After my trip to Salem last month and seeing my ancestor’s 1636 house which contained anti-witchcraft talismans to protect the family [1], I couldn’t help but wonder what it would be like to live in those times, to be in that place and time, living through this extraordinary time in Colonial history.
When you think about this period in history, there are a few sort of obvious facts that we often forget, but that bear mentioning in this type of mental exercise:
- These folks were not Americans, but English. They lived under English law, and they saw themselves as English citizens. Fun fact, the number of accusations for witchcraft in the Colonies was roughly the same as the number (per capita) in England at the same time.
- Their society was not culturally diverse to the extent ours is. There were people they considered savages (natives or slaves from Barbados), and there were marauding French settlers to the north (an aggressive pre-Canada) with a mandate from King Louis to kill English settlers. People with mixed ancestry pretended to be English.
- They had no separation of church and state, even though Puritanism left England for “religious freedom,” it was so they could set and interpret the laws and reform the Anglican church in the ways they felt it needed reform, not so they could have a religiously tolerant society like we enjoy (mostly) today. Rhode Island was a much more diverse and tolerant community.
- Each town had its own government, its own taxes, and to some extent, its own culture. As in England, wealthy families in these towns had the most pull.
- Not everyone came to the New World for religious reasons. Many came for economic reasons or to leave other intolerable situations or simply because they had little to lose and a willingness to hew out a rough existence in the wilderness.
OK, now that we’ve got that out of the way, most people know something about the witch trials, whether it’s from school, from reading or watching The Crucible, or just from soaking in Pop Culture.[2] I’m in the middle of a fascinating podcast called Unobscured that talks through the various stories of the participants.
Those involved can be grouped as follows (which fits neatly into the Karpmann Drama Triangle of Victims, Rescuers, and Perpetrators):
- Accusers & Witnesses (Perpetrators).
- The Accused (Victims).
- The Judges (Rescuers).
The funny thing about these roles, is that during the Witch Trials, as the drama unfolded, it all started with the perception that the girls (The Accusers) were victims and the Accused were the perpetrators. Let’s talk through each of these groups and try to understand why they did what they did.
The Accusers (& Witnesses)
It started when two girls began having seizures. They were living in a small house with their parents and disgruntled slave Tituba. Their father was the Reverend Parrish, who was not getting paid according to the agreement the community made when he was hired. In fact, he was so impoverished that he had to beg for wood in one of his sermons or let his family freeze that night.
This was a community that was very near to danger. A nearby town only 20 miles away was attacked by natives operating in league with the French, and its inhabitants were killed and houses destroyed. Girls and women outnumbered men in Salem and surrounding communities at this time, and under English law, unmarried women could not own property and would become indentured servants if they did not marry. Even when they did marry, it was no guarantee they would be supported or cared for. [3]
Family members were alarmed by the girls’ seizures. They consulted with a local doctor who diagnosed “betwitchment,” meaning someone in the community was secretly a witch, causing them pain. Nearly everyone near them believed (and told them) that it must be the work of malevolent forces, then offering up names to them and explaining how naming these “perpetrators” would ease their suffering. (Although the good Reverend at one point felt that beating them might help them to stop being bewitched, something that did help in many cases).
As the trials and accusations became public, more accusers joined in. When one of the accusers seemed to recover from her symptoms, it was seen as a sign that she had given in to Satan and joined his ranks. Later in the trials, several of the accusers were exposed by witnesses as frauds (using pins to create evidence by poking their skin). Despite the accusers being discredited, the trials didn’t stop. In fact, in later days when the trials spread to nearby Andover, two girls became “Witch Detectives,” providing a service to the community in identifying witches for them. In some cases, they asked about people first, and it became clear who would be a good candidate for a witch and who would not.
The Accused
Two thirds of the accused were women, initially women on the fringes of society. Tituba was both accused and an accuser. She confessed, and kept adding to her confession as a way to prolong her life. She also found that by accusing others, she could demonstrate that she was now on the good side, trying to do God’s will, not Satan’s.
Sarah Good was one of the first to be accused. She was homeless with an abusive husband and a young daughter she took with her to beg for food. She had started life, though, as a daughter in a well-to-do family, so her state of penury was a result of greatly reduced circumstances. She was bitter and angry at the world, and often muttered curses under her breath. She was an obvious candidate for witchcraft as a result.
The Coreys, an older couple who were accused, were under the Halfway Covenant, a more liberal alternative to the Covenant that some churches created to admit more members. Covenant members had had a conversion experience that they shared with the congregation who then agreed they were “elect.” Those who joined under the Halfway Covenant had access to the church and its benefits (such as The Lord’s Supper and voting rights), but didn’t claim the same kind of religious experience. They might have been the children or grandchildren of those who had signed the Covenant. As a result, more orthodox congregations resented the full rights of these upstarts and felt they were weakening the entire purpose of the settlement: to establish a city that was a beacon on the hill to the world. The more orthodox church members saw them as wolves in sheep’s clothing who weakened the community.
To add to that, Giles Corey [4] had a troubled history. He had a temper, and was guilty of murdering a “half-witted” servant years earlier whom he beat so severely that the young man died a few days later. Several in the community confessed that they, too, had beat the young man in their frustration, so Giles’ crime, while still a crime, was not that exceptional.
