing padding or protective clothing was proscribed.²⁷ Whether or not the practice was entirely the same in Kampen, we can assume that carrying the stone should also be considered to have been a corporal punishment there.

Fig. 3.1

The ‘kaak’ (DV, f. 21v (20 December 1455)). (© Stadsarchief Kampen, Nederland/© City Archives Kampen, the Netherlands)

Fig. 3.2

The ‘stone’ (DV, f. 50r (18 October 1462)). (© Stadsarchief Kampen, Nederland/© City Archives Kampen, the Netherlands)

Corporal punishments, in the strict sense of inflicting punishment on the body of an offender directly,²⁸ are found in the Digestum Vetus, but not in the Liber Causarum. This may be because, by the time the Liber Causarum was instituted in 1475, such punishments had started to be registered separately. A specific register recording corporal and capital punishments is extant from 1480, but it may have had a predecessor. Some corporal punishments were also included in the oerveden register. Unfortunately, this register does not record all of the punishments already inflicted on the lawbreakers who were made to swear an oath. So, there may have been more. The image that arises from these sources concerning corporal punishment in Kampen is that these were not imposed very regularly. Floggings were the most common. Such floggings can also be considered shameful punishments, as they were generally conducted in public, such as at a pillory (see also Fig. 3.3).²⁹ In addition, as Trevor Dean has pointed out, it ‘carried associations with penances imposed for sin’, as public whippings were also imposed by church courts.³⁰ Once every few years an offender lost an ear (or part of it) or an arm, or was branded.³¹ There is a single example of a man’s eyes being gouged out after he had been convicted of being involved with preventing Kampen merchants from reaching the Antwerp market in 1495.³² Such mutilations also had a decidedly shameful aspect to it, as they were inflicted to mark offenders as dishonourable for life. In some cases, mutilation was imposed as a merciful punishment: around 1467, Johan, the son of Jan Melijsz, was convicted of general misbehaviour and a number of small thefts, a crime normally punishable by death. Because the ‘good women of the town’, Johan’s father and his guild prayed the court for mercy, however, only his ear would be cut off.³³

Fig. 3.3

Offender being flogged at the pillory (DV, f. 16v (24 April 1455)). (© Stadsarchief Kampen, Nederland/© City Archives Kampen, the Netherlands)

Even though the Kampen higher court can be seen to have given out warnings and suspended punishments very regularly and, as such, could be considered to have been relatively mild towards its offenders, it can also be seen to act very harshly against the most serious offenders, and on a reasonably regular basis. There is a record of 73 executions between 1455 and 1500, but it is doubtful whether this record is complete. The Digestum Vetus includes 29 executions, between zero and four per year. The record runs until 1473, but there are two additional executions from 1475 and 1476 respectively. The register of corporal and capital punishments starts in 1480, but is somewhat chaotic when it comes to its chronology. In addition, there were significantly more executions recorded in the first years, when the record does appear in a largely chronological order. As such, it is unclear whether the register offers a full picture of mutilations and executions from 1480 onwards. On the other hand, because they were such memorable occurrences, it is quite likely that most executions were recorded. It may well be that there were simply no executions in some years.³⁴ Overall, the register records 44 executions, between zero and seven per annum, but between three and seven in the years from 1480 to 1485.

These do not appear to be very high numbers, but in fact, in the Digestum Vetus, more people are recorded to have been sentenced to death than to banishment. Also, when comparing these numbers to those in other Dutch towns for which records exist, the annual average is slightly higher than elsewhere. In Amsterdam between 1524 and 1552, 186 persons were executed (c. 6.6 per annum), but 61 of these were Anabaptists executed in 1535. Discounting these 61, the annual average is 4.4 in a city which grew from c. 11,500 inhabitants in 1514 to 27,000 in 1560 and, as such, was 1.5–3 times larger than Kampen.³⁵ In Utrecht (c. 20,000 inhabitants) 57 people were put to death between 1426 and 1455, less than 2 per annum.³⁶ In Haarlem (which grew from c. 8000 inhabitants in 1400 to 16,000 in 1550) the average was 2.2 per annum in the second half of the fifteenth century.³⁷ The image of relative harshness is exacerbated by the fact that, in nearly half of the cases in the Digestum Vetus, punishments of hanging or beheading were combined with drawing and/or being broken or displayed on the wheel. It is clear that the Kampen magistrates used these executions as opportunities to display their power and commitment to maintaining public order. Those convicted tended to be men from outside of town who had confessed (most likely under torture) to a number of thefts or robberies and other serious crimes, such as murder, in different locations (see also Chap. 4). An extreme case was that of Hans Karstgensz who, in 1486, was convicted of not only a long list of thefts and some murders, but also rape and bestiality. He was drawn and burned.³⁸ No other living person was burned in the second half of the fifteenth century, though a woman had originally been sentenced to burning for infanticide. She was granted mercy and was beheaded instead. Her corpse was burned and buried in a hole.³⁹ The body of the only suicide case in this period was also burned.⁴⁰ So the Kampen magistrates appear to have had no qualms about treating these men (and the occasional woman), who generally had no connection to the community, or those whose behaviour or ideas were perceived to pose a very serious threat to this community, harshly. Citizens of Kampen, on the other hand, were likely to be treated more leniently, or to be granted acts of mercy, like the lady convicted of infanticide, or the men and women who were mutilated, flogged or made to suffer demeaning rituals instead of being executed, like Johan, Jan Melijsz’s son mentioned before.

