Monday, October 26, 2015
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't
As we have learned in class, it seems that people (especially women) who were accused of witchcraft had little to no rights when it came to their defense. From Rebecca Lemp, who's letters from her own children and husband could not save her, to Johannes Junius, a burgomaster from Bamberg, legal defense for accused witches appeared to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for them. Friedrich Spee, a confessor of witches wrote in the Cautio criminalis about a woman named Gaia. When it comes to living a good life or a bad life, he says "If a bad one, then, say they, the proof is cogent against her" and "If, however, she has led a good one, this also is none the less a proof; for thus, they say, are witches wont to cloak themselves and try to seem especially proper" (Kors and Peters 426). Usually, torture was used in order to obtain a confession. However, it doesn't seem to matter because, according to Spee, "when once a beginning has been made with the torture, the die is already cast - she cannot escape, she must die" (Kors and Peters 427). Even though there was the appearance of fairness (judges, lawyers, note takers, etc.), do you believe that those accused of witchcraft were doomed right from the beginning?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post George. In response to the question you posed I would have to say the accused were doomed immediately. Based on the different accounts we read, within the torturers and jailers I felt that they already knew the "verdict" of the victims (which was guilty) and that torture was solely a way to "prove" the "verdict" and gain new names for future victims.
ReplyDeleteGreat post George I could not agree more with you. The accused and tortured "witches" had no true case because they were guilty from the start. The process of the trial was not for proving innocence but yet confirming the accused to be guilty.
ReplyDelete