Judicial Sentiment as a Function of 17th Century Norms - Research Paper Example

Section/# Judicial Sentiment as a Function of 17th Century Norms It is without question that the world view and opinions/religious beliefs of a jury have strong implications for the ways in which justice will be carried out. One need look no further than our own past 19th century in order to see many instances in which racial prejudice decided a case long before the defendant had an ample/reasonable opportunity to defend himself/herself against such charges. Likewise, when one thinks of sixteenth century Massachusetts, one of the first things that come to mind is the Salem Witch Trials. Regardless of this fact, it is the responsibility of the historian/researcher to accurately depict the situation and not give way to the temptation to only relate the most interesting/salacious aspects of the story due to the fact that these do not help to give the full story and only emphasize the beliefs and actions of those with the most divergent views among the culture/group in question. Although the trials have been mythified and turned into a cultural phenomenon, the fact remains that even though the number of executions were low and the incident was isolated, the prevailing beliefs of that time with relation to how the settlers/Puritan viewed the world in which they lived worked to have a profound effect on how justice was carried out with relation to those supposedly involved in some form or other of conjuring or witchcraft. From the court data as well as the other primary and secondary data that can be analyzed, it is clear that many factors greatly impeded the case against Marea as it relates to her trial for murder of her own newborn infant. As such, the purpose of this analysis is not to provide a firm case for or against her guilt in the situation; that much should be obvious. Instead, the purpose is to carefully review some of the statements made by the deponents with relation to those testified to Marea’s innocence/guilt. It is the belief of this author that the unique religious, political, and ethnic prejudices of the deponents work to show the deeper beliefs and biases that deeply affected the carriage of justice during this time1. Although not surprising that such cultural factors influence heavily on the ways in which these deponents related the information they had come across, the level to which these influences are exhibited in the testimony provides ample evidence of how information was interpreted, accepted by the court, and acted upon based upon the biases of the individuals responsible for providing such testimony and the jurors beliefs as they related to the understanding and application of this knowledge. As such, the individual depositions contained strong references the beliefs in here say as tantamount to proof. This was so prevalent throughout many of the testimonies that if it were extent in a courtroom of our time it would clearly be disregarding as a clear abrogation of justice. However, to the individuals involved in the case during the sixteenth century such cultural, social, and religious norms were perfectly accepted both in society and within the court as a defining merit of their unique and peculiar society. Such inclusion of here say as a type of circumstantial evidence is noted in many court cases of the same period.2 The first of these testimonies is that of Thomas Drake. Of all the testimonies, Thomas Drakes is interesting in that it does not make any of the broad sweeping stereotypical judgments that the other deponents make in their testimony. Thomas Drakes testimony can be seen as rambling and inclusive of a lot of unnecessary facts; however, the fact remains that he appears to present the most impartial and non-aligned view of those that were sampled in the testimony that is available to draw inference upon. Although it cannot be asserted definitively, it is interesting to question whether Thomas Drake was originally born in the colonies or was one of the first settlers due to the fact that his age at the time of the testimony puts his date of birth approximately in 1628. Although it may be of no concern, the fact that his testimony was so different from that of the other deponents leads one to question what besides his age set him apart. The second deponent, Sarah Pratt exhibits an entirely different manner with respect to the word choices and implied levels of meaning that she asserts during the course of her testimony. For instance, the first lines of Sarah Pratt’s testimony relate the following: “John Vining told me that there was a child borne at ye Indian wigwam and that it was throwed out to ye hogges and they had eat some of it and the child Lay by ye wigwam Dore: whereupon I went & told goody whitmash and shee and I went forthwith to ye wigwam where was Stephen Ffrench his Indian woman & Charles Sqwa and wee Examined them where the Child was”3 The inclusion of the here say that she had heard from John Vining only serves to discredit the testimony that Sarah Pratt gives. Furthermore, once she relates this salacious and unfounded rumor that she has heard from a questionable source, the second portion of her testimony relates how she soon thereafter passes this information on to her fellow neighbors who also have divergent suppositions based on the events and what truly transpired. Indeed, the small town /village atmosphere might be comical if it were not for the fact that a woman’s life hangs in the balance. In this way, the reader gets a rare view into the small-town atmosphere that permeated every level of society in 17th century New England. Rather than providing concrete evidence, or the lack thereof, Sarah Pratt reverts that which she is familiar; village here say and gossip that was so instrumental of informing the inhabitants of the town in and around that time4. Although the reader cannot judge Sarah Pratt for the inclusion of such information, it does help to provide a valuable insight as to what was considered valuable and trusted sources of information at the time as compared to our own and others. As such, the uninformed and crude manner in which it is delivered helps to take away from the overall content of the testimony as compared to that of someone such as Thomas Drake. The third testimony that is given to the court with relation to the case is that of Thomas Mighell. Again, the issue of here say plagues Thomas Mighell’s deposition. Within only the second sentence the deponent asserts that it is suspected that the Spanish Indian woman (defendant) suffers from a venereal disease5. Says the deponent: “(she is) suspected to be infected with the venereal distemper the said deponent upon sight of the person and hearing of the several relations concerning her apprehended it was not ye suspected disease”6 The historian is given no indication that such a statement is made from a perspective of an individual that has been trained in the field of medicine to professionally recognize such symptoms and/or traits7. As such, here say and the power of town gossip finds its way into a court room testimony of a murder trial. It should be further noted that this type of uncalled for disclosure with respect to the nature, health, and disposition of the individual was not uncommon during the times as it was oftentimes reported that a defendant was surnamed as “the drunk” or