A final punishment that should be considered is imprisonment. As has been pointed out elsewhere, punitive imprisonment did exist in the middle ages, but it was used sparsely.⁴¹ This was partly due to the limited capacity of medieval prisons. Instead, prisons were used to confine individuals awaiting trial and for short imprisonments.⁴² In England and Italy, among other places, debtors (including those with public debts and unpaid fines) were imprisoned. These imprisonments, though supposedly coercive, also had an important punitive aspect to them.⁴³ For poor debtors, rising fines became increasingly impossible to pay back, especially without access to work, resulting in practically indefinite imprisonments of which the coercive value can be questioned.⁴⁴ The development of the prison systems in the Italian city states is part of a centralisation and institutionalisation of power that had not yet taken shape in the northern Netherlands to the same extent in the later fifteenth century.⁴⁵ In addition, Kampen was a relatively small autonomous town that did not have the capacity to house and maintain a large number of prisoners at any one time. But punitive imprisonment was being practised in Kampen and there were a number of locations in the town where potential offenders could be locked up for short periods of time. The ‘Wiltvank’ or ‘Wiltgang’ is named a few times and was probably the most used.⁴⁶ It was also the location where suspects could be tortured. This was true for the seventeenth century and appears to have been for the early sixteenth century too, when two women were imprisoned there to be subjected to torture.⁴⁷

That imprisonment was also used as a punishment in Kampen is suggested by a couple of by-laws. In a (later deleted) by-law from 1404, it was laid down that people who allowed dice games to be played in their home should pay a fine in addition to a month ‘opten Wiltganghe’.⁴⁸ This by-law appears to replace another from 1388 according to which someone who allowed such games would be locked in ‘a tower’ with his family for 14 days, living on bread and water.⁴⁹ The use of imprisonment as a punishment is confirmed by cases from legal practice. In 1461, Hendrik van Groningen, who had been charged with a variety of offences including domestic violence and adultery, was given a warning that if he continued his behaviour, he would be put in the ‘Wiltfang’ in addition to being subjected to another, undefined, punishment which would act as an example.⁵⁰ His reputation as a philanderer is confirmed by the drawing illustrating the entry (see Fig. 3.4), where he can be seen entangled with a lady in an outdoor setting. His hat is lying by their side. This image provides a stark contrast with others (e.g. see Figs. 4.2, 4.3 and 5.1) in which the accused are not depicted in compromising situations. It seems that the clerk had a particularly low opinion of Hendrik van Groningen. In 1501, Beerte Bastz, a man convicted of bad dealings as a merchant (‘valse comenschap’), was imprisoned in the Hagenpoort, one of the town’s gates, for a ‘long time’.⁵¹ Unfortunately, it is not specified how long exactly, but it is unlikely to have been years. As evidence from elsewhere suggests, prison sentences tended to be short in late medieval Europe.⁵²

Fig. 3.4

Hendrik van Groningen (DV, f. 42r (24 January 1461)). (© Stadsarchief Kampen, Nederland/© City Archives Kampen, the Netherlands)

Other prisons that are mentioned are the ‘Wulentoerne’, which was one of the town’s towers, and the ‘Merehuus’. As a punishment for knocking a couple of teeth out of someone’s mouth, a man simply know as ‘Jelle’ was put in the ‘Wulentoerne’ for an undefined amount of time.⁵³ In 1471, Jutte van Bronnepe was convicted of facilitating prostitution and speaking immorally. She was banished and warned that she would be brought to the ‘Merehuus’ before being banished if she would not leave of her own accord.⁵⁴ It is unclear where or what the ‘Merehuus’ was. If Jutte would return to Kampen, she would be held in town custody while the court considered her punishment. It is clear that the judges wanted to ensure that Jutte left Kampen never to return. A ‘schamel jonck wijfken’ (‘humble young woman’), identified as ‘Swarte [Black] Geertken’ in another source, finally, was sent to Utrecht to spend the rest of her days in a closed convent after she had been caught up in undefined youthful foolishness.⁵⁵ The Koornmarktspoort, one of the other gates, could also be used to lock people up, as is clear from the employment brief of the man put in charge of keeping the town’s guns. His official residence was at the gate, and he was also expected to take care of any prisoners when relevant.⁵⁶