Giles and others like John Alden [5] were likely accused simply due to convenience. His wife Martha warned him not to attend the meetings in which these “distracted” girls were accusing randos right and left, but part of being under the covenant, even the Halfway Covenant, included being obligated to attend meetings. You could be called out just for avoiding meetings. She went so far as to hide his saddle to prevent him going which is what resulted in her own conviction for witchcraft later when it came out.
You stood a better chance of being accused if you didn’t have people to stick up for you, but that wasn’t always the case. Rebecca Nurse had a petition from 39 members of the community, but her Not Guilty verdict was overturned due to a misheard question (she was 71 years old and hard of hearing). She was hanged.
Some of the accused confessed or named other witches in an effort to prolong their lives. Initially, this worked, but eventually, it did not. A few shockingly named relatives, but the majority named those who had already been executed rather than cause another neighbor harm. Only those wealthy enough to bribe the guards at the jail escaped and fled Salem.
The Judges
Once people were being killed based on these accusations, the stakes were too high in the community, and particularly among the judges, to let anyone back down. Welcome to Sunk Cost Fallacy.
The judges were the pillars of the community, nine men who were wealthy and powerful. They were also from the ranks of the “elect” in the church, people who had been accepted as being chosen by God as his elect. In other words, they could do no wrong in their own eyes, and in the eyes of the most orthodox in the community.
They were convinced by the publications of religious leaders that Spectral Evidence was reliable. They were convinced that the community was under siege by Satan and that members of the community had made a covenant with Satan and were trying to undermine their purpose. And once they discovered some of the witnesses were duplicitous, they doubled down on their mandate rather than admitting fault.
The judges who were also the most privileged in their society, lacked compassion to a degree that is surprising. When 4 year old Dorothy Good, daughter of Sarah Good, was accused, they manipulated a confession out of her that implicated her mother. Her mother’s execution was delayed because she was pregnant, but after her ironically named daughter Mercy was born, Sarah was carted off and hung in July. With no mother to care for her, Mercy didn’t live long, and nobody bothered to free young Dorothy from jail until December of that year. She spent 10 months in chains.
Conclusion
Why did the trials end after so much escalation? Ultimately, everybody was running out of steam. Many had lost relatives and friends to the trials without believing that they were guilty. Increase Mather, father to Cotton Mather, published a treatise that scorned the use of “spectral evidence” in court, and recommending that only non-spectral evidence be considered. This greatly curtailed the court’s ability to obtain a guilty verdict. “Spectral evidence” was essentially the testimony of the witnesses that the accused’s specter was tormenting them. Naming the specter they alone could see was initially considered sufficient evidence that the person was guilty.
There’s a reason we trot out the term “witch hunt” in modern times to refer to scurrilous accusations. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Learning about the past can help us avoid repeating it. For example, when we are trying to determine things like apostasy or political correctness, are we using evidence that relies heavily on the perceptions of the “victims” (or their allies / “rescuers”) rather than on an objective measure?
I mentioned the Karpmann Drama Triangle earlier. This is an explanation for how group dynamics escalate in dysfunctional ways when people see themselves or others as victims. When there is a victim, there must be a person or group of people to blame. The real danger, though, is when a rescuer enters the picture on behalf of the person they see as a victim. A rescuer with power, limited understanding, and lack of compassion for those being accused can really wreak havoc, creating a breach that is impossible to mend without great cost. When the rescuer also has a personal mission or a vision s/he feels is threatened by the accused’s actions (or even their mere existence), this heightens the drama, as it did with William Stoughton, the chief prosecutor in the witch trials.
Sometimes there are real victims. Sometimes they need rescue, and sometimes not. Sometimes people are guilty of victimizing others. The Salem Witch Trials should give us pause in determining who the victims are and who the perpetrators are. History, in this case, showed us that the roles were reversed.
While proponents of religious freedom may like to point to the advances made in the name of religion, nobody is clamoring to be associated with the Salem Witch Trials, and yet, this is certainly an example of religious freedom run amok. [6]
- What modern parallels do you see to the way people behaved in the witch trials?
- What type of person would you have been in Salem in 1692?
- How have we advanced from this time? How have we stayed the same?
- What types of “evidence” qualify as modern-day “spectral evidence,” in your opinion, evidence that is too subjective and prone to imagination?
Discuss.
[1] The shoes of a dead person were hidden in the walls by the hearth because the dead person was supposed to protect the family from witches trying to enter the house spectrally through the chimney, windows, door, or even the well. You had to keep their shoes there because fighting off astral projecting witches in your bare ghost feet would be silly.
[2] While shows (and comics) like The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina the Teenage Witch are obvious fabrications based on the literary assumption that the charges of witchcraft were real and could be taken at face value, they do actually get the gist of the charges pretty correct. The things people were accused of doing fit pretty squarely with that outlandish worldview.
[3] Bridget Bishop, one of the first accused witches, was beaten by her husband so badly and often that the community brought him in to punish him for it. His punishment? They were both beaten by the community and told to knock it off. Her husband had to make a public apology, and she had to publicly apologize for being so disobedient that she forced her husband to beat her.
[4] he was technically not executed, but pressed to death with stones as a form of torture to compel him to confess. The octogenarian refused to speak until near the very end when he drily called out for “More weight!” Then he died as they placed another stone on his chest.
