“Full proof” could lead to any sentence, but in the 17^th century, proof would have been hard to obtain. Their definition of full proof, however, was ambiguous: the testimony of 2 irreproachable witnesses could count as full proof. Confessions, too, were taken as truth. Officially, a confession was ambiguous, but people took it as the most important proof that could be offered. Confessions were not always completely voluntary; torture was “a great means used by classical criminal law” that was later repeated and accepted as spontaneous and solid evidence.

Visibility: extent that an event is open and observable to the public

The role of the public in executions is also ambiguous because public outcry has been cited as a reason for the end of public executions and torture but here, Foucault says that when the guillotine was introduced to France, the crowd cried out that they wanted their gallows back.

Paradox: a situation with no obvious solution

Torture was used as both a punishment and means of getting a confession. This does not make sense, because the accused is punished before his guilt is certain. This torture was a kind of theater and also displayed the sovereignty of the law. Because the law was sovereign, the methods of achieving confessions were not questioned. Punishment and trial were wrapped up together in a “theatre of hell” and the eternal.

2. power- the role of the public execution is one of power relations. It is the complete exposition of what happens if you decide to test the strength of the ruling officials. They serve as an example to the masses that although you may succeed in your criminal act but the system will ultimately extract its revenge. This steers the populace away from crime because of the prospect that they too may cry out mercifully from the gallows.

3. theatrical- the role of the public execution is one in which political motivations are accomplished by demonstrating brute force. This force is highly accentuated by the dramatic scene of a person on death’s door pleading for a pardon as their bodies are mutilated. The torture of a person for 18 days is done so that the image of this weary soul cannot escape you and serves as a constant reminder of the punitive system. Punishment often plucked the heart-strings of the public.

Secrecy-The justice system in Europe remained secret from not only the public but from the accused.  Foucault notes that “knowledge was the absolute privilege of the prosecution,” as the accused had no idea who was accusing him, any evidence or documents being used, or the names of any witnesses against him (35).  The modern day justice system is an interesting reversal of this, as we currently make a spectacle of the arrest and trial, while punishment is kept secret. While the spectacle of public torture and execution was intended to reveal truth, the secrecy of the justice system was intended to limit the knowledge of the truth to the magistrates and judges.
Spectacle- Part of the reason that there is a spectacular element to punishment is so that the public will be deterred from committing crimes: “men will remember…pain duly observed” (34). Perhaps more importantly, though, punishment and torture must be a spectacle so that the public can witness the triumph of truth and justice; this is the “ceremonial of justice” (34). In this way the guilty man becomes “the herald of his own condemnation,” every ritual procession and reading of the sentence reinforces the triumph of truth over the accused (43). The public punishment of a condemned man was less about him and more about the audience: as Foucault notes, “in the ceremonies of the public execution, the main character was the people, whose real and immediate presence was required for the performance” (57).