After refusing to inquire into the facts, how can a man possibly be certain of what he refused to find out?

After refusing to inquire into the facts, how can a man possibly be certain of what he refused to find out? Antiphon. Against the Stepmother for Poisoning. Speech 1. Section 7.

Historical note: Of course, in ancient Rome, slaves were frequently tortured to obtain "the truth" in criminal matters so a more merciful (or practical?) slave owner may have wished to avoid such inquiry. Romans, were definitely aware the practice could be abused.

"There were instances in which slaves were tortured so brutally and for such lengths of time that observers commented that the goal must have been to induce false testimony. Lawyers, such as Cicero in his defense of Faustus Cornelius Sulla, might argue that testimony extracted under torture was suspect. However, the right of masters or the state to torture slaves went unchallenged. Slaves couldn't be freed in order to avoid torture."

"Some undertakers offered private slave torturing services, with options including flogging, burning, racking, and crucifying. In the city of Puteoli, regulations proscribed that each torturer be paid 4 sestertii (the cost of a couple liters of wine) for their services. Some masters kept torturers on as part of their household staff. Typically, slaves tortured for testimony would be tortured publicly or semi-publicly." - Quoted from AskHistorians on Reddit based on information in Keith Bradley's Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge University Press, 1994. pp 165-70.

Augustus argued that torture shouldn't be used in minor cases but later emperors ignored his more merciful approach. Sometimes protections existed for young children or pregnant women (who would be tortured after giving birth), but these were not consistent and young children were tortured in some cases.

Image: Torture depicted on Trajan's Column, 113 CE, Register XLV, in this case, Roman soldiers being torture by Dacian women. (PD)