[5] He wasn’t a local, just came up to the crowd to see what all the commotion was about, and he was accused and arrested before he even knew what was happening.
[6] Interestingly, the court convened (Massachusetts Superior Court) that finally ended the trials is still in place over 300 years later and was also the first court to make gay marriage legal.
Wheat & Tares 
Of course, the most common use of the term “witch hunt” today is by Donald Trump, referring to the Mueller investigation. But he is misusing the term. Mueller has found real crimes to prosecute, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that Trump himself is guilty of crimes. He has always been of the opinion that rules and laws do not apply to him. But he is fast reaching the end of that particular road. His acts and words are finally catching up with him. And those who have tied their political fortunes to his star are going down with him.
Really disturbing stuff. My first thought was to go do the rhetoric being spewed about the refugees and immigrants at the Mexican-US border right now. And how by every measure they are victims of gangs and governments and poverty. Yet, they are the accused/perpetrators to so many wealthy US citizens sitting in their heated family rooms, eating their well-prepared meals and watching news broadcast on their 60 inch TVs.
Great post, as usual. I’ll stick with answering your question about modern parallels. Honestly, I see them everywhere, both in and out of church. Out of church: the political realm generally. As the nation has become more divided, I see many fewer centrists and a lot more zealots of either party (or maybe the centrists just don’t yell as loudly). I think most rabid adherents to any political ideology (right or left) are capable of the kind of intellectual and moral shortcuts that many of the people involved in the witch trials took. The name calling, the accusations, the almost pathological non-regardance of truth, and the paranoia and feigned righteousness of the current political milieu in America are mirrored in much of the culture surrounding the trials. There are many differences, too, of course, but the question was about similarities, not differences.
And it pains me to say this, but I see this at church often, too. The absolute obedience required, the “only true church” rhetoric, the belief that it’s Satan, not human psychology or our own nature that is responsible for “negative” feelings or doubts, etc. It’s all there. And the pushback if you try to have a conversation in any official capacity (with a leader, in a class, etc.) about another way to think about things or a way to steer through the falsehoods (especially regarding church history) towards a more universal, less Mormon truth indicate to me that there are many parallels. The Salem witch trials happened in part because of the very bifurcations (good vs. evil, us vs. them, etc.) that the church touts, even though much of what it calls righteous or unrighteous is highly subjective, or at least culturally contingent to a degree we rarely recognize. Regardless, that kind of uninterrogated binary thinking often leads to a kind of rabid desire for separating the wheat from the tares (see what I did there?) on the part of the members, even though that’s god’s job, not ours. Granted, Mormons don’t burn witches, but the church’s obsession with boundary maintenance certainly ensures, even today, that anyone except married, heterosexual men aren’t able to fully partake of all that god offers through his church and that anyone who doesn’t meet the expected norms of thought, behavior and belief will be excluded from the community. Ironically, our myopic insularity, what many TBMs might see as a strength of the church, is the very thing that prevents us from being the shepherds that Christ would have us be.
Thanks for posting this.
What came to mind reading “…Are we using evidence that relies heavily on the perceptions of the ‘victims’…rather than on an objective measure?” was a relatively recent conversation wherein I defended Laura Ingalls Wilder against charges of racism against Native Americans. I’m aware this is a subject open to debate and don’t want to open that debate here, but I was disappointed when my philosophical opponent ignored the subject of whether Ms. Wilder was racist altogether in favor of an argument that her victims’ feelings should be the overriding consideration in the former Wilder Award’s name change — not whether those feelings were based on facts rather than prooftexting or presumption. (Again, I’m aware that interpretation of the facts in this case is varied and debatable, but this opposing argument did not attempt to interpret facts so much as value victims’ perceptions.)
Laurel: I think this is a very important parallel, elevating feelings to the level of “evidence.” Yes, feelings are important; they are valuable input, but they aren’t good evidence to understand the motives or intentions of those who “cause” those feelings.
Like ReTx, my first thought was of immigrants at the border–especially 4-year-old children who are chained up for months at a time for the supposed crimes of their parents.
Nice post, as always. It was the decision of the Massachusetts General Court (the legislature for the colony, but it also acted as an appellate court) that rejected spectral evidence that turned the tide. After that the whole witch hunt unraveled. It was lawyers and jurists, not ministers, who put an end to the flawed process.
As I recall from the books I have read, the grounds for the reversal was not (as a modern reader might think) that spectral evidence was purely subjective or simply made up. It was that Satan could use spectral appearances to deceive people. So the problem was that spectral evidence was not reliable, it was not what recipients of said spectral evidence thought it was.
In modern terms, we would call it a visionary experience rather than spectral evidence, and we LDS cite visionary experience as the basis for positive beliefs, not to kill people. But we ought to be open to the idea that visionary and prayer experience may not be what recipients think it is. That is, recipients of visionary or prayer experience do not have some sort of inerrant power to properly interpret or understand the experience they recall and recount publicly. When was the last time you had a church lesson titled “How to properly interpret visionary or dream experiences?” Like never. That would suggest there are improper ways to interpret such experiences.
