Why Did Witch Trials Happen

What would you do if you fully believed that your neighbour was a witch? Well, that would depend on where (in terms of both location and time) you lived. During the period of 1450-1750 in Europe alone, conservative estimates put the number of witch trials to upwards of 80,000 people (mostly women) and the number of executions that occurred based on the charge of witchcraft at around 35,000 people (again, mostly women) with the vast majority of witch trials and executions in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, etc.). But, why did these witch hunts occur? Historians believe that the witch hunts occurred for a variety of reasons, ranging from deep-rooted misogyny all the way to religious tensions. However, the witch

hunts that happened across early modern Europe can also be likened to an extreme example of the assertion of state power. This assertion was caused by the rise of the nation-state and seen through the transition from an accusatorial to an inquisitorial justice system, the use of torture on suspected witches, and the potential financial gains for the state (and the state alone) upon the successful conviction of some on the case of witchcraft. This is significant because it allowed the states to imprison and/or execute thousands of people for the benefit of the state and the state alone.
The rise of the nation-state started around the 16th century when the general population started venturing outside of their small villages, or, more importantly, started caring about those who did not necessarily live in the same small village as them. However, for nation-states to fully form they had to achieve some sort of homogenous population. Typically, in Europe, this was done through uniting persons of a similar culture (which was generally also accomplished within a population that shares the same religion), and a suggested obedience to the “absolute king and to God” (Oldridge, 186). To reach an even further sense of conformity amongst their people the central authorities of various newly formed nation-states demanded that the local authorities of the various villages within the nation-state conform to the ideals, culture, and general values of the overall nation-state. To accomplish these demands, local authorities had little choice but to punish those who did not conform. These non-conformists, these heretics, were often accused of witchcraft and then these accused witches would be fined, jailed, and/or executed. This assertion of the nation-states power is alarming because the leaders of the nation-states were essentially telling the local authorities that if they had a member of their jurisdiction that did not fit in with the general wishes of the nation-state they had to remove this non-conformist from their population, whether through jailing them or executing them.
During the rise of the nation-state, another concept that was fundamental to how society worked was also changing.

During the 16th century Europe was changing from an accusatorial justice system to an inquisitorial legal system. In terms of charging and convicting people of practicing witchcraft, the inquisitorial system was much more effective. This is because in the accusatorial system the criminal charges could only be brought up by one person (generally the victim), the judges were generally impartial, receiving nothing regardless of the result of the trial, and if the accused was found innocent, the accuser could then be put to trial for what is essentially slander, by the previously accused. However, in the new inquisitorial legal system charges were able to be brought up by individuals or by officers of the court. This allowed for the creation of victimless crimes, since officers of the court could accuse the person of the crime without a victim ever have existing. This is in contrast to the accusatorial legal system where generally the victim was the person to report the crime. Further, all stages of the legal system were officiated by these officers, allowing a greater role for human judgement in the court systems. The accusatorial system implemented a new, higher, standard of proof. For the accused to be guilty the accuser had to have two witnesses that could swear to having seen the accused doing the crime, or had to have a confession from the accused. Perhaps the biggest and most important difference between the inquisitorial and accusatorial justice systems was is that in the inquisitorial justice system the accuser has no ramifications if the accused is found innocent. Therefore, if a person suspected another person of something there is no (legal) danger in accusing them of whatever the accuser suspects. These changes in the justice system made it a lot easier to charge and then convict women (and men) of witchcraft because on top of everything else,