In general, when it comes to imprisonment, though, there is no mention of a specific location and individuals were said to have been ‘in prison’ or ‘imprisoned’ (‘in hachte’, ‘in den stocke’, ‘in vangenisse’ or ‘gevangen’). All the offenders who had to swear an oath had been in ‘stat hachte’ for various offences and were only released on swearing an oath that they would do no further harm. In fact, the standard oath, which is recorded at the start of the register, includes the words ‘om des wil dat ic in der stat hachten ende vengnisse geseten hebbe’ (‘because I have sat (been) in the town’s custody and prison’).⁵⁷ In these cases, offenders had not necessarily been imprisoned as a punishment, but rather to protect the town community from them. It is worthwhile to look at these cases in a bit more detail, as they provide us with more information on the values held by the town magistrates. Analysing the oerveden register, it appears that many who were made to swear an oath were individuals from outside of town. These individuals had most likely been unable to find anyone who would stand surety for them. As opposed to Kampen’s own inhabitants, who tended to be fined for various offences and who would mostly have been able to find someone to stand surety, outsiders were imprisoned and subsequently banished after having sworn an oervede that they would offer no further threat to the town and its citizens. These individuals were mostly cast out without any options to return.

Individuals were also held in custody when awaiting trial. An interesting case is that of Bertolt van Hueclem who wounded a town official in office. He was sentenced to losing his hand, but the good women of the town put in a supportive word, and he was granted mercy in the shape of a 200 lb. fine. In addition, his written oervede had to be sealed by his father and his brother, and he would continue to be held in custody until the first of the eight terms of his fine was paid. The other seven terms would have to be paid annually following his release.⁵⁸ So, Bertolt was already in prison awaiting his trial and not only had to swear an oervede to be released, but two of his relatives had to seal it with him and he had to pay the first term of his fine before he was released. As such, in this case, the imprisonment also functioned as a coercive measure. Taken together, the court wanted to ensure that, although the offender was granted mercy, the seriousness of the offence was still made abundantly clear. On the other hand, there is no suggestion that Bertolt was also made to apologise to the wounded official or the magistrates, a measure that was normally laid down for offences against public officers. Perhaps the swearing of the oervede was considered to have been a sufficiently public gesture.

Concerning prison personnel, there are some snippets of information. In the seventeenth century, two ‘stokmeesters’ supervised the running of the prisons. These were two councillors who were also expected to oversee the torture of suspects.⁵⁹ In the fifteenth century, the town had a single ‘stokmeester’ on its payroll.⁶⁰ According to the town accounts from the late fifteenth century, Berent de stokmeester was paid 15 hern lb. (60 stat lb.) annually in two instalments, as well as a 6 hern lb. allowance for clothing, presumably a livery.⁶¹ More information about this office can be found in the Liber Diversorum C, a register including employment agreements of various town officials. In 1432 Huge Symonsz was hired to keep the town prisoners and to help arrest them. He would also be given wood and iron, presumably to maintain the prisons. He was paid per prisoner, and received an annual income (in 1432 this was 19½ pounds) as well as an annual allowance of fabric for clothes. He was also provided with a place to live, later specified to be at the Hagen gate. For the purposes of torture, he was provided with candles and tools by the alderman.⁶² In a 1484 by-law, there is mention of ‘stokmeesters’—plural—who were expected to hire two men to pray at the coffin of criminals who had been executed.⁶³ In addition, two stokmeesters are mentioned at the end of a number of entries in the register of executions from 1500 onwards, suggesting they had overseen proceedings, including, in some cases, torture.⁶⁴ It may be that there existed a situation in which two councillors were in charge of overseeing the prisons, and a third man (confusingly referred to by the same title) was appointed and paid to do the day-to-day management of the prisons. This, apparently, also included a role in the torture of suspects. Lacking other personnel, other men on the town payroll were also expected to assist with the arrest and keeping of prisoners, such as the horn blower, and the men hired to take care of the guns and the harnesses.⁶⁵