Dave B.: “As I recall from the books I have read, the grounds for the reversal was not (as a modern reader might think) that spectral evidence was purely subjective or simply made up. It was that Satan could use spectral appearances to deceive people. So the problem was that spectral evidence was not reliable, it was not what recipients of said spectral evidence thought it was.” It was actually (kind of) a mix of the two. Increase Mather’s article was very critical that spectral evidence was unreliable due to human bias. (This must have irked his son Cotton Mather who was a vocal proponent of spectral evidence, having more or less written the guide for interrogators). For example, one test that was done was called a “touch test.” If the accused touched the afflicted person, the afflicted person’s reaction was taken as evidence. Increase argued that the afflicted person should be blindfolded before being touched so they would not see who touched them.
But you are correct that ministers in the months prior had argued that because Satan and his followers could impersonate people, seeing their specter wasn’t clear evidence that they were the culprit. They could be impersonated against their will. That was a theological argument that several ministers felt should invalidate spectral evidence. The biggest proponent of continuing with the status quo, though, was William Stoughton, and he was not a minister, but a magistrate. He believed what they were doing was right, and he was frustrated with the intrusion of more moderate voices in his process. One of his last acts was to swear out the order of execution of the final three who were found guilty, and he deliberately added 5 more names to the order, people who were still in prison at that time. He didn’t want anyone falling through the cracks.
“For example, one test that was done was called a “touch test.” If the accused touched the afflicted person, the afflicted person’s reaction was taken as evidence. Increase argued that the afflicted person should be blindfolded before being touched so they would not see who touched them.”
OMG! This sounds creepily similar to the church’s assertion that a spirit sent from HF will shake your hand but a spirit sent from the Adversary will refuse to.
Interesting info about the witch trials. Almost 400 years later it’s still fascinating.
I note you referred to the English witch trials as well. I read a book decades ago that I wish I could remember better. But in England it seemed being a male witch was a profession and they were called on to reverse the spells of the evil female witches. And, sometimes when they weren’t able to, they were accused as well. Even so, the convicted — and executed — were by far female just as you suggest was true in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. .
How amazing that you had relatives who lived that era that did so much to shape the country’s early history! So glad you shared it.
Alice,
The two “touch tests” have almost nothing to do with each other than that they involve touch.
This isn’t answering any of your questions, but I was struck by this bit:
“the Halfway Covenant, a more liberal alternative to the Covenant that some churches created to admit more members. Covenant members had had a conversion experience that they shared with the congregation who then agreed they were “elect.” Those who joined under the Halfway Covenant had access to the church and its benefits (such as The Lord’s Supper and voting rights), but didn’t claim the same kind of religious experience.”
It’s hard not to connect this to y’all’s series on middle way Mormonism. Is there room for halfway covenant people in the LDS Church? Will we be exhorted to stay on the halfway covenant path? I guess it’s not too surprising that it sounds like the Halfway Covenant caused tension back then too.
Ziff: Yes, there are some very strong parallels with the Halfway Covenant and Middle Way Mormonism, although I should add that by their reckoning, all Mormons would be halfway covenant at best because we don’t believe in their view that only a select few “elect” are eligible for salvation. I also found it to be a parallel that the congregation judged whether the person’s conversion was acceptable or not, which isn’t quite what happens in our modern fast & testimony meetings, but folks like BRM sure did like to put an oar in, creating “rules” for testimonies. I had forgotten that it seemed like another post idea. Maybe I’ll tackle it!
The congregation in Salem Village was more orthodox than the one in larger Salem Town, and they opposed the Halfway Covenant, so folks like the Coreys who were geographically in the Village simply joined in the Town instead (under the Halfway Covenant). So there’s another parallel with our church in geographical boundary maintenance. The more orthodox congregation resented the less orthodox making an end run to get full rights they felt they should be denied.
I was kind of waiting to see if anyone would use this example of a witch trial. I am going to get killed for this one, but here it is.
Judge Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was the best example of a witch trial in this age as I can think of, let me explain.
First we have the Accused, Judge Kavanaugh, a conservative judge in a very liberal town, “the important people” don’t like him, and he is not a “true believer”. Kind of a Halfway Covenant person.
The Accusers, “true believers” one and all. First it was Ford claiming something bad happened to her, her therapist, fill in “Local doctor who diagnosed “bewitchment” (replace bewitchment with PTSD) surely there is a witch in our mist (change “witch” to “rapist”). Then other people jump in and accuse the Kavanaugh, saying they have been affected by the same witch. Through this whole process no physical evidence is given, no witnesses, just the word of the accusers that bad things happened to us (spectral evidence) and it was this “witch”.
Lastly we have the Judges, “Pillars of the community” Democratic Senate members and the media “true believers” one and all. “They were also ranks of the “elect” in the church, people who had been accepted as being chosen by God as his elect. In other words they could do no wrong I their own eyes, and in the eyes of the most orthodox in the community”. Spectral Evidence was accepted evidence and was considered reliable (believe all women, women don’t lie about these things, etc) The Judges lacked compassion for the Accused and his family, tried to manipulate a confession out of him, and no matter what he answered or how he acted it was seen as “proof” that he was guilty of being a witch.
And this quote from the post is very enlightening. “A rescuer with power, limited understanding, and lack of compassion for those being accused can really wreak havoc, creating a breach that is impossible to mend without great cost. When the rescuer also has a personal mission or a vision s/he feels is threatened by the accused’s actions (or even their mere existence), this heightens the drama, as it did with William Stoughton, the chief prosecutor in the witch trials.”
