During the Salem Trials, spectral evidence was usually a common argument against the accused. In January of 1692, Betty Parris and Abigail Williams experienced strange fits which consisted of screaming, hallucinating, twitching and uncontrollable shaking. Reverend Samuel Parris tried to make them do fasting and praying, but it did not cure them. It was soon confirmed by the uneducated village doctor, that they were both suffering from witchcraft. At that time, the Puritans (protestants who believed in purifying England’s Churches from Catholic practices of Roman people), assumed that physical realities were associated with spiritual causes.
Many puritans at the time had this point of view. For example, if a farmer had a rewarding and luxurious harvest, it was because God blessed him. However, if the crops died, the devil had interfered. As a result of this world perspective, many villagers did not seem to doubt whether or not witchcraft was real in the Salem Village, and accepted the blatantly, unreasonable phenomenon that society today would see as outrageous.
If a suspected witch physically contacted an accuser or witness experiencing symptoms, and the accuser claimed their symptoms had disappeared, the suspected witch would be declared guilty and unlawfully executed.
Moreover, people at the time believed witches could appear in a spirit form to the cursed, meaning that the accusers could use that belief as an advantage to convince the court that the accused appeared in their dream or vision. Therefore, those accused could be declared guilty based on spectral evidence.
Furthermore, people who lived in the Salem Village believed that someone became a witch by coming into a compact/agreement with the devil, which was usually someone dressed in dark clothing. They also stated that witches had one or more marks on their bodies. This type of ‘evidence’ would be used against the accused witches in court. If there were no visible marks on their body, it would mean the devil may have concealed it. Overall, there were barely any chances for the accused to be found as an innocent person.
According to Peter Charles Hoffers, Cotton Mather defended the use of spectral evidence, whereas Critic Robert Calef strongly condemned it.
After the Salem Trials were declared unlawful in 1702, the use of spectral evidence in the Justice System was abolished. Now in modern legal proceedings, courts do not accept spectral evidence as admissible.
(Spectral evidence is a type of evidence where the witness is afflicted by the accused in a dream or vision.)
Hearsay rule:
Written statements out of court were seen as reliable because they were written while or shortly after a scene, just in time before someone forgot what happened or has their imagination take over. According to the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 [5], a witness’s written observation from earlier on is an exception. However, as stated by Historian Richard Trask, who was a Salem Village archivist, a thorough examination of the Salem documents shows that many of the written statements were not created at one, a single period in time. In fact, they were added with extra text as the events unfolded. This meant that the documents were not solid and reliable snapshots of the witness’s memory, slowly turning into a narrative.
According to Trask, a handwriting analysis suggested that a man named Thomas Putnam created the majority of the statements of accusers/witnesses. This was a significant mistake because may have created a bias in the statements, as it was written by one person. This fault might have caused some of the executions.
In addition, the court had accepted bad character evidence. Bad character evidence was the character of someone which includes only suspicious acts and behaviours, such as opinions, reputations and allegations of certain actions. A decent majority of people used bad character evidence on the accused witches, and the court would accept the evidence because it wasn't forbidden. As a result, this caused the court to become biased. Many people who were socially marginalised, were usually the ones who were accused because of their status as an outsider.
However, now in the modern-day justice system, bad character evidence can only be used to contradict good character evidence. (Good character evidence includes evidence of the accused's character and reputation.) It is usually used to make it more likely that the accused is telling the truth or to make it less likely that the accused is guilty of the allegation they are associated with, in court.
Sir William Phips created the Court of Oyer and Terminer on May 27th, to attempt at convicting accused witches. Laws back then did not follow the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, like they do today. Rather, making it to trial in 1692 was presumed to be guilty, and if the colony locked them up, the accused would have to pay for their stay in prison.
The accused did not have the right to have a lawyer to represent them back in 1692, but they were allowed to ask witnesses and accusers questions. However, this was not in their favour since they were usually not educated enough to defend themselves from the accusation of being a witch. Moreover, the accused witches had no right to cross-examine the people who signed any statements against them, and if they did, there were not many options they could use that would help them prove they were not guilty of witchcraft.
Things that were allowed during the trials but not in the justice system today:
· The evidence used in the cases back in 1692, included confessions given under torture.
· Physical inspections of the accused were accepted.
This was significant because it showed how these immoral practices were cruel and unreliable as a confession from torture isn't a genuine confessision because people could say whatever they needed to to survive and end their suffering. People realised that to create a right and just court system, they would need to abolish practices such as these.
Two witches casting a spell using a cauldron.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.