The rise of the witch trial
The process of hunting witches was a major historical event that took place within Europe and its colonies from 1400 to 1800 C.E. The numerous accusations, prosecutions, and executions of witches affected thousands of people directly and indirectly. Those who were accused of witchcraft were said to have committed crimes of heresy and maleficia (evil magic), making witches guilty of both religious and secular crimes. Furthermore, witchcraft was labeled "The Worst Crime Imaginable" by Jean Boden, which was why witches were so mercilessly punished. These "witch-hunts" were a very broad process, stemming from the general public to the highest levels of the church, and finally to the legal system and the courts associated with it. Although various institutions and groups added to the witch-hunt process, none validated the hunts as effectively as the trials involved with the witch-hunts. In order to fully understand how important the trials were, I will examine how the trials functioned, what legal, moral, and cultural ideas influenced them, who was targeted, and closely review specific trials.
Before the thirteenth century, the European legal system made prosecuting crimes very difficult due to its criminal procedure. It was generally referred to as the accusatorial system, because it relied on individuals to bring about criminal charges and to prosecute them. Usually the injured person would make a public statement accusing someone of committing a crime against them. This would then cause a trial for the accused before a judge. If there was sufficient proof against the accused or the accused admitted guilt, the judge would decide the case. However, if there was any doubt, the court would appeal to God so he could reveal if the accused was guilty or not. God's will was usually discerned by the ordeal, a test the accused would have to take to prove their innocence. One specific test had the accused carry a hot iron a specific distance and then show if their hands had been miraculously healed after being bandaged for a few days. Another test was having the accused thrown into cold water and if they sank they were considered innocent. An alternative to the ordeal was having the accuser and the accused duel. The idea was that God would allow the one in the right to emerge victorious (Levack, 75-76). Moreover, the accusatorial legal system was highly ineffective and could be manipulated by the defendant. In an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the court, Europe created a new legal system at the start of the thirteenth century that put more weight on human judgment and left the idea of the ordeal. This new system would eventually lead to the ability of witch trials, by making man responsible for punishing criminals rather than God.
One of the most influential events toward validating the need to prosecute witches was the establishment of the inquisitorial legal system that emerged at the start of the thirteenth century (Levack, 77). Unlike the accusatorial system, which relied on God for judgment, inquisitorial procedure put a greater weight upon man's responsibility to punish criminals. This change was created by the rebirth of Roman law and the procedures associated with it. Humanism was an idea that emerged from the rebirth of Roman law; it supported the inquisitorial procedure, by stating that it is man's job to prosecute crime because God is busy with his own problems.
The inquisitorial procedure still allowed for individuals to accuse others of crime, but the accuser was no longer responsible for the prosecution of the accused. In addition to private accusation, under the inquisitorial procedure, a paid public prosecutor would go around the city asking individuals if they had any problems with anyone, and if so, if they would like to have them tried (Levack, 77). This public inquisitor caused a great increase in the number of criminal cases tried, however it also made people more open to false prosecutions due to maliciously motivated accusations. This problem was often demonstrated in the prosecutions of witches. By making it easier to accuse someone of crimes and create a trial, trials focusing on witchcraft became much more prevalent due to accusations based on personal dislike and envy. In this sense, the inquisitorial legal system increased the number of witches tried, thus validating witchcraft.
In addition to the accusatorial changes established by the inquisitorial procedure, major differences within the conviction process were created that effected the prosecution of witches. Because the inquisitorial system moved away from divine intervention and toward human judgment, the court raised the standard of proving guilt. The new standard required either two eyewitness accounts or a confession of the accused (Levack, 80). This new standard made convicting witches especially difficult because it was nearly impossible to get witnesses that could attest to seeing witchcraft committed. Therefore, the confessions of accused witches became a vital part of the trial. Confessions were not usually easy to acquire, so torture and coercion were often used in the prosecution of witches. Another factor that played a large role in the conviction of individuals for witchcraft was the location of the trial. People were far more likely to be convicted of witchcraft at local courts as opposed to central courts where convictions were rare. Immediate fear of the witches by the local jurors caused them to be biased in their judgment. The prospect of living in the same town as acquitted witches, was a fear that caused local judges to convict many more people of witchcraft. Furthermore, local judges were familiar with the people accused of witchcraft and were therefore more likely to already have opinions about their guilt. Whereas, central court judges were less likely to convict people because they had less bias and were more committed to proper legal operation and would therefore give accused witches any safeguard the law allowed them (Levack, 97).