As an aside, the post was a really great read and I learned a lot about this event that was very interesting and I greatly enjoyed it, Thank you hawkgrrrl for this well done post.
ScottJ, that’s an interesting comparison and I can absolutely see the parallels and the witch-hunt in action. It also brings up an entire other question though. What about when the person really is a witch? I don’t know that it makes the actions of the judges and the latching-on accusers any different. But what about the accusers whose witness is real? How should it change the scenario from top to bottom?
I was about to mention the recent controversy surrounding Kavanaugh too, but Scott J has written a much better analysis of it. One big difference for Kavanaugh is that he won. The women accused of being witches were usually executed.
Another more difficult case was the recent campaign of Roy Moore for senator in a special election in 2017 in Alabama. Moore had a reputation of being a controversial and polarizing far-right judge and politician. One example , he was dismissed as the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court for defying the US supreme court ruling on same sex marriage. Many people in Alabama admired his courage standing up for what they believed, against an oppressive government.
What lost the election to the US senate for Moore was the accusation that he sexually assaulted/raped 3 women ages 14, 16, and 28 at the time, when he was in his 30’s . All accusations, if proven in court, would be criminal offenses and should be expected to result in prison sentences. In addition, 6 other women admitted that he flirted with them when they were teenagers over age 16, which is the age of consent, but did nothing illegal. He is open about admitting he dated teenagers over 16 years old (which is LEGAL) when he was in his 30’s. Furthermore, his wife was a 24 year old divorced woman when he married her at age 38 and he admits first noticing her when she was 16 years old. You ever been to small-town Alabama? Girls that old were considered adults for dating purposes. He was not violating local social taboos of the time and place, however yours or mine may differ from them.
His critics were successful in launching another election-eve surprise before a different suitable candidate from the same party could be selected. They portrayed his behavior as so creepy that he lost the election to Doug Jones, a fairly liberal journalist and democrat, by less than 2% of the vote. One of the most conservative states is now represented by one of the more liberal senators. That would be no better than a state like Connecticut being represented by, say Orin Hatch. So what, its only one vote.
But what gets me is this: If Roy Moore was actually guilty of sexually assaulting those 3 women, why has he not been charged? Where is the trial and the conviction and the sentencing of him to prison? I want to see people in prison who do what he is assumed to have done, on either side of the political aisle. As soon as the election is over, there is no further investigation? Oh, it wasn’t that bad? The evidence just is not there? Did it really happen that way? It is time to move on?
If he was guilty of what cost him the election, why is his ass not in jail? A the very least a trial! One function of a fair trial is to exonerate a reputation. If not, then we have a state election hijacked by those accusing tRump and his Ruskie friends of hijacking the general election. The hypocrisy is disgusting all around. It makes tRumps calls of witch-hunt seem more credible. No wonder they all lack the gits to impeach tRump. Bill Cosby is in jail. Bill Clinton is not.
It will be a long time before I believe any allegation against anyone running late in an election. Our freedoms and democracy is being lost. Win-at-any cost and witch-hunts lead to tyranny and oppression. It cuts both ways.
How would Roy Moore’s victims get around the statue of limitations to get him sent to jail?
Regardless of the situation, the opposing political party creates a witchhunt for their own political purposes. I’ve seen quite a few podcasts lately taking about how our electorate system encourages extremists in office and how if we really want to change that, the place to start is redoing our voting procedures.
Lehcarjt:
Easy. No statute of limitations in Alabama for criminal prosecution of rape, violent sexual abuse, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/alabama-statutes-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse.html
OK- Rump grabbing (the 28 year old woman’s allegation) might not be violent enough. Rape and/or beating of a 14 or 16 year old? If it was anybody else and the evidence placed before us by the media was credible, he would stand trial Winning is another matter, especially in an old he-said she-said crime with presumption of innocence. The evidence that could be submitted in a trial should sink his political ship even if the jury didn’t buy it. What if he runs again in the future?
Moore has run for office many times before. Why did not these victims come forward then? The sudden desire to finally tell the truth when large amounts of out-of-state money and national interest appear on the table is too suspicious. He seems guilty to me of being a political ideologue and a jackass. But the case for rape appeared late in a crucial election and was not pursued after the election. Sorda shouts witch hunt to me.
Many rapists and sex offenders don’ repent. At his age it is likely he did it again more recently, if he was guilty. Find a more recent victim.(Bill Clinton is being an angel since he left the white house 18 years ago? Yeh, right.) Many rape victims want their day in court even if they lose the case. Why are they no longer interested in pursuing the case? Only when it might sway an election? Perhaps they don’t want to be caught lying or exaggerating.
For that matter, why have they not pressed forward with all the stall-tactic, endless further investigation of Kavanaugh that was demanded with such pomp and outrage? If he was guilty, they should have gathered more than enough evidence to impeach him by now. Where is it?
While credibility was wasted with many episodes like this Kavanaughing and Alabama rump grabbings, the credibility of serious election tampering by tRump grabbing power with interference by Putin and his trusty Ruskies is being eroded away. If there had not been so many witch hunts going on, tRump excuses would not sound as credible.
If anyone still remembers, the Russians have a few hundred missiles pointed at us, admittedly far fewer than the ~ 10,000 at the end of the cold war. But the way things are going they won’t need to use any of them to destroy our democracy and proceed with raping our economy with a few of our like-minded oligarchs.