in some other derogatory fashion.8 However, it should be noted that this perclivity towards such a type of nomenclature was indicative of the current judicial practices and currently existing laws on the books at that time. Furthermore, such nomenclature corresponded with the norms of the time and was useful to the judicial system in adjudicating cases.9 The deponent goes to further relate that it is likely that the individual does not suffer from venereal disease after all and her fits of temper and violence are but a side effect of another supposed ailment – hysteria. Again, no basis whatsoever is provided for this belief other than what the individual has heard from others and attempted to reconcile in his own mind. Rather than simply a running commentary on how individuals embraced here say and gossip in 6th century Massachusetts, a further inference can be drawn as to the level of cultural emphasis placed on the dissemination of pertinent/relevant and succinct information as it applies to the judicial process. As exhibited in many cases at the time, this level of what we might currently call “unprofessional jurisprudence” was indicative of the judicial system at that time.10 Naturally, such oversight is likely a direct result of the unique factors that governed colonial life as well as the factors that originally caused the colonists to seek out new lands and a new life from the Old Country11. Due to the fact that the community necessarily existed as an outcast, it developed a point of view which corresponded to this. As such, the members of the community all felt a closer connection to each other and a sense of community than they would have if they had still been constrained by the laws and customs of the country from which they fled to seek a new life. The third testimony which this brief analysis will consider is that of Hanah French. Similar to the testimony of Thomas Drake, Hanah French’s testimony does not make use of any of the previously mentioned cultural biases that the prior deponents had included in their testimony. Interestingly, Hanah’s testimony is also the only one of the 4 testimonies given that makes a clear and distinct analysis concerning truth that she wants included in the record. Says Hanah: “And ye woman would often cry out her belly was a fire and that shee should go into ye ground: And that her piganyny was much sicke no borne which I do judg shee did speake ye Truth. ffor according to Reason I could not beleive that a woman in her condition could breed & Bring forth a living child ffor that which should have norished ye Child was continually isuing ffrom her.”12 Despite the culture of here say, speculation, and suspicion that she was surrounded by, it is interesting to note here that not all deponents succumbed to the pressure of such. Hanah offered a strong instinct to the court that went against that which a majority of the other deponents had offered. In this way, it proves that the justice system, as flawed as it likely was during 17th century Puritan Massachusetts, still allowed a degree of personal reflections and instincts to be injected into the process. The fourth and final deponent that this analysis will review is that of Edeth Hunt. Edith Hunt’s testimony was by any measurement the standard by which one could hope that all such testimonies should have been given. Succinct, brief, to the point, Edeth states that she had witnessed (personally) the woman in question experience one such fit and could attest to the fact that the woman was greatly troubled by health issues as it related to the ability and process of bearing a child. Due to the fact that the primary source contained the testimonies of five separate deponents, the historian is able to measure these against one another and attempt to draw inference based on the types of information related by each and every deponent. Further, at least some degree of correlation might be incidentally drawn based upon the respective ages of each of the deponents. For instance, those testimonies that maintained the least bias with respect to here say and uncorroborated evidence were both issued by those individuals over the age of 40. Although one cannot necessarily argue from a standpoint of certainty, it is at least worth considering whether these individuals were in some way immune to some of the cultural norms that existed in 17th century Massachusetts and if so whether this seeming moderation was a result of their age and/or country of birth. Regardless of this fact, a careful examination of the sources lends one to the understanding that although it would be a simple and easily understood to categorize all individuals of a certain time, a certain place, a certain religious affiliation, and a certain sense of community in succinct and simple ways, individuals are too varied to give themselves so easily to such a broad categorization. As this brief analysis has proven, although common denominators definitively exist for the population in question, the researcher soon finds deviations in the behavior as a function of the culture. Therefore, rather than simply categorizing such individuals (and the subsequent culture) in a purely taxonomical way, the researcher is forced to pause and understand that even though certain majorities heavily influenced key facts and trends in the evolution of particular societies, there necessarily exist individuals that do not; and as a result, these people make it difficult for the researcher/historian to draw inference on the group as a whole. Due to the fact that such divergent individuals lived and had an impact on history, it is the responsibility of the historian/researcher to not seek to minimize these moderates in favor of the more salacious views, opinions, and actions of the majority. References (Primary) John Noble, ed. Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1630-1692. Boston: County of Suffolk, 1901. Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts. Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1914. [Also available online: http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/Essex/] Records of the Suffolk County Court, 1671-1680. Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, vols. 29-30. Boston: The Society, 1933. Shurtleff, Nathaniel B., ed. Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. 6 vols. Boston: William White, 1854. Whitmore, William H., ed., The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts Reprinted from the Edition of 1600, With the Supplements to 1672. Littleton, Colorado: Fred B. Rothman & Co. References (Secondary) Joan Kathleen Brogdan. “Crime and Punishment among the Indians of Massachusetts, 1675-1750.” Ethnohistory 28:1 (Winter 1981): 23-32. Eric Christianson. “The Medical Practitioners of Massachusetts, 1630-1800: Patterns of Change and Continuity.” Medicine in Colonial Massachusetts 1620-1820: A Conference Held 25 and 26 May 1978 by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Boston: University Press of Virginia, 1980: 49-67. Stephen Foster. The Long Argument: English Puritanism and the Shaping of New England Culture, 1570-1700. 1991. James Savage. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1965. Also available online: http://puritanism.online.fr/puritanism/Savage/savage.html Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England. New York: Knopf, 1982. Read More