3/19/2024: Coercion & Confessions

 As I read the final section of Witchcraft: A Short Introduction, I found myself both intrigued and appalled by one particular topic– torture. As we have discussed in class, methods of torture and coercion were frequently used to force confessions of witchcraft. Aside from the social pressure of hearsay and rumors, the accused would undergo seemingly ridiculous, medieval tests to prove their guilt and ideally force a voluntary confession. Beyond the infamous swimming test, there was also the pricking test. It was believed that teats and “witch’s marks” on one’s body were insensitive to pain and would not bleed; so, examiners would repeatedly stab and prick the person’s flesh until they discovered a spot that did not bleed (Andrews, 2014). Ouch!! Personally, if I was being repeatedly stabbed with needles, I would confess to just about anything to make it stop. 

While these coercive methods seem outlandish, cruel, and utterly illegal in my mind, I learned that “the use of torture was once a progressive technique to prevent miscarriages of justice” and was something that the public generally regarded as a valid means to uncover the truth (Gaskill, 72). Not to mention, the legal system during this time was completely incomparable to the one we know today. In this way, I have come to understand the importance of always acknowledging the historical context of a practice before jumping to conclusions. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if there is in fact a method to this madness. Without the use of some pressure or discomfort, how can we actually get the guilty to confess to their crimes, especially when they are severe enough to warrant such a sense of urgency? This made me curious to explore how coercion is still used today in our legal system, even with the abundance of laws that exist to protect the accused. The text says that “today, although torture may be widespread, at least its secrecy indicates that it is taboo” (Gaskill, 72). Is it really?

One interesting case I stumbled upon through my online research is that of the Central Park Five– a historic example of coercive injustice that has been well-documented through films and interviews. Here is what happened.

In 1989, a 28-year-old White woman, Trisha Meili, was jogging in Central Park when she was attacked and brutally raped. A group of teenage boys, who were predominantly Black and Latino, became suspects because they were hanging out in the park at the time of the attack. This group, which became known as the Central Park Five, did not even see the jogger, and none of their DNA matched the DNA from the crime scene. Yet, all 5 boys were wrongfully sentenced to serve a decade in prison due to coerced confessions. Each boy underwent 14-30 hours of grueling interrogation. Several coercive psychological tactics were used, such as telling a boy that his friend was getting beat up and that he would be next if he did not confess, as well as convincing the boys that they could immediately go home if they explained what happened. Ultimately, though the boys’ confessions did not match the crime, they were enough to wrongfully convict this group. It was not until 2002 that these convictions were vacated, as Matias Reyes, a serial rapist whose DNA matched the crime scene, finally admitted to the crime. The Central Park Five settled a wrongful conviction lawsuit with the City of New York for $41 million. 

30 years later, this story stands as a cautionary tale of injustice. Strangely enough, I think it also mirrors and connects to witch trials from centuries ago. Similar to the 1600s, coercive methods were used to force confessions out of the innocent. While this coercion was more psychological than it was physical, it was utterly cruel nonetheless. Beyond this, both cases of coercion were inflicted upon marginalized individuals and discrimination was certainly at play. In Salem, the accused consisted of outcasted women who were elderly, widowed, poor, or rebellious. In New York, the accused were Black and Latino young men, who have historically been stereotyped as devious and dangerous. In this way, I wonder if there is decreased sensitivity when inflicting torture or coercion on ostracized groups. Perhaps it is easier to pressure a confession out of someone who you already dislike and distrust. Would the court of Salem ever subject a wealthy male doctor or lawyer to the pricking test? Would New York ever coerce such a confession from a White businessman or middle-aged woman? 

Regardless, through this exploration of torture, coercion, and confession, I have learned a great deal about historic legal protections as well as how reflections of these practices live on in our modern day. While legal torture may remain “taboo,” I have come to understand that it is far from extinct. 

Andrews, Evan. “7 Bizarre Witch Trial Tests.” History.Com, A&E Television Networks, 18 Mar. 2014, www.history.com/news/7-bizarre-witch-trial-tests.