It almost makes me think the democrats want tRump in office ruining the country more than they want to do the right thing and impeach him. They vainly hope he can run just the republican half of the country into the ground and leave them unscathed, to be the heroic rescuers during future easy elections. Ain’t gonna happen that way. If this is all they have to offer, to hell with them too.
From what I can tell, there was 1 girl under 16, so under Alabama law, only she could go after him with criminal charges. Perhaps she didn’t pursue it because her story was fabricated, but that is far from the only possibility. I can see a victim going after him to ruin him politically as a means of revenge (or perhaps community safety). I don’t see a benefit for the victim to going after him legally. It is a huge price to pay for the victim and cases like this become circus that go on for years and then come down to he said/she said with (from what I’ve read) a low probability of jail time for the perpetrator. I don’t think I’d put myself and my family through that. Just ruin him politically seems a much better option.
The 16 year old claims she was raped. She would be two Moore victims. It is up to the judge in the case whether other witnesses can be called who collaborate parts of the story including other victims.It only takes on solid conviction to lock a rapist away for the rest of his useful life. Indirectly, you make my point. It was not a slam dunk case as portrayed before the election or he would have been arrested. In fact, it might have been no case at all. A 30 something year old takes a 16 year old out on a date and makes out with her. Not nice but not illegal.
Moore is not ruined politically. He lost one election. The gullible and ignorant public has a short memory. He will probably run again. He is like the Clintons. How many times have we thought they were ruined politically? I bet Hillary will run again in 2020, she might even win. Little money is flowing out of the Clinton Foundation to charitable causes. (Not much going in either). Why else would they be sitting on 50 billion dollars?
Moore has and will probably accost more girls, if really guilty. That is why he belongs in jail. For their sake, most real victims will pay the huge price and endure the circus. Why put someone else and another family through the trauma of rape many times over with silence? That is far worse than a trial. Sometimes doing the right thing is not easy or convenient.
***
Does anyone remember Gary Hart? He was the initial democratic party front runner in 1988 against Reagan’s vice president George Bush (who passed away recently). Hart’s political career was ruined by one well-documented affair with an adult woman, Donna Rice. He probably had others. Four short years later Bill Clinton lied about several affairs every bit as bad as anything Moore is accused of doing including the rape of Juanita Broaddick (I am not making up these names) 10 years previously. He was elected (thank you Ross Perot for splitting the conservative vote) and continued is licentious behavior in the white house. He was impeached almost exactly 20 years ago for his exploitation of Monica Lewinsky. Forgotten is Hillary Clinton’s role as head of the “bimbo patrol” and her intimidation and a harassment of numerous victims of her husband.The pitch down this slippery slope that created the silent acceptance of this widespread lecherous behavior certainly increased with the Clintons.
What I find so hypocritical is this same political party that is launching most of these political witch hunts today is still pissed off that their tainted champion, Hillary Clinton, managed to find a way to lose the election to the worse candidate for president of the US to ever run for office. Not only do I call for prosecution of Roy Moore (or else the liars who made up these stories), I call for the same for Bill Clinton and a long list of others in both parties. Drain both sides of the swamp, including the current commander in chief of the swamp rats.
Don’t get me started on the unfortunate little swim off Chappaquiddick island of Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne. That was more than exploitation of a young woman. That was something like second degree murder. He served in the senate for 47 years, that is 11 years longer than Orin Hatch.A 47 year sentence to prison would have been more just. As long as we are slaying sacred cows, I bet John Kennedy did worse than Roy Moore, if the truth be known.
alice, the touch test in church context is the other way round. Messengers from Satan will accept to shake your hand but you won’t feel it; messenger from God will deliver his message but won’t try to deceive you since you won’t feel him either. That’s a comment from Joseph Smith; not sure it counts as a “church teaching”.
I initially intended to share the cases brought up by Scott J and Mike, but they beat me to it.
lehcarjt – You are correct that a “fabricated accusation” may not be the only reason a reported victim in the Roy Moore case would seek political, rather than criminal, destruction. Your other explanation (legal proceedings are a higher cost for the victim with less probability of the ‘right’ results for the victim) is entirely valid. However . . .
These political assassinations are dangerous for the social and political future of the country, regardless of the direction (left or right) that they originate from. You correctly point out that the political attack is easier, faster, cheaper, and requires a lower standard of proof than a guilty verdict from a criminal court. By nature, then, the ‘political assassination theory of justice’ is inherently more susceptible to being overtaken by genuinely ungrounded witch hunts. As noted in the OP, this process creates a breach that can only be mended at great cost. I worry about the cost that will have to be paid to mend recent breaches.
My conclusion, then, is that we all must reject actions in line with the ‘political assassination theory of justice.’ This is ESPECIALLY true when the successful outcome of the political assassination attempt would align with our desired outcomes. If the accusation is true, take it to court, even if the immediate cost is high and the path is painful. Taking the low-cost route in the short-term will require a much higher cost in the future.
Dave B.writes “recipients of visionary or prayer experience do not have some sort of inerrant power to properly interpret or understand the experience they recall and recount publicly.”
I believe an inspiration or vision from God will have been tuned so that the recipient understands it exactly as God wishes it to be understood. A problem arises when that recipient then tells the story to others; it is their interpretations that will vary and create error.