witchcraft was generally viewed as an extraordinary crime therefore enabling authorities to take extraordinary measures (e.g. torture) in order to get the truth (a confession from the accused witch themselves). This was a clear example of assertion of state power because local authorities and the accusatorial system typically did not require as formalized of a legal system as the nation-states and the inquisitorial legal systems required. Because the inquisitorial legal system was much more formalized, and allowed for human intervention, as well as allowed for victimless crimes, witch hunts (especially larger ones) were able to flourish. Officials had the ability to accuse seemingly random women of witchcraft, and these women would accuse other people, etc. all without a single victim being found.
Another major change that happened when state-nations started becoming the norm in Europe was the use of torture in extraordinary situations (like in witchcraft trials). Torture had previously been rarely used by local authorities because, by the accusatorial system, if the accused would not confess and the accuser had no evidence, the accuser/accused would be left in the hands of God to determine their fate. However, with the birth of the state-nations and the inquisitorial states, this was no longer the case. Cases were always decided by an official, whether an accused was guilty or innocent depended on what the official thought was the truth. In witchcraft cases, which were generally thought of as an especially heinous crime, torture would be used to get confessions from the accused witch. Therefore, witches were tortured until they confessed to being a witch. Generally, during these torture sessions, accused witches were also pressed for information regarding who the other witches in the community might be. These potential leads were then followed through with the same/similar results as the original witch, tortured until they confess and also give up more names of other witches. Most of these “confessions” made during the torture were of course, faked. The women (and men) admitted to something they did not do in order to stop the torture, they gave names of other innocent people in the same vein (make the torture stop).
“Innocent have I come into prison, innocent have I been tortured, innocent must I die. For whoever comes into the witch prison must become a witch or be tortured until he invents something out of his head and – God pity him – bethinks him of something.” (Johannes Junius, arrested 1628)
This is an assertion of state-nation power because it was the inquisitorial judicial systems brought on by the nation-states that allowed torture to be used as a method for extracting a confession from an accused witch, rather than as a punishment (as used by local authorities in accordance with the accusatorial justice system). Even though this method of confession extraction had never been proven to actually work, it was commonly used to find an accused at fault, especially in a potentially victimless (or at least witness-less) crime like a charge of witchcraft.
Unsurprisingly, Early Modern European courts had very different ways of dealing with a convicted persons’ assets compared to today. Specifically, if a person was charged and then later convicted of witchcraft the nation-state would be able to seize the accused assets, including property and money, and expel the convict’s spouse and/or children. This meant charging people; especially crimes like witchcraft (which were hard to prove the accused’s innocence) could be an extremely lucrative way for a state-nation to make money. Since these state nations were typically young, the state-nations generally did not have much in the ways of funds. Therefore, accusing some people of a crime that they have no proof that they did or did not do (besides their word, which was often changed after a few hours of torture). Thus making these trials a very good way for a poor nation-state to make some quick money and look good in the eyes of the general public since it appeared that the central and local authorities were taking a proactive approach towards safe guarding their people from harm. This is an assertion of state power because only the state stood to gain anything from these trials. Ultimately, witchcraft was and is impossible; therefore, all the people trialed and executed on the charge of witchcraft were innocent people. Thus the general public was no better off once an accused witch was jailed or killed, meaning the state-nation was the only entity to have any sort of direct gain from an accused witch being jailed or executed.
The abuse of power from state-nations in terms of the imprisonment and execution of innocent women and men, in the name of what was ultimately an impossible charge, for nothing but their own benefit. State-nation’s central authority’s enabled the charges of women/men of witchcraft by telling local authorities that they had to homogenize their populations, thus encouraging the removal, or banishment, of those who did not conform to society. The central authorities of these state-nation’s then eased the local authorities’ abilities to charge these women/men with witchcraft through the transition from an accusatorial justice system to an inquisitorial justice system, and then by allowing the use of torture to convict these women/men of witchcraft on the basis of the accused’s own confessions. Ultimately, the only entity to have any semblance of gain from these convictions and/or executions were the authorities, both local and central, who were then able to seize the money and property of the convicted. Therefore, the significance of the existence of the nation-state cannot be overstated, without it the witchcraft trials would have been much smaller in total, further, each individual trial would have involved less people. It is also possible that without the central authority’s existence the local authorities would not have enacted as many executions as they had with the central authorities blessing. The witch-hunts and the witch-trials were an assertion of the state-nation’s power because the state-nation stood the most to gain from the hunts and/or trials, the state-nations even changed how the justice system worked on all levels (including allowing the use of torture) which allowed charging, and then convicting, a person of witchcraft to be even easier