Last Salem Witch Finally Cleared<\/h2>\nJul 29, 2022 12:54 pm | Kevin<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.loweringthebar.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Trial_of_George_Jacobs_of_Salem_for_witchcraft-300x169.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
According to Courthouse News Service<\/a>, the budget bill signed Thursday by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker contained a provision exonerating Elizabeth Johnson, Jr., who was convicted of witchcraft 329 years ago. Johnson was convicted during the notorious Salem witch trials<\/a> of 1692\u201393, which yielded results that some skeptics have called questionable. She was apparently the last of those convicted at Salem to be officially exonerated.<\/p>\n As we have discussed, lawmakers today are occasionally asked to make some sort of amends for the perhaps slightly overzealous prosecuting of alleged witches that took place, mostly in Europe but also here, a few hundred years ago. See, e.g., <\/em>\u201cScotland Reportedly Planning to Pardon All Witches<\/a>\u201d (Jan. 6, 2022); \u201cAccused Italian Cheese Witch May Get New Trial<\/a>\u201d (Oct. 16, 2015). Sometimes officials agree to take action. See <\/em>\u201cWitch Pardoned<\/a>\u201d (Aug. 29, 2008). Sometimes they don\u2019t. See <\/em>\u201cWitches Screwed Again in Connecticut<\/a>\u201d (Apr. 4, 2008).<\/p>\n The Massachusetts legislature has addressed the unpleasantness several times, beginning as early as 1708. (\u201cEarly\u201d from our point of view, that is. A bit late for those hoping not to be hanged.) An act passed that year exonerated three people, according to this source<\/a>. In 1711, another act cleared about two dozen more<\/a>. Maybe not surprisingly, this act does not question whether witches and\/or devils were actually present in the colony, and in fact blames those \u201cEvil Spirits\u201d for causing the proceedings to get out of hand. But also, it says, \u201c[s]ome of the principal Accusers and Witnesses in those dark and Severe prosecutions have since discovered themselves to be persons of profligate and vicious conversation,\u201d which is a very 18th-century way to say the Salem witch trials were ass-deep in perjury.<\/p>\n These acts cleared most of those who had been convicted (and even provided a little compensation), but not all. Somehow, as this source puts it<\/a>, \u201cthe names of seven persons clearly within the intention of the act were overlooked and omitted.\u201d This was most likely because the act was responding to a petition that certain specific people (or their heirs) had filed, and the other seven just didn\u2019t join for one reason or another (possibly being dead with no one to represent their estate). Johnson, who was still alive only because the governor had commuted her death sentence, applied separately but her petition \u201ccame too late.\u201d That seems to be where things stood for the next 240 years or so.<\/p>\n In 1957, the legislature was persuaded to revisit the issue. It passed this somewhat grudging resolution<\/a>, which stated as follows:<\/p>\n Whereas<\/em>, [certain] persons may have been illegally tried, convicted and sentenced by a possibly illegal court\u2026.; and<\/p>\n Whereas<\/em>, [the Legislature] is informed that certain descendants of [the people who may have been hanged] are still distressed by the record of said proceedings; therefore be it<\/p>\n Resolved<\/em>, \u2026 that such proceedings, even if lawful \u2026 were and are shocking and the result of a wave of popular hysterical fear of the Devil in the community, and [the Legislature] further declares that, as all the laws under which said proceedings, even if then legally conducted, have been long since abandoned and superseded by our more civilized laws[,] no disgrace or cause for distress attaches to the said descendants \u2026 by reason of said proceedings\u2026.<\/p>\n Resolve relative to the indictment, trial, conviction and execution of Ann Pudeator and certain other persons for \u201cwitchcraft\u201d in the year sixteen-hundred and ninety-two, Resolves, Chap. 145 (1957).<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just in case anybody missed the multiple disclaimers there, the resolution\u2019s last paragraph makes absolutely clear that this doesn\u2019t give anybody the right to sue just because certain persons may <\/em>have been wrongly convicted in a possibly <\/em>illegal court. (The statute of limitations might have been a problem anyway.)<\/p>\n Notice, however, that the 1957 resolution only mentioned one person by name, Ann Pudeator. Did the \u201ccertain persons\u201d include all of the other six? This remained unclear.<\/p>\n In 2001, the legislature decided<\/a> that the \u201ccertain persons\u201d should be mentioned by name. A measure passed that year<\/a> (signed on Halloween, ha ha) amended the 1957 resolution by taking out \u201cother persons\u201d and specifically naming five more: Bridget Bishop, Susannah Martin, Alice Parker, Wilmot Redd, and Margaret Scott. For reasons unknown, poor Elizabeth Johnson Jr. was not mentioned, making her the only accused witch still attainted by her conviction.<\/p>\n This injustice was finally redressed, as is so often the case in these situations, by an intrepid group of middle schoolers working with feverish intensity on a civics project. Or was it? In this case, according to their teacher, Carrie LaPierre, not so much:<\/p>\n Even with political backing, however, LaPierre\u2019s young charges weren\u2019t immediately excited about the prospect of becoming activists for a supposed 17th century necromancer.<\/p>\n \u201cAre you kidding? They\u2019re eighth graders,\u201d LaPierre explained. \u201cIt took some of them a month to realize she\u2019s dead. The majority view was, who cares, it doesn\u2019t matter.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n LaPierre said the students got a little more interested when local media started covering the matter, but that didn\u2019t extend to the families. \u201cMost of the parents just didn\u2019t pay much attention to it,\u201d LaPierre said. Well, Ms. LaPierre cared, anyway, and she convinced state senator Diana DiZoglio to get on board.<\/p>\n The bill that was signed this week, S. 1016<\/a>, exonerated Johnson in sweeping, lofty language befitting this small triumph of rationality over the forces of ignorance and superstition:<\/p>\n Chapter 145 of the resolves of 1957, as amended by chapter 122 of the acts of 2001, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word \u201cScott\u201d, each time it appears, the following words:- , Elizabeth Johnson, Jr.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Okay, maybe not all that lofty. But it got the job done.<\/p>\n Note: I highly recommend the article on this by Tom Harrison of Courthouse News Network<\/a>, despite the fact that I am quoted in it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (No. It’s not of whom you’re thinking. P.S. I was just informed that “whom” will be removed from the next authoritative dictionary, I forget which one. I refuse to accept this.) The wheels of justice move very, very slowly. It’s … Continue reading
\n