This is one of my most favored scriptures of all:
Alma 12:9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
I had a home teacher that challenged me on the impropriety of seeking the mysteries of God and I decided then and there that he was in error; he can choose that for himself, but I am a seeker.
10 … and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
The “drama triangle” mentioned in the essay above is a thing I have studied for some years, didn’t know it had a name but Transactional Analysis I’ve known a bit about. A person that is choosing to be a victim seeks rescuers and may also require an accuser or persecutor to legitimize the victim status. Expert victims are highly manipulative.
A witch trial is simply one where physical evidence is not needed; everyone has made decisions already usually based on emotions or some sort of goal or agenda. “Kangaroo Court” I think is somewhat similar in appearance; going through the motions of a trial but the outcome has already been determined. A witch trial is slightly different in that the judge might actually be honorable; the game is between accused and accusers to manipulate the judge.
It tends to be in retrospect that a trial was seen as a “witch trial”. Someone asked well what if she really was a witch? Well, so what if she was? Were it actually possible to cause harm by remote control then it would be a type of crime for which physical evidence might be extremely difficult to obtain. I am reminded of the city of London and the first days of the discovery of germ theory; that so many people contracted cholera and what they had in common was a water well. Obviously the water was contaminated even though at the time no means existed to confirm it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak
I believe that the enemy of God and the followers of that enemy lack an important ingredient: Intelligence. They are willful, more or less, but were they more intelligent they would not oppose the Supreme Being; there’s no future in it. These forces tend to act on instincts, malevolent usually but perhaps not even that, just selfish. This would seem to manifest in a witch trial of a nearly random cluster of malevolence with the source at the center. Instead of executing the suspected witch, move him or her to another county and see what happens. If the malevolence continues then that person wasn’t the cause. If the malevolence ceases, they maybe that person is the cause; but not perhaps becauses of witchcraft per se but more likely good old gossip, the wagging tongue making mischief in the community.
It’s a fraught conclusion to lump all cases in which emotions run high or evidence includes hearsay (which is admissible but usually insufficient without corroboration to ascertain guilt) as a “witch trial,” although the potential is there. In any case of abuse, whether sexual, verbal or even physical, it’s often a case of hearsay in which the perpetrator will vociferously assert innocence and often even believe that s/he is innocent even when it is not the case. For example, does Ron Moore see anything wrong with his sexual targeting of minors? Did teen drunk Kavanaugh see anything wrong with “pranking” a scared teen girl with his buddy? Did Bill Clinton convince himself that the power dynamic between him and Monica Lewinsky was somehow equal enough to merit his sexual advances? Did Trump convince himself that married women who were star-struck were OK with his sexual assault because they “let him”? While these instances were clearly politicized in our highly polarized environment, we should be careful not to dismiss allegations strictly based on difficulty of proving things that are done in secret. In all these cases, there was corroborating information presented that a jury could evaluate if it went to court. Just because someone doesn’t believe they are guilty doesn’t mean they are not guilty.
ReTx: to your question “what about when the person really is a witch?” the answer is do you have any evidence that the person is a witch? If your answer is I saw them flying on a broom 10 years ago, you have nothing but Spectral Evidence, even if you believe or know, you saw what you saw, you have nothing. It is gossip, it is rumor. This is why evidence is the only thing that matters. Everything else is hearsay and rumor. Even if you were “turned into a newt” and you got better, you better be able to prove you were a newt, or it is just hearsay.
Not sure what commenters here mean by “hearsay”, but it doesn’t seem to be the same thing meant by that word in the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in those state court rules that parallel the federal rules.
Angela C: It maybe that not all cases of high emotions and hearsay are not witch hunts, but all witch hunts are based on high emotions and hearsay.
Of the four cases you used, Moore, Kavanaugh, Clinton and Trump. The first two had no evidence given but spectral evidence. The last has no actual “victim” named or she did not consider herself a victim, and as much as I do not understand it, women let others do things to them for a verity of reasons and we can’t always judge why.
As for Clinton, if he had been any other government employee he would have been fire. Having sexual relations with a subordinate a major no no for the government and in most companies. You would not necessarily go to jail unless you violated the EEO laws, but you would be fired. (major media people, news and entertainment and CEO’s appear to be exempt from this rule)
ScottJ, I don’t understand your argument. You seem to be saying that personal experience and/or personal witness are spectral experience, is that right? And such experiences aren’t valid (valuable?) unless there is secondary evidence that is outside of being a human?
ReTx : It is a well-known fact that eye witness testimony is very unreliable by itself. There are countless cases of eyewitness testimony being wrong, when compared to say a video of the event. Human brains are just not very good at that kind of thing. I work in a field that lets me see a lot of eyewitness testimony and most of the time it is not good for much. Especially during high stress events say like an accident. People are not trained to be witnesses or to be observant.
Hearsay: An out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Words have meaning I know. I was thinking of the common definition for hearsay: “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor”. Or for law, “the report of another person’s words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.”
When it comes to recent political events in the US (I.e. cases like Kavanaugh, Moore, et al.), it’s important to remember that false accusations of rape or sexual assault are extremely rare. Between 2 and 10 percent of allegations are shown conclusively to be false, while evidence supports the other 90 to 98 percent.
