Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Seems to me it was a literally idiotic and paranoid lynching of completely normal people. The "evidence" was things like if she DOESN'T drown when held underwater for an extended period or DOESN'T die when lit ablaze, then conclusively he/she is a witch. By the time you're acquitted, you're dead. The only explanation is moronic panicked murder.

I've read several books on the Salem witch trials and none of them said anyone was dunked underwater or burned.

Could you point me to a reference as to where that happened? Or are you talking about a different witch trial? This thread is about the witch trials in 1692 in Salem, Mass. (This is kind of like if I started a thread about the Dahmer murder trial you came in and said "having OJ try on a glove wasn't fair!")

Let me know how I can help you work to keep focused and on-topic. Thanks.

To be honest, it would help if you weren't so intentionally obtuse. But I digress...

Governments did burn witches at the stake. Just a cursory glance at the top google results sheds light there. I admit I may have been a bit inaccurate with the drowning comment but

So to summarize: "You're an idiot! Google it! But, yes, you were right."

My point is that a law prohibiting chatting with/feeding "evil spirits" can only be drawn up based on ignorance. The subsequent torture and executions stemming from prosecutions under this law were an abomination. The techniques I mentioned actually were commonly used. If you say none of the Salem Witches were burned or dunked during trial, then it would seem the exception.

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Seems to me it was a literally idiotic and paranoid lynching of completely normal people. The "evidence" was things like if she DOESN'T drown when held underwater for an extended period or DOESN'T die when lit ablaze, then conclusively he/she is a witch. By the time you're acquitted, you're dead. The only explanation is moronic panicked murder.

I've read several books on the Salem witch trials and none of them said anyone was dunked underwater or burned.

Could you point me to a reference as to where that happened? Or are you talking about a different witch trial? This thread is about the witch trials in 1692 in Salem, Mass. (This is kind of like if I started a thread about the Dahmer murder trial you came in and said "having OJ try on a glove wasn't fair!")

Let me know how I can help you work to keep focused and on-topic. Thanks.

To be honest, it would help if you weren't so intentionally obtuse. But I digress...

Governments did burn witches at the stake. Just a cursory glance at the top google results sheds light there. I admit I may have been a bit inaccurate with the drowning comment but

So to summarize: "You're an idiot! Google it! But, yes, you were right."

My point is that a law prohibiting chatting with/feeding "evil spirits" can only be drawn up based on ignorance. The subsequent torture and executions stemming from prosecutions under this law were an abomination. The techniques I mentioned actually were commonly used. If you say none of the Salem Witches were burned or dunked during trial, then it would seem the exception.

Hi Urantia1111.

To clarify, I'm not an historian specializing in 17th century American jurisprudence and am not saying "none of the Salem Witches were burned or dunked during trial."

Rather, every historian ever, anywhere, at any point, ever, is saying "none of the Salem Witches were burned or dunked during trial."

I encourage you to learn about the Salem Witch Trials, an episode in American history that is widely taught in U.S. public schools at the junior high school level. It is a fascinating historical epoch.

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

The article gave reasons for such accusations, but NEVER said ANYTHING about "Salem witches were guilty".

Hi Catalyst. For the second time, my summary was based on the overall tone of the article, highlighted by this passage, specifically, in which the author is noted as having said the condemned were involved in the practice of witchcraft (IOW, "guilty" of witchcraft) -

In Justice at Salem you don’t claim the condemned at Salem were actually in possession of supernatural powers, merely that – by an objective evaluation of evidence – some were, in fact, engaged in the rituals of witchcraft.

- for the fourth time, if you would like to discuss whether this thread is a ToS violation, I strongly encourage you to do that via violations report to the mods. It's a little disruptive and stifling of conversation to work through that here with posts accented by periodic ALL CAPS shouting. Thank you.

Your "summary was based on the overall tone of the article, highlighted by this passage, specifically, in which the author is noted as having said the condemned were involved in the practice of witchcraft" is VERY misleading. You, yourself, exclaimed by your headline, "Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty", " There is a reason you do not see quotation marks (" ") in the title of this thread - because I wasn't quoting anything. I was crafting a summary meant to roughly encapsulate the major theme of the article. Summaries are never 100% accurate - if they were there would be no need for the full article". As stated by you... However, you felt the need to state that "Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty". (all your exact quotes )

Where is your "summary meant to roughly encapsulate the major theme of the article"? You state prosecutors' stance on this and state that the Salem Witch's were guilty. By law, you must PROVE by a preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

You chose a topic that was defined, with no question of it's intention, that "Salem witches were guilty"!

In America, where this trial would have precedence, we try the accused by a Presumption of innocence.

By definition:

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

So, if you want to make claims that the "Salem witches were guilty", it is up to you to provide ANY evidence of such.

reply to post by walliswallis


Hi walliswallis,

Thanks for the thread, I really enjoyed reading the short interview with William Cooke. I thought that I would have so much more to add, but after reading the interview I can't really add much. Even though Cooke was brief, I really think that he covered just about all the bases.

I saw the thread when it went up today, and had high hopes for seeing it garner a lot of interest, I am so sorry that it seemed to get dragged down, but I suppose that Cooke said it himself...

I knew this book would be controversial because, even though centuries have passed, many are still emotionally invested in the people involved. This, of course, is not a bad thing. The Salem witch trials were, in many ways, a travesty of justice.

www.parapolitical.com...

That seems to have proven itself out on your thread, so far.