As confessions became a necessity for convicting individuals of witchcraft, courts prosecutors began using torture to make accused witches confess. The use of torture to gain confessions stemmed from the rebirth of Roman law and the procedures used by it. Torture became a major part of the trial procedure. Accused witches were basically held until they confessed to the crimes the prosecutor wanted them to confess to. The types of torture used were strappado, a pulley that lifted a person off the floor by their arms, which were tied behind their back. This would compress the lungs and cause great pain to the person being tortured. Another type of torture was thumbscrews, leg screws, and head clamps (Levack, 82, 84). All of these forms of torture were meant to gain confessions, without permanently harming the individual or killing them. These types of torture were very effective for getting confessions, however due to the severity of the pain, the torture often caused innocent people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that many supposed witches confessed to crimes they could not possibly have committed.
An example of how torture was used to force confession is demonstrated by the Prosecutions at Bamberg in 1628, and specifically the trial of Johannes Junius. In this trial, Junius who is the mayor of Bamberg is accused of witchcraft after other convicted witches name him. He denies that he is a witch and is then excessively tortured until he finally confesses after being told that the torture will not stop until he confesses. He confesses to denying God, killing animals, and desecrating a holy wafer. However, right before he is executed for practicing witchcraft he writes a letter to his daughter where he professes his innocence and states that the torture was too brutal for him to bare and so he falsely confessed (Kors and Peters, 348-353). This particular trial demonstrates how the inquisitorial system and its processes played a vital role in causing the conviction of numerous witches. The inquisitor's use of torture resulted in many false convictions of witchcraft. Therefore, the trial process was essential for validating the idea of witches through its convictions by forced confessions.
In addition to the witch trials in Europe, many other trials took place in Salem, Massachusetts. The majority of the witch trials in Salem occurred in 1692 as the result poor economic conditions, congregational strife, personal jealousies, and religious ideals (Linder, "The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary"). These trials were fairly similar to the European trials. A person would make a complaint to the Magistrate about a suspected witch who would then issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Next, two or more magistrates would listen to the accused person's testimony and if they thought they were guilty, the person was sent to prison to await trial. The trial was held before the Court of Oyer and Terminer where a jury instructed by the court decides the case (Linder, "Procedure Used in the Witchcraft Trials"). The accusation process is the same in Salem as in Europe; however, the only difference is that a jury decides the verdict rather than the judge. Overall in Salem and Europe the trials were the key element in convicting witches and validating the idea of witchcraft.
Similar to the atrocities committed in Europe during the witch-hunt, many terrible injustices occurred in Salem due to the witch craze and panic of the public. The trial of Sarah Good effectively demonstrates the courts power and influence. Good, was an old friendless, poor, widow who was disliked by the community. She was accused of trying to kill and injure various people, killing three children, and killing many animals. At her trial, she never confessed to any crime, yet her prosecutors insisted that she was guilty and because she was so strongly disliked by the community she was found guilty (Chevers, "The Examination of Sarah Good"). Her trial demonstrates the power the courts had and how innocent people could so easily be convicted.
Finally, the trial process within the witch-hunts was the key element toward validating the crime of witchcraft. The courts move from an accusatorial system to the inquisitorial system and the changes that resulted were responsible for making witchcraft a crime that needed to be punished by humans. Moreover, because the trial was where witches were convicted and sentenced, trials essentially legitimized the hunts. Through the application of torture, people confessed to being witches, making it possible to convict witches. Furthermore, the ability of the trial to validate the hunts was demonstrated by the specific trials and the convictions generated by them. Overall, without the trial process, the witch-hunts in Europe and its colonies would never have taken place.
1,766 / 6 pages
|
Home