Also relevant is the effect of trauma on reporting. Survivors of sexual assault almost always have extremely complex emotional reactions whose impacts can ripple out for years. Sometimes by the time they are ready to report, physical evidence is not available anymore. That could be the case with Dr. Ford, or with Moore’s accusers. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
To bring it back, the urge to call these cases witch hunts makes sense to me, but I don’t think the description fits. A witch hunt (in my view) is an active hunt by powerful folks for a scapegoat—someone or some group to blame for a personal or social problem—that snowballs and takes down many with virtually no evidence. In US politics, we see a few powerful people accused of behavior that our society deems immoral or even criminal. They’re not treated as scapegoats, they’re simply barred from positions of greater power with more abuse potential (or they’re installed in one of the most powerful institutions in the world by like-minded, similarly-privileged people).
There are political witch hunts. The search for “Who lost China?” after WW2 and the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s are good examples. The Red Scare after WW1 might qualify. Current politics is just polarized political combat, not a witch hunt.
I find the religious angle and the legal angle to be what is so interesting about the Salem episode, not the politics. It wasn’t politics, it was religion and (deficient) legal process. If viewed in the context of the experience of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, the religious freedom angle has traction as well. I wasn’t aware of the Halfway Covenant issue dividing Salem Village and Salem Town, which adds another religious issue to the mix.
If an LDS reader can take anything away from the whole episode, I think it would be: (1) don’t be so quick to attribute everything that doesn’t go your way (or doesn’t go the Church’s way) to Satan; and (2) bad legal process (I’m thinking here of LDS church courts) leads to bad outcomes. Fix the system. I suppose another Mo app might be the bad example of how church courts like the Salem witch courts can become means for settling personal scores. Some bishops don’t know enough to avoid getting sucked into that sort of thing. I’m thinking primarily cheating, divorce, and custody battles here.
Dave B: “Some bishops don’t know enough to avoid getting sucked into that sort of thing.” There was a pithy leadership book I read early in my career that called this John Wayne Syndrome. The book advised that when you are in a leadership role, from time to time someone’s going to come into your office screaming “Help!” and giving your some dramatic scenario to fix. It frames it as a scene in a western: the school marm is being carried off, the schoolhouse is on fire, and someone shot my Pa! It warns that as a leader, your immediate thought is “Well, I’ve got this six shooter here, and it looks like someone really needs help, so . . . ” But it is a rookie mistake to assume every situation where someone asks for help requires your intervention or that you’re even getting the real story. As the book points out, the school marm could be providing cover for her bad seed dance hall boyfriend.
I often think back to that book, and I’ve shared that advice with countless leaders over the years. It’s no longer in print, and there’s no ebook available. Unfortunately, I loaned my copy to someone who didn’t return it. The book was Work Would Be Great if it Weren’t for the People by Ronna Lichtenberg.
The downside of a lay leadership is that too often they don’t have enough leadership experience to avoid some of these rookie mistakes and they fall into the trap of micromanagement and rescuing, ultimately mucking everything up in the process.
EM:
I agree with your second and third paragraph. You first paragraph is an apples and oranges logical fallacy.
In a busy emergency room, rape victims might come in almost every day or a few times a week. You are correct that 90 to 98% of their accusations are true. But the eve of the nomination of a supreme court justice or the election of a senator is a very rare event. The easy gain of victory when a hard battle is about to be lost provides ample motivation for exaggeration and fabrication. If only rarely do they even attempt to go to trial with most of these outrageous cases, it would seem the 90 to 98% ratio is flipped.
I am going to find that book on Amazon, Work Would Be Great if it Weren’t for the People by Ronna Lichtenberg. AMaybe write a sequel: Church Would Be Great if it Weren’t for the Members.
I thought of another memorable witch hunt, perhaps closer to home to this audience.
Back in the early 1980’s bishops (not a few) began asking young married couples at BYU about their sexual practices. The fear was that “perversions” were growing rampant among active young married members of the church. Surprise interviews of spouses separately were done. One of my friends was found to have ‘lied” to his bishop when he claimed he did not have oral sex with his wife. His wife told the bishop the opposite. What his wife and apparently the bishop included in their definition of this “perversion” was husband kissing wife’s breasts. For this grave moral infraction they were put on probation and came close to being dismissed from college. There were other examples.
I wonder how this might play out if it recurred today. Do the church leaders , from time to time, go off the deep end in one way or not? How is this to be handled by members caught in the snare.? The church leaders only have so much they can do to discipline members. But if that includes things said members desire, then it does have some teeth in it.
Mike: “Do the church leaders , from time to time, go off the deep end in one way or not? How is this to be handled by members caught in the snare?” I’ve said this in a different discussion elsewhere (and it was about youth interviews, not adults), part of growing up is learning when you should lie to the bishop. I was being tongue in cheek, obviously. What I really meant was that it’s a matter of learning how to establish your own boundaries, determining what is and what is not appropriate, and being willing to put your own spiritual inspiration and interests first. And if you don’t develop that, you’re missing a critical life skill that will cause you no end of problems down the line.
“does Ron Moore see anything wrong with his sexual targeting of minors?”
I have no idea what was in his mind.
In each scenario it might be barely possible to establish that any of these events took place but usually no hope at all of knowing what is in a person’s mind. Pursuing a hopeless goal where someone is at risk of life or liberty seems like a witch hunt.