I don't understand why it can't be both: people were engaging in practices that the law at the time defined as witchcraft and the Salem witch trials were a travesty of colonial American history. At the same time. Sheesh, there isn't even a challenging paradox there to deal with.

Anyway, thanks again, I really enjoyed the read, and I thought your OP did a fine job of encapsulating the subject matter and piquing my interest.

Catalyst, perhaps you should read the book that this thread was inspired from, Justice at Salem. Perhaps the proof will be in there. Perhaps not.

Either way, I don't think you are going to get what you want here. You are not going to get your proof, nor are you going to get from the op any kind of statement that they don't have the proof. Isn't this what you really want to hear?, that there is no proof to present?

Moving along....

reply to post by walliswallis


No they weren't

Many innocent people have been found guilty on bad witness testimony. Seeing as how we know that Christianity is a moronic fairytale along with witchcraft...

No one could ever be guilty of something that doesn't exist. The very foundation of those laws were illogical.

Its like making it illegal to own a magic invisible purple unicorn but any other color is ok... one day someone claims you have a purple unicorn and you get sentenced to death.

How do you prove you don't have something that doesn't exist... when its obvious that no one can prove that you had it. Its the same with the Salem witch trials.

Is he trying to justify state sanctioned murder due to the rule of law at the time ? The same argument could be used to say that Nazi Germany's extermination of the Jews was 'legal' as they were guilty of being Jews.

Originally posted by Bybyots
reply to post by walliswallis

 

Hi walliswallis,

Thanks for the thread, I really enjoyed reading the short interview with William Cooke. I thought that I would have so much more to add, but after reading the interview I can't really add much. Even though Cooke was brief, I really think that he covered just about all the bases.

I saw the thread when it went up today, and had high hopes for seeing it garner a lot of interest, I am so sorry that it seemed to get dragged down, but I suppose that Cooke said it himself...

I knew this book would be controversial because, even though centuries have passed, many are still emotionally invested in the people involved. This, of course, is not a bad thing. The Salem witch trials were, in many ways, a travesty of justice.

www.parapolitical.com...

That seems to have proven itself out on your thread, so far.

I don't understand why it can't be both: people were engaging in practices that the law at the time defined as witchcraft and the Salem witch trials were a travesty of colonial American history. At the same time. Sheesh, there isn't even a challenging paradox there to deal with.

Anyway, thanks again, I really enjoyed the read, and I thought your OP did a fine job of encapsulating the subject matter and piquing my interest.

edit on 26-3-2013 by Bybyots because:

Thanks - it's often difficult to get a really intellectual conversation going on ATS as there are a diverse number of people with different educational levels here - and no barrier to entry on participation. Some topics that might usually be easily framed within the context of thought experiments are misunderstood by the base who don't always know how to react, as you've observed here.

Originally posted by Catalyst317

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

The article gave reasons for such accusations, but NEVER said ANYTHING about "Salem witches were guilty".

Hi Catalyst. For the second time, my summary was based on the overall tone of the article, highlighted by this passage, specifically, in which the author is noted as having said the condemned were involved in the practice of witchcraft (IOW, "guilty" of witchcraft) -

In Justice at Salem you don’t claim the condemned at Salem were actually in possession of supernatural powers, merely that – by an objective evaluation of evidence – some were, in fact, engaged in the rituals of witchcraft.

- for the fourth time, if you would like to discuss whether this thread is a ToS violation, I strongly encourage you to do that via violations report to the mods. It's a little disruptive and stifling of conversation to work through that here with posts accented by periodic ALL CAPS shouting. Thank you.

Your "summary was based on the overall tone of the article, highlighted by this passage, specifically, in which the author is noted as having said the condemned were involved in the practice of witchcraft" is VERY misleading. You, yourself, exclaimed by your headline, "Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty", " There is a reason you do not see quotation marks (" ") in the title of this thread - because I wasn't quoting anything. I was crafting a summary meant to roughly encapsulate the major theme of the article. Summaries are never 100% accurate - if they were there would be no need for the full article". As stated by you... However, you felt the need to state that "Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty". (all your exact quotes )

Where is your "summary meant to roughly encapsulate the major theme of the article"? You state prosecutors' stance on this and state that the Salem Witch's were guilty. By law, you must PROVE by a preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

You chose a topic that was defined, with no question of it's intention, that "Salem witches were guilty"!

In America, where this trial would have precedence, we try the accused by a Presumption of innocence.

By definition:

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

So, if you want to make claims that the "Salem witches were guilty", it is up to you to provide ANY evidence of such.

Catalyst, Above Top Secret is not a trial court so, while your points about onus probandi may be of interest to my first year law students, they're not relevant to informateurs or in speculative discussion. That may be the source of the confusion that has got you so terribly upset and wound up.

I think this topic may just not be a very good fit for you. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. In any case, there are many other topics on ATS in which you could participate. If you choose to stay here, however, I'd kindly ask you stop shouting at people so that a rational and civil discussion can take place. Thank you!

Originally posted by current93
Is he trying to justify state sanctioned murder due to the rule of law at the time ?

No. The point of the book was to make the case that blame should be assigned to legislative, rather than judicial, authorities of colonial Massachusetts.

Do you understand that? (I'm not trying to be deprecating, I just want to know if you do or not. People on ATS have different intellectual backgrounds and abilities and I am very happy to explain this more fully if my previous explanation isn't clear.)

According to prosecutors everyone is always guilty.
That's sort of what they do.