Bavaria has four cellular prisons in all; one at Nürnberg and three others intended to serve the district courts of justice and filled mostly with prisoners not yet tried. Other prisons are conducted on the collective system. Many of them are ancient convents and castles, little suited for the purpose to which they have been converted. Crime is very prevalent, owing to a generally low standard of morality, the neglect of education and the rough manners and customs of the population. The peasants in many parts of the country are in the habit of carrying long stiletto-like knives at public houses and dancing places, and murderous conflicts, after nasty quarrels, when grave injuries are inflicted, are very common. The penal code of Bavaria, compiled chiefly by Anselm von Feuerbach, a distinguished criminal jurist, was adopted by the government in 1813, and became the basis of criminal legislation for all the German states. In Bavaria the peculiar merits and defects of this code were strongly accentuated. The laws are severe and the punishment merciless, but blood is never shed until the most minute pains have been taken to secure proof of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is never held sufficient to justify the extreme penalty, and sentence of death cannot be passed unless the culprit has confessed his crime.[1] Two witnesses are deemed sufficient when they testify to facts seen with their own eyes, and the statement of one witness is accepted only as half proof. By far the most important evidence is that given by the prisoner himself. He is questioned by the examining judge in the presence of the notary only, who is employed to take down his replies. The judge seeks to elicit a full statement by suggesting that ample confession may soften punishment. An attempt is made to entrap the prisoner into untruthfulness by asking him if he knows the real reason of his arrest, and if he affects ignorance or gives a false answer he is gravely admonished and warned that lying will prejudice his case. All the questions put to him are aimed to mislead him and obtain unwary admissions inconsistent with innocence. If the prisoner has replied truthfully, he is closely cross-examined on his own story, which is twisted and inverted until he is confused into contradicting and committing himself. [1] This practice of requiring confession in capital cases doubtless had its origin in the influence of the Church and the doctrine of the confession as necessary to absolution.