Inside the house of Reverend Samuel Paris in 1692 started the very beginning of the Salem Witch Trials. A small group of young girls were having fun with their friends and performing “fortune-telling” and “little sorceries” practices. The actions of these girls were all in good fun until one day their games were presented to the general public in which everyone feared the worst. These rumors spread around the town frantically and little did the girls know they were in grave danger. This tale of black magic involved very strange behaviors such as fits of screaming, convulsions, and barking. The worst of all is that black magic challenged the supremacy of God, which was a capital offense. Eventually this news came to the eyes of powerful people
…show more content…
Witchcraft was deemed as a “habitual” offense that was a product of multiple types of evidence. This poses the question of whether the accused in the seventeenth century received a fair trial. I do not believe they were given a fair trail for a multitude of reasons. Based on today’s due process laws the only value the trails demonstrated was the right of notice which is we have to know every behavior that is illegal. The witches did know that witchcraft was illegal, therefore they did have access to that right, but this does not mean they had access to all of their …show more content…
Mather provides a very powerful statement saying “it is better that ten witches should escape than one innocent person be condemned”. I agree with this statement greatly because witchcraft is not a crime. Not only that, it is worth to save the life of one person because they deserve to live. They deserve to survive unlike the many other victims who in reality did nothing wrong. In today’s society we know that witchcraft is deemed to be a legal religion. It is conflicting though to implement this statement in today’s society. The people of Salem were fearful of witches; they believed that witches were endangering their society. Fear guides us to take part in irrational measures. Fear has been a great part of our history; we always condemn those who we are afraid of. When implementing a modern version of Mather’s statement it is very hard to decide if I still agree. For example, if the statement was changed to terrorists I would say, unfortunately that it is worth the life of one person to save humanity. Terrorists are capable of killing hundreds of people at a time. Which makes me believe that the statement is circumstantial. Let’s say the case would be drug dealers then I would say of course it is not worth someone’s life to die. Overall, the statement is controversial and depends on what the outcomes of the crime can
Witchcraft was deemed as a “habitual” offense that was a product of multiple types of evidence. This poses the question of whether the accused in the seventeenth century received a fair trial. I do not believe they were given a fair trail for a multitude of reasons. Based on today’s due process laws the only value the trails demonstrated was the right of notice which is we have to know every behavior that is illegal. The witches did know that witchcraft was illegal, therefore they did have access to that right, but this does not mean they had access to all of their …show more content…
Mather provides a very powerful statement saying “it is better that ten witches should escape than one innocent person be condemned”. I agree with this statement greatly because witchcraft is not a crime. Not only that, it is worth to save the life of one person because they deserve to live. They deserve to survive unlike the many other victims who in reality did nothing wrong. In today’s society we know that witchcraft is deemed to be a legal religion. It is conflicting though to implement this statement in today’s society. The people of Salem were fearful of witches; they believed that witches were endangering their society. Fear guides us to take part in irrational measures. Fear has been a great part of our history; we always condemn those who we are afraid of. When implementing a modern version of Mather’s statement it is very hard to decide if I still agree. For example, if the statement was changed to terrorists I would say, unfortunately that it is worth the life of one person to save humanity. Terrorists are capable of killing hundreds of people at a time. Which makes me believe that the statement is circumstantial. Let’s say the case would be drug dealers then I would say of course it is not worth someone’s life to die. Overall, the statement is controversial and depends on what the outcomes of the crime can