The town had its own executioner in the fifteenth century who appears in the sources a number of times. In the seventeenth century the executioner was responsible for practising torture.⁶⁶ It may have been the same in the fifteenth century, but there is no clear evidence of this.⁶⁷ According to a by-law in the Gulden Boeck from the late fourteenth century, the aldermen who were involved in the torture of suspects, as well as their servants, should be recompensed with wine.⁶⁸ There is no suggestion there that the executioner was one of these servants. In fact, the next by-law concerns the payment of the executioner for conducting executions, but it does not make mention of any payments for torture. It may be that Kampen did not yet have a permanent executioner in the fourteenth century, like it did in the fifteenth. Deventer gained a permanent executioner in the second half of the fourteenth century.⁶⁹ When Johan Peecksnider was hired in Kampen in the 1440s, he was told he would have responsibility for the prisoners and for their questioning as it should be (‘sal over die gevangen gaen ende verhoren als sich dat geboert’), but it is unclear how this responsibility compares to that of the ‘stokmeester’.⁷⁰

Jeroen Benders has argued that the towns in the Sticht province, which included Kampen and Deventer and which were subject to the Utrecht bishop, introduced torture after papal approval had been received in 1359. It was introduced in Deventer in 1362.⁷¹ It is unclear how often torture took place in Kampen, as there are few direct references to it before 1500. In 1464 three men, all from out-of-town, had spent time in custody where they were ‘gepinicht’ (tortured) and were branded at the ‘kaak’ for illegal gaming activities.⁷² This suggests that torture was not only used to get people to confess to the most serious crimes. Indirect evidence for torture appears in the shape of convicts taking back their confessions, which they had presumably made under pressure, when they had to confirm them in court. In 1455 Johan Jansz, a shoemaker from Deventer, had confessed to stealing a purse with money, in addition to some thefts in other towns. He was sentenced to having his ear cut off, as well as wearing a noose around his neck as a symbol of the hanging from which he had been granted mercy (see Fig. 3.5), and being banished. But when he appeared in court, he took back his confession and said he was not a thief. So, he was returned to prison.⁷³ Three and a half weeks later he was back in court and was sentenced to mutilation again (see the image graphically illustrating this in Fig. 2.1) after having confessed to the theft of the purse, but apparently not to the other small thefts.⁷⁴ The evidence in this case points very clearly to the use (or at least threat) of torture. In 1484, Lambert Henricksz confessed to a small number of thefts, but he became ill ‘in den stocke’ and died. It may well be that his ‘illness’ was also the result of torture.⁷⁵

Fig. 3.5

Johan Jansz wearing the noose (DV, 18v (15 July 1455)). (© Stadsarchief Kampen, Nederland/© City Archives Kampen, the Netherlands)

There are more direct references in the records after 1500, most likely because of a change of clerks rather than a change in legal practices. There are a number of direct references to the use (or non-use) of torture. The most remarkable is that of a lady accused of witchcraft in 1515, who was imprisoned together with her accuser and tortured. When she did not confess, she was released. She subsequently died of her injuries in her own bed, after having received the last sacrament. Her accuser was executed for her false accusation two and a half months later.⁷⁶ This case tells us that torture was used on both men and women, and that an accusation was enough to justify its use. But it also suggests that the victims of torture were not always convicted. The latter is confirmed by another case from the sixteenth century in which a man was released after torture.⁷⁷ Finally, torture could also be used to get people to point to accomplices with physical descriptions of their appearance.⁷⁸

In conclusion, a number of characteristics of penal practices in late medieval Kampen should be stressed. The magistrates had a great variation of measures at their disposal. The lower court was in charge of meting out fines for a wide range of offences, from dumping manure to the drawing of blood. The higher court of alderman and councillors dealt with the more complicated matters which required more flexibility in sentencing, such as crimes against morality. This court meted out many warnings, but also banishments, symbolic punishments, the taking away of rights and capital punishments. Less common were shameful and corporal punishments and imprisonments. Through their penal practices, the magistrates were able to communicate certain messages to the wider population. These messages could vary from warnings about behaviour which was considered to be unacceptable to well-known members of the town community, to shameful punishments and banishments to those who continued to display disruptive behaviour despite repeated warnings, to corporal and capital punishments for outsiders and a few insiders who had committed the most serious offences like theft and robbery with murder. These punishments conveyed messages of forgiveness and mercy and second (or third) chances, mainly to citizens of Kampen, but also of humiliation, shame and exclusion, especially to those crossing particular moral boundaries. Pain and terror awaited outsiders, thieves and murderers. Taken together, they displayed the magistrates’ power and advertised a commitment to protecting the common weal and maintaining public order.